lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Brian Barry

message: He is quoted in The Culture of National Security chapter 1 as saying:
:It is always risky to pronounce a verdict of death on ideas, even after an extended period of apparent lifelessness, but I predict that we have seen the last of the "sociologists" in political science. . . . What has happened is that others too have penetrated the characteristically sloppy logic and flabby prose to discover the deeper problems of circularity and vacuousness inherent in the approach.  
::-- Brian Barry 
This led me to believe he was a persistent critic of sociology in political science--should this quote be used? In what context, etc. 128.175.87.12 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barry is a persistent critic of everything sloppy or poorly argued, but not especially of sociology, to my knowledge. It's a top quote, though. Cheers, Sam Clark 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katzenstein 

message: It may interest people to know that the book "Climate Ethics: Essential Readings" edited by Stephen Gardiner, Simon Caney, Dale Jamieson, and Henry Shue bears this dedication:
"For those who will come after us;
and for Brian Barry,
who showed us the importance of thinking seriously about them"
--Ilnyckyj (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book dedication 
Talk:Carey (song)

message: Covers are mentioned in the Albums section and then a separate section entitled Cover versions. The first has about 5, the second just 2.   Boscaswell talk 15:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover versions mis-match
Talk:Brian Beacock

message: Unbelievable. This is protected for EIGHT MONTHS, comes out of protection, and two days later it's vandalized by the same bloody bunch as were doing it before. Indefinitely semiprotected. If anyone who's not registered wants to make edits, feel free to use the  template here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected indefinitely 

message: Brian Beacock does not play Robin in young justice. That role is played by Jesse McCartney. 
76.108.142.47 (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: . 11:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 76.108.142.47, 24 May 2011
Talk:Gaius Cassius Longinus 2

message: Just a suggestion: The title of the article sort of flies in the face of Wikipedia convention, and the numbering of 1 or 2 seems somewhat arbitrary. I'd have to look around some more to see how Wikipedians usually make this kind of distinction, but I think a title like "Gaius Cassius Longinus (Consul, 73 BC)" is more keeping with the Wikipedia convetions. Perhaps the article could/should be moved to a title such as that? - Vedexent 12:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: I created the article Gaius Cassius Longinus 2 and agree that it should be merged with Gaius Cassius Longinus (consul 73 BC). I have now tried to do that (without adopting unsupported information in the latter article), and I propose that this article here should be deleted. Xiphophilos 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree with merger 

message: :I have added a "" template to the article Gaius Cassius Longinus 2, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).  You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
The above by user:Xiphophilos as commentary on the article page, is inappropriate and talk page content, I have removed it.
132.205.44.134 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gaius Cassius Longinus 2]]
Talk:Brian Bloom

message: Is he jewish? Bloom?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.31.200.72 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish

message: hey, on verruckt the "unknown marine #1" sounds really like brian bloom, especially when yelling (compare to kane from kane and lynch, almost identical)
this doesn't seem to be noted ANYWHERE, am i crazy or what? he's marked as some guy in the ps2 game which is seperate but i don't know if that counts Indianaliam1 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  cod world at war zombies
Talk:Cassidy (song)

message: A few weeks ago, with this edit, this article was changed to a redirect, to the Ace (album) article, with the comment "redirected song with no information on its notability or any reliable sources discussing it to its parent album".  However, unilaterally changing an article to a redirect, thus in effect deleting the article without prior discussion, is not the correct procedure.  Instead an article should either be formally proposed for deletion, following the procedures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion, or formally proposed for merging, following the procedures at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger.  In the case of redirecting a song to its parent album, proposing a merger would generally make more sense.  So, I'm going to go ahead and change the redirect back into an article, and then propose the merger.  For right now I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the merge, I'm just doing this so that as editors we're following the Wikipedia guidelines.  The purpose of this is to give other editors a chance to give their own opinions before getting rid of the article, and possibly even improve the article to get it more up to standards. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that my action was improper, as WP:REDIRECT states that a redirect is proper for "sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text". Editors are, after all, encouraged to be bold here and bold redirects do not go against policy unless there is a consensus against the specific redirect. In any case, I highly support a merger of this article into the parent topic since no notability is shown for the song independant of the album. Wikipedia is, after all, not a directory as it only covers topics that are notable. Information that is better suited under a more notable topic should be presented there. This article could also be deleted for the same reasons, but I think a redirect is more suitable here. ThemFromSpace 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at the part of WP:REDIRECT were it talks about "sub-topics or closely related topics that should be explained within the text", and I believe that's talking about when to create a new page as a redirect, not changing an existing article into a redirect.  But, thanks for joining the discussion here.  Let's be sure to wait an appropriate amount of time before taking further action, to allow other editors to also give their opinions. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost three weeks, and no one else has said anything, so I'm going to go ahead and merge the articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Cast No Shadow (song)

message: I de-prodded this article because I do not feel that the objections voiced by the tagger were accurate. He stated that the article could never grow to more than a stub, for example, when it is already much larger than that. He also expressed a desire to merge the article to (What's the Story) Morning Glory?, in which case a  tag here (and a  tag there) would have been the proper response, as an article can't be merged after it's been deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Rocket000 13:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PROD
Talk:Brian Bosma

message: Speaking as a Hoosier.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GXIndiana (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders on Vanity
Talk:Brian Bourke

message: Is it possible that someone knowledgeable links this article to the already existing separate article about his late brother Fergus Bourke? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_Bourke 2003:C0:DF1F:C200:C0D6:59DD:13EF:F984 (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fergus Bourke, link missing in the article.
Talk:Catch a Wave

message: I've added a couple paragraphs about the backing track for the song and the six-man lineup with both Marks and Jardine.  
As for the line in the first paragraph about Dennis Wilson and Love's "heavy cold", what's the source of this information?  In any case, the lead vocal clearly sounds like Mike Love.  Perhaps this line could be deleted, unless it is verified as erronious 'common knowledge' that was believed at some point in the past.  Even then it's not too important.  66.245.26.252 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Brian Bruney

message: I tried adding the Yankees to the table, but failed; I somehow managed to ruin the formatting.  If anyone good at that comes across this, try to get that added. matt91486 14:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: Bruney also said that KROD is gay.
Please don't immature. Come on. Trust me, if he said that, with the way the media is NYC and the large gay population, he'd be more out of baseball than Shawn Chacon. TomNyj0127 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who said Brian Bruney said K-Rod was gay? 
Talk:Brian Budd

message: I added a screen grab from the CBC Digital Archives because there was no image posted for this page -- the quality isn't great but I think it's better than nothing (at least until someone with a high quality image comes along).  Do you agree?  I also have similar images for other topics that don't currently have any.  Does anyone think they add value?  Please excuse the watermark.
--Erich  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidtmandaddy (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  --Screen Grabs --
Talk:Brian Butch

message: It might be interesting to note that Butch's full (or former) nickname was the "Polar Bear on Roller Skates", or at the very least this is the source of the current nickname. If I remember correctly (I don't have a source), Matt Lepay (Wisconsin radio announcer) coined the nickname. I heard him use it a number of times during radio broadcasts during the 2004-05 season.
204.15.31.210 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nickname 
Talk:Brian Cant

message: I have tagged the section relating to Brian Cant as the storyteller on Jay Jay the Jet Plane for a fact & citation request.  I am aware that Brian Cant narrates the UK version of Jay Jay, but I am not sure whether this is also true for the US version.  Anyone help me out??? Thor Malmjursson 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request 

message: Those two claims will need citations in order to stay in the article MrMarmite 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland / Beer
Talk:Brian Carroll

message: I can't really think of any items on wikipedia that should require you to adress yourself in an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.145.184 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity
Talk:Brian Cobby

message: The line, Although Cobby was contracted by the BBC for a similar recording, this may only have been for a Tracy Island children's toy., really doesn’t make much sense, as the BBC neither produced toys (it has licensed its properties, but doesn’t make anything itself, as far as I know), nor showed “Thunderbirds” in the sixties. Can anyone clarify? Could it be that Cobby was hired to imitate the countdown for the BBC, but for another purpose - a parody or sketch, perhaps? It’s about the same time frame as Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s “Superthunderstingcar” sketch, which was shown on 'Not Only... But Also', on the 9th of February 1966, for example, although it sounds like Cook in the broadcast version to me. Jock123 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunderbirds 
Talk:Brian Conley

message: Can I suggest that this page is protected so that we can stop the users from editing the departing section. It's constantly edited saying that Brian Conley is leaving, however there's been no confirmation that he is leaving and that until we have confirmation from the BBC and Brian himself, he should stay in the regular characters section. 82.19.40.217 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Conley leaving rumours
Talk:Brian Conrad

message: In response to Turgidson's question about the quote (the quote: "It's quite subtle, actually"; the question: where does it come from?), I suspect one of his students at the University of Michigan posted it.  Not only is the IP registered to the University, but I seem to recall hearing a student joke about his constant use of that phrase.  This does not, however, seem to be a) encyclopedic/necessary and b) a good enough citation.  I doubt you will find him quoted as saying that in any reputable source.  I am going to leave it up for now, since it has a citation needed tag, but I do not really think that it adds information to the article.  Crito2161 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: I'm a student in the Stanford math department (where Brian Conrad is a professor) and Brian Conrad pointed out to me that the picture is of his twin brother, not of himself.  You can see that Wikipedia itself is using the exact same picture for both of them! And the filename on the picture has Brian's twin brother's name. I'm going to remove the picture for now because it's not of the right person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.38.57 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect picture 
Talk:Chapel of Love

message: I have added an infobox (per  request), however given the lack of information, it is rather empty. If anyone has time, it would be appricaited if they filled it in.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  InfoBox 

message: Please include a mention that Lucero (as Lucerito) did a Spanish cover of "Chapel Of Love" called "Vete Con Ella" for her Ocho Quince album, which in turn is a remake of Mayte Gaos's rendition from 1965... which is also a cover of "Chapel Of Love." *wipes head* Crazy... ElMeroEse (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Covers
Talk:Charly (song)

message: Given that What Evil Lurks is an EP and the Album template lists EPs should it also be linked here as a single?
I'm gonna be bold and go ahead and change it for now.
TygerKrash (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'What Evil Lurks' Link

message: I'm not sure that this section is relevant?  
It seems to be a lot of what I would call fan mixes or simple repetition of items from the various versions of this single,
Even if it is relevant than I specifically have a problem with these unofficial remixes (and IMHO of dubious quality) being granted the same status as the official remixes. Not sure how this is handled elsewhere, will take a look.TygerKrash (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: DD Gubbubu 10:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  updated Gubbubu 12:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Remixes' Section

message: Doesn't hoover melody from Charly sounds like Popcorn by Gershon Kingsley and Hot Butter? No one mentions this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.59.18 (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Popcorn
Talk:Alpha-Bits

message: Alpha-Bits are back in 2008, They are being sold as of July 2008. The box says NEW! I am not sure when they were first brought back for what appears to be not a limited time. 
Maybe the information can be found?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.206.208 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When u mention Family Guy, this may fit too: There is a Simpsons Episode of the Release of Starwars EP1, where James Curtis gives Lisa and Bart Jim Jam Cerials, saying "This are just Alpha-Bits (...)"
80.187.111.93 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence in Media 

message: Surprised (and not surprised) there’s no mention of the switch to brown sugar for Alpha-bits. I still remember the ad campaign which was ‘rapped’ (just a drum beat behind it) starting with the tag line “Have you heard what’s new?, along with the claim that “you’ll like ‘em better than cereals with white sugar on ‘em”. I’ll see if I can track that fact down. THX1136 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  60’s switch to brown sugar 

message: To add to this article: a photo of this cereal. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article
Talk:Check Yo Self

message: Is it funk or is it G-funk? Also someone requested that this article be added to :Category:Grand Theft Auto songs. --Ysangkok 08:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funk or G-funk 

message: Would like to add the following review to the infobox:
*Robert Christgau  link
Does this article still need full protection? / edgarde 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to add a review link 

message: i'm pretty sure it's "punk muthafucker" considering MC Hammer wasnt fat, and theres a ref here -  - keep it real - Real Compton G 16:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk Muthafucker 

message: could an admin change the line "fat motherfucker" to "punk muthafucker" - keep it real - Real Compton G 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable source for the lyric that we can cite? Changing things like this tends to be controversial, so no admin would want to do it without a good reference to fall back on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i've looked up sum sites and they have 2 versions, "punk motherfucker" and "in fact, motherfuck ya" so this proves tht its not "fat motherfucker". Can we not just change it 2 mention the 2 different lyrics of the original song and the remix? - Real Compton G 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think lyrics websites are generally "reliable", and so unless there are "official" lyrics (like in the CD cover), I don't think it would be appropriate to edit a protected page to make this sort of change. Resolve the issues that led to protection, so the page can get unprotected, and then everyone will be able to edit the article to fix the lyrics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected page 
Talk:Chemical World

message: The single release date must have been before 5 July 1993, because it entered the singles chart on Sunday 4 July (commonly noted in chart listings as 10 July, as it's the chart week ending on Saturday 10 July). See Chart Stats or search at polyhex.com. Indopug has pointed out a Select article from the July 1995 issue that says otherwise, but (for the reason I've stated) this is undoubtedly incorrect.
According to this fan discography page, the CD2 and 12" versions were released on 5 July, but CD1 and 7" were released on 28 June. However, I don't propose that a fan site be used as a citation in the article, so does anyone have a source that corroborates these dates? (I'll repost this at the talk page for the main Blur article, where it's more likely to be seen by anyone in possession of such a source.) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography book has release date as June 1993 - it only gives month so I can't provide an exact date.--Michig (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we get a reliable source to mention the 28 June 1993 date we should stick with what can be verified - as WP:V says "verifiability, not truth". While it was common practice to release singles on the Monday prior to the publication of the chart in order to give it the longest selling time possible, saying that this must have been the release date is original research. We would need a reliable source to say that every song was released on the Monday prior to the chart to be able to use this. Michig's book may be useful, but is it better to say "June 2003" as the release or "5 July 2003"? --JD554 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have conflicting reliable sources we should leave it as general as possible - maybe June/July 1993. If there's something reliable that backs up the 10 July chart being the one announced on the 5th that would be useful (this appears to tally with how last week's chart is described, with positions announced on 16 August described as entering the chart on '22/08/2009') but if it did chart on 5 July, which was a Sunday, it must have been released before 5 July - the chart was based on physical sales only in those days and Sunday trading didn't come in until the year after in the UK. I also have a vague feeling that the UK top 40 was announced on Saturday for a while, though I could be wrong - it used to be announced on a Tuesday going back to the early 1980s. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "June 1993" would be best then going by your source. --JD554 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd added  to the July date, but I agree it should be changed to June 1993 with Strong's book as a citation. I'll leave that to you, Michig, as you can provide the page number, ISBN, etc. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date
Talk:Childhood Memories (song)

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 22:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''