Chulcoop
Speedy deletion of Queen of Sky2 edit
A tag has been placed on Queen of Sky2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hawaiian717 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read our policy on the biography of living persons. If you persist in inserting links to unencyclopedic hate/slander/attack sites about living people, you may be blocked. FCYTravis 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sign your posts on talk pages edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Hawaiian717 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC|||
note from chulcoop
Actually, i removed them but others restored them. They are not links to "hate" sites. One is to ihate... however Queen of Sky (ellen) HERSELF mentioned the site in her Radio Interview (see discussion page on Ellen Simonetti) so as Subject mentioned the hate blog i provided a link to it. Most of the links are to Subjects OWN BLOG which is considered a RELIABLE SOURCE in the wikipedia help. Linking to Subjects OWN PR is acceptable as is PRs own blog.
It is hardly slander if Subject has stated such things on thier blog.
Otheres added Vandal comments afterwards. I didnt. I only ever provided the harsh truth.
Chulcoop 16:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Lisa Robertson (Australian) edit
I've nominated Lisa Robertson (Australian), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Lisa Robertson (Australian) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Robertson (Australian) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Lisa Robertson (Australian) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Thin Arthur 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Chulcoop,
Thank you very much for your interest in the Eurovision article. I'm really sorry that I had to undo your edits. I understand that you were contributing in good faith, trying to make the article better by adding information which is true. I hope you do not feel too annoyed that the work you put into the article was reverted, and that you do not feel put off contributing further to Wikipedia. Let me explain the reasons I undid your edits:
The article is question is a Featured Article. That means that it has been nominated as one of the best articles on Wikipedia - and in order to pass that nomination, it had to pass some very strict tests. You can read more about Featured Article criteria by following this link.
Let me answer some of your additions:
You wrote: "For example, the UK entry for 1997 which won was 'Love Shine A Light'. Katrina and the Waves did not have any future success and split up shortly after thier Eurovision win for the UK about a song, ironically, encouraging people worldwide to love each other."
For a start, you have misspelled "their". Secondly, this is a specific piece of information - about a band breaking up - and such specific pieces of information in a Featured Article are required to have references cited from reputable sources. Thirdly, the assertion that the split-up was an irony in the fact of the song subject is not a neutral fact, but it is an opinion - and can not stay in a Featurd Article (FA). Fourthly, it is discouraged to pick on particular examples unless absolutely necessary. What I mean is, there is no reason to specifically mention UK 1997 over and above any other example where a winner has not gone on to further fame (of which there are plenty).
Next, you wrote: For example, in 2007 Scooch, the United Kingdom entry dressed up in Flight Attendant's uniforms, waved Aircraft battons and moved luggage trolleys on stage. Bucks Fizz in 1981 the male singers tore the skirts off the female ones during the performance, revealing their dresses underneath (they were wearing skirts over dresses). This idea was copied by Latvia which won in 2002. For their routine other singers removed a woman's hat, jacket, jumper and trousers during the song, revealing her wearing a red dress which was not visible at the beginning of the performance.
As above, there is no need to specifically mention these examples above any other ones. UK 2007 and Latvia 2002 are by no means the most notable examples of over-the-top performances, in any case. Did you ever see Luxembourg 1980, where they were dressed as penguins? Or Switzerland 1979, where they played gardening tools as musical instruments on stage? These are much more notable performances than the ones you mentioned. And - since there's no objective measure of how interesting or outrageous a performance is, it's really better to give no specific examples at all, rather than having one editor pick a couple at random. The next editor could just then disagree and change the examples to something else - or add them to an ever-growing list!
Your mention of the Scooch interview where they blame politics for the voting is verging on the notable. However, again this is a specific example. There are many other times through the Contest's history where people have blamed politics for their bad place on the scoreboard, and to just pick out the UK is not neutral. Regarding your final paragraph: Many in the UK believe for example that they have not been successful because of the UK's involvement in the Iraq war, something opposed by many other European countries. - these are resolutely regarded as weasel words, and have no place in a Featured Article.
I hope you understand the situation better now.. and, as I said before, please do not let it put you off editing! Thanks a lot. EuroSong talk 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sweet Harmony edit
I'm not sure whether the "Russian" group you mention covering the Beloved song is the same, but I have added a reference to the song being included on the debut album by Polish group "Feel" Skinsmoke (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
February 2011 edit
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Ford (HM Prison). This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. There is no need to sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Grim23★ 02:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
What constitutes a reliable source edit
If you intend to continue editing biography articles, please ensure you review what constitutes a reliable source. Gossip rags such as The Sun and The Daily Mail are a far cry from meeting the criteria. This section is particularly important. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Chulcoop. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Chulcoop. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)