User talk:Mark Boyle

Welcome!

Hello Mark Boyle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jkelly 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Party information[edit]

Hello. I notice that you added a lot of information to the article on World Party. Do you have a reference for any of it? I'm especially interested in a citation for the Mike Scott / Karl Wallinger disagreement. Thanks. Jkelly 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* * * *

Well, if you look through back issues of the NME, Melody Maker or Sounds from the relevent periods, you'll get what you are looking for - to be honest the story is so well known I'm surprised you asked. You could always go to either the World Party or Waterboys forum boards & try asking some questions there - but don't say you weren't warned what might be the result!

Let's just say it is a VERY sensitive topic - part of the problem is that circa "Fisherman's Blues" there was also a fall out within the Waterboys own fanbase over their more folky style.

Matters were not helped (& still are not) by the fact there is an element within their fanbase with a rather disturbing "worship" of everything Mike Scott does, & who see Karl Wallinger as some sort of "blasphemour" for daring to suggest anything critical over old Scotty's way of doing things. Compare that with - say - XTC, whose fans may adore Andy Partridge & Colin Moulding, but gave them pelters over their treatment of fired band member Dave Gregory.

Mark_Boyle 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SDP[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. There has been quite a bit of controversy about this article, so it would be best to discuss any changes that you intend to make on the talk page before making them. Information about the post-David Owen SDP has been transferred to a new article (Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990), which is linked from this article. Since the David Owen SDP was dissolved, the new SDP is not the legal continuation. It is, at least for now, a very minor party. Having a lot of information about it in this article made this article disproportionately weighted toward the new, minor party. The original SDP and the David Owen SDP were relatively important in the British political scene of the 1980s. The post-David Owen SDP is, for now, not. As an non-Briton, I can assure you that I have no interest in promoting any party, only an interest in having a good, neutral encyclopedia article. 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Ground Zero | t

Bermondsey byelection[edit]

Peter Tatchell was never a member of Militant and did not secure the votes of the few Militant delegates to Bermondsey GMC in the selection. Nor was he associated with the SWP. No reputable source has alleged that moderate members of the Labour Party were under physical threat. David | Talk 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the former MP Bob Mellish is not a "reputable source" then?

I'm afraid that your continued scrubbing of anything off this page remotely negative about Tatchell begs the question as to whether it is a Wikipedia entry or your own personal "idol" page to Tatchell. Mark_Boyle 30 June 2006 (UTC)

coroner's remarks about Ian Stuart Donaldson[edit]

Hi Mark, it is vitally important that we have a source for the statements you added recently regarding his death. Without sources, it just looks like more possible misinformation, and we get enough of that on his article already. Thanks for all you do. -- nae'blis _(talk) 03:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King's Park F.C.[edit]

Hi Mark, I am just wanting to know why you removed the information relating to how the club closed down including the bombing of the clubs ground. Gorillamusic 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...Actually I did not remove information - I simply put it into another section. You however I notice swiped off the information regarding the circumstances surrounding the club's "fold". Wikipedia is meant to list all the facts - warts and all - and it is poor form to scrub off the bits that you perceive to be detrimental to the club's name. Mark Boyle 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your information from? I have researched the club from various websites and books also I have spoken to local historians about the club and not found any information that you have claimed. Gorillamusic 21:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would take anything from so-called "local historians" with a very large pinch of salt. Ask any University historian, and they will tell you that they are the bane of their lives, being responsible for the propagation of all manner of nonsense to suit their own quack notions, and to blazes with academic objectivity. There are plenty of academic libraries such as the National Library of Scotland - and of course the SFA's own HQ - that can provide better reference materials.

Regarding the bombing, any standard reference work on the German bombing campaign over Britain during World War Two will suffice. There were dozens of examples of single bombs dropping from the likes of the Heinkel III and the Junkers 88 series due to them sticking in the bomb "cradle" (the most notorious being the single bomb on Paisley that landed on the Seedhill Red Cross station, killing all inside). The Forthbank bomb (where only the grandstand was hit) was a classic example of a common hazard during this time for both pilots and civilians: the bomb sticking in the rack, necessitating its removal (all bombs once primed had to be jettisoned before the plane could land safely), and it is likely that the aircraft was one from Norway dispersed from an attack on the Carron works trying to make for neutral Ireland (a common gambit amongst panicking Luftwaffe bomber crews.

As for the saga of King's Park's mutation to Stirling Albion, try Bob Crampsey's book "The First 100 Years" (The Scottish Football League, 1990), particularly pages 131 and sequence:

"The other casualty was the Stirling side, King's Park, whose ground, Forthbank, had been destroyed by almost the only bomb dropped on the town during the war. To most people's surprise, King's Park were not reconstituted (they could at least partially have been recompensed for the destruction of their grandstand owing to enemy action). Instead a new club, Stirling Albion was formed, which was going to have to fight very hard indeed to secure membership of the Scottish Football League[italics mine]. As King's Park, its re-admission would have been automatic so perhaps the change of name signified something of the pre-war indebtedness [nb. pre-war, before the arrival of the famed 'guest' players during the war years] of the old Stirling club."

It is worth noting that by contrast English clubs such as Charlton Athletic were bombed badly during the war, yet all of England's 88 Football League clubs reported ready for the recommencement of the Football League. There is little doubt that the folding of King's Park and replacement by Stirling Albion was a straightforward case of using the Companies Act to start from scratch at the expense of their creditors. Mark Boyle 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covenanters[edit]

It would be excellent if you could provide some sources for your recent edits. Many thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splodgenessabounds[edit]

If you are certain of your 'facts', why did you not post references to counteract other edits ? Surely, stating that this information is available elsewhere is worthless, without an identifiable source.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- As I had already stated, the information was all taken from the DVD "Two Pints", a reference for which I listed as well. So what's the problem then, or is this just the usual Tin Hitler routine from those given admin functions? As Max would say, "Answers On A Postcard!" Mark Boyle (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Boomtown Rats[edit]

Can you explain how the section headline - Smelling 'The Rats' - arises, and whether most of this section has a referenced source ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You could try speaking to Geldof's management. Or you could try the Press Association which has detailed the legal dispute between Mssrs Geldof, Crowe and Roberts extensively for some time. Since I have a life beyond Wikipedia, I've no intentions of running around looking for references to placate a pot-bellied failed radio DJ who would simply edit them off again anyway, okay? Mark Boyle (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Lewes, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean singles chart[edit]

Please do not add the Chilean Singles Chart, or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Mark Boyle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]