Talk:Randy Stonehill

message: :Image:WelcomeToParadiseStonehill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WelcomeToParadiseStonehill.jpg

message: Stonehill is referred to as one of the "so-called" fathers of the genre. Since when is "so-called" a term worthy of inclusion in an "encyclopedia"? Wikipedia is, yet again, showing just how sloppy and weak the average contribution is. So called/ Please do better than that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.2.27 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Called? 

message: Just like so much of the CCM genre, this piece is a celebration of mediocrity. In this case – linguistic mediocrity.  While the subject is interesting the presentation is at the level of a very middling Junior High English paper. Why is it so incredibly difficult for the CCM community to step up out of the mediocrity and strive for a higher quality? Fill in the blank when it comes to higher quality…higher quality everything. Higher quality anything!  Again, this is not directed at Mr. Stonehill (other than that craptastic Born Twice, he has generally kept his head a bit higher than the other CCM goofballs dog paddling around over their heads in the deep end). The problem here is the incredibly low quality of contribution to Wikipedia. Granted, Wikipedia is actually not an encyclopedia and accepts contributions from any slack-jawed yokel with a modem, but I woulda thunk a finished product a little less dodgy.  Why do we need a parenthetical explanation that Joe English was a “former member of Paul McCartney and Wings”? Why do we need that tidbit tossed in?  The same sentence mentions Phil Keaggy. Why doesn’t his membership in a band get a parenthetical statement? Wasn’t Glass Harp big enough? What about poor Margaret Becker? Couldn’t we find something to build some parentheses around to donate to her name? The hackneyed trivia about English being the drummer for Wings was important 20 years ago and important only to those within the mediocre CCM world who were looking for marks of legitimacy in an industry that had very little to show that was legitimizing. Plus that, English was a member of Wings – he wasn’t a member of Paul McCartney.  While the CCM world encourages existence in a parallel musical universe that is accepting of hugely inferior output – basic communication skills and the level of mastery of the English language among the CCM fan base is also in a parallel universe. If this piece were taken over to the real world and given a grade, it would struggle to achieve a C-. Isolated here in this little backwater that nobody except Christians will ever see doesn’t mean it is OK to create such shoddy work.   Back in 1986 a bunch of CCM recording artists got together and funded an advertisement in several magazines. In short, the advertisement said they were tired of having their records reviewed by reviewers not prepared to do anything but praise the end product. They were tired of negative reviews. They were weary of having the many weaknesses in their music pointed out by such mean reviewers. The syrupy, whining joint letter went on for a few paragraphs and then concluded with the signatures of a number of prominent (and obviously sensitive) performers. They were saying, in a nutshell, we want you to say only nice things about our work even if it is sub-par and smacks of mediocrity. I had forgotten about that embarrassing episode in the history of CCM until reading this piece because the quality of the entry made me grimace and realize that the same attitude prevails among the fans too… more than 20 years later. Stop celebrating mediocrity. Learn to present cogent statements with properly spelled and punctuated sentences.   You can do better than this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.2.27 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you point out, just any fool can edit this. So with that in mind get started. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem isn't the editing -- the problem is the overall level of input. Why invest in cleaning up third rate content? Why not create first rate content to start with?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the current content is particularly bad. But then again, you don't seem interested in improving the article let alone rewriting it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was the whole point of the argument -- he/she isn't interested in investing effort in altering prose deemed middling. This harkens back to the arguments that came out of L'Abri 30 years ago when Francis Schaeffer was making some people in the CCM world uncomfortable by admitting they were being openly satisfied with crappy quality outputs. 118.71.68.179 (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This entry certainly isn't any worse than the bulk of Wikipedia. The standard at Wikipedia if obviously pretty low...in fact, very low...with lots of inaccurate information, falsehoods, mistakes, lies, and just plain rubbish. Anyone who uses Wikipedia has to wade through the garbage to get at anything of use, so why spotlight this entry on Stonehill? It's all crappy -- why focus on this one as the one needing to be improved?221.133.47.62 (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Grand Celebration in Mediocrity