Talk:Leon Thomas

message: I'm sorry but Leon Thomas' involvement with Santana was peripheral and having this huge thing about Santana that rivals the size of the whole article is not appropriate. He was principally a jazz singer and this article should not be a Santana tribute page.. There is plenty of room for that elsewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.211.21 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leon Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808001955/http://www.jazzsupreme.com/leon.thomas/santana.html to http://www.jazzsupreme.com/leon.thomas/santana.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It's not an appraisal section. It never is. In most cases these sections are nothing more than praise by critics. I'll leave the matter of cherry-picking aside for now. We are supposed to strive for neutrality. Neutral analysis of any subject (a person, a product, a place) rarely finds no flaws. Why? Because people, places, and things usually have flaws.  I disagree with titling these sections "Appraisal" because the appraisal always ends up being positive. The term is misleading if not dishonest, though probably well-intentioned. A more honest, accurate term is "Praise for ..." because that's what it is. We can debate whether Wikipedia documentation allows Praise sections, but I do know praise when I see it. It's easy. I hope I can stop here without having to do a word by word analysis of language which is obviously complimentary and nothing more. I find such sections non-encyclopedic (opinionated, superficial, crass, boring, predictable, uninformative) but I'm willing to compromise. Instead of deleting the section, I can call them "Praise for" which has worked in the past.–Vmavanti (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a discussion; you are just lecturing me, phrasing your opinions as fact (), claiming to have interest in my reasoning (yet outright dismissing my position here that it's an appraisal section, without inquiry into my reasoning), and trying to prove through verbosity. WP:TLDR: ; WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE:  Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are arguing for change, yet you want to make vague generalizations about "most cases" and "neutral analysis of any subject" and "people, places and things", rather than stay on the topic of the specific language in this article's section? Merriam defines  as . What part of Plantenga's analysis in the first paragraph expresses approval? Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dan, you make it impossible. Really. I don't know what else to say to you. I don't know how to talk to you. You make it impossible. I was honest and direct and brief. I just spent a lot of time writing my reasons for my changes. Your response is "This is isn't a discussion".  And you accuse me of bad faith? Well, on my end, Dan, yes I am starting a discussion. But you want no part of it. You want specifics? Here's one. Calling my post verbose is absurd. Why? Because I posted 178 words. If you consider that verbose, you haven't read some of the discussions I've read on Wikipedia which go on and on and on. In no context is 178 words considered verbose. Not only have you accused me of being verbose (which is not  a crime), you have accused me of trying to intimidate you by being verbose. What?! That doesn't even make sense. Why in the world would I try to intimidate you? That's just dumb and I wouldn't do it. If you want to discuss why my reasoning is flawed, go ahead, but I'm not going to get dragged into another one of your tantrums where you insult me and threaten to block me while simultaneously playing the victim. I won't do that again, Dan. There's nothing in it for me. There's nothing in the rules that says I have to tolerate this kind of thing. Maybe you have all the time in the world. I sure don't.–Vmavanti (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Dan56 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Appraisal" section