User talk:Janfrie1988

Hallo und danke. Falls du zufällig die CD hast wäre es gut wenn du die genauen Credits im Artikel eintragen könntest (wie z.B. hier oder hier). EnemyOfTheState_|talk 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sie ist doch sehr vergleichbar mit Kate Nash. Sie hat ja auch einen Song von ihr gesungen. Generell glaube ich dass, der Musik-Stil von Lena sehr kompliziert zu beschreiben ist. Wenn das mit dem Indie-Pop falsch war entschuldige ich mich. User:Redpower94 talk 10:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Da hast du recht! User:Redpower94 talk 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Janfrie1988 :-)

Responding to your query on my talk page.

Someone reported to the oversight mailing list that a vandal was adding offensive comments to the article with an username that was also offensive. People with oversight tools can hide the edits, edit summaries, and log entries so that the offensive user name is no longer visible to the public. All editors can contact people with Wikipedia:Oversight access through the oversight mailing list. Wikipedia:Requests for oversight gives details about how and why to contact people with oversight.

Thanks for your interest and feel free to contact us if you see edits that need to be hidden on this or other articles. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal from Satellite (Lena Meyer-Landrut song) was fine, but your edit summary was a bit off, so I wanted to make sure you understand the situation. The "Editor's Choice" chart from Mahasz is on WP:BADCHARTS because it seems to be simply a list of the editors' favorite songs. All remaining charts from Mahasz are fine.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the opinion to create Lena (musician) as disambiguation page and rename Lena (musician) into Lena Burke. Because there are several performers called Lena. --Melly42 (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see discussion Nicole (German singer). The other thing is the article needs expanding --Melly42 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Melly42: I've been working on expanding that article the last couple of weeks. -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert other editors without providing an explanation, as you did here. Uncommented reversions are generally interpreted to mean that the edit was vandalism, which was certainly not the case.—Kww(talk) 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting for me because my maternal grandfather was German (Donauschwaben) and my father is a half-Romungro (Hungarian Roma) so it's understandable:). I'm interested in ethnic and national "stuff", it's one of my hobbies:). Yes, I'm from Hungary, the great melting pot of people:).--Rovibroni (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use such comments as in this edit. The only non-constructive edit that I see is inserting a chart position with a source which doesn't contain such claimed information. In other words, if the provided source does not support the chart entry, how would leaving an unsourced position in place be more constructive when all other positions within the table are sourced? Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up for me that you meant productive instead of constructive. I'd like to believe that my editing is productive here at wikipedia. While I didn't verify the Norwegian position with http://lista.vg.no/ because it wasn't the provided source, I'm not sure why you say Especially when the source was so "nearby". And frankly, we don't have to go about and try and locate sources for poorly sourced claims or entirely unsourced ones. We happen to have so many editors who bring information into wikipedia from fansites, it is not the duty of one editor to insert the information and someone else's duty to locate the source for it. Editors should follow the wiki policy or if they cannot, perhaps they should not edit. --Harout72 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, team work is always more productive than individual based work, but you make it sound like every newly inserted unsourced or incorrectly sourced information by new editors is done with good intentions. I come across editors everyday who insert non-existent high chart-positions and exaggerate the number of platinum-awards for their favorite artists. And removing the position along with the source after carefully checking to see if the position could actually be found anywhere within the source, which I couldn't, does not mean I tried to scare off the editor, especially when I didn't leave unnecessary comments in the edit summary. If the editor was unhappy with my removal he/she should ask why it was removed and I would explain him. In other words, you assuming that I immediately acted based on mistrust is incorrect. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Wikipedia:Be bold, and yes, I agree that one learns everything by making mistakes, but if editors repeatedly make similar mistakes such as not sourcing properly or not sourcing at all even after being introduced to wiki rules, they should not edit, in fact if they don't they may very well be blocked from editing altogether. And that view of mine doesn't in any way violate Be bold policy. Any information that is improperly sourced should be removed, see WP:RS. And because the position did exist entirely somewhere else other than in the provided source, is not a reason enough for you to accuse me of unnecessary deletions, that sounds very offensive.--Harout72 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing preventing you from correcting things yourself: the template is only semiprotected. I will argue strongly that redirects aren't a problem though. It creates an extra tiny line of 6-point type that says something like "Doorverwezen vanaf IFPI" (depending on your language settings). They don't create a problem, and I used them on purpose: the macro contains links to about 60 different articles, and most of them have a very compact redirect and a very long full title. They don't create a performance penalty, because they are clicked very rarely. What's the basis of your objection?—Kww(talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is at {{singlechart}}. For safety, however, you should always use {{!}} instead of a raw | character when piping inside a macro, because pipes can create difficult to debug errors. That generates a | when it expands. Remember that a typo can affect hundreds of articles, and, per WP:REDIRECT#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, "With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]". Fiddling with the macro to avoid a virtually invisible line of text isn't one of those "limited exceptions." You sound angry at me, and there really is no reason to be: redirects are a great feature, and I made use of them. You might want to discuss this at WT:Record charts if you feel strongly about it. If you can get everyone to agree that making the macro more complex is really a good thing, I'll do it.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these things are in the class of small bugs, and I'm working on them. The Czech chart didn't used to be able to be directly linked, and now it can, so I'll get that added in. Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands now steer to the official archive whenever possible, and I'll try to get that implemented for the others. My priorities right now are to get the reference and table formats to the point where everyone is reasonably happy. I'm just about there for the references, and it looks like there will be a rough consensus on the table format pretty soon. The main problem for me is to always point at a stable target, and there's glitches on some of the sites. PROMUSICAE, for example, changes the name of the PDF for a chart after the first week: any link I generate that works the first week breaks in seven days. I haven't figured out how to compensate for that, but spanishcharts.com is always stable. Remember that you can always mix manual chart entries with macro entries.—Kww(talk) 03:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I keep forgetting to do sign my stuff! And no problem, and I know what flattered means haha! How do you know so much vocab? It's just, I've got two english exams next week, and vocab is the key to a good grade! In addition, you're German, right? And you have better vocab than me! XD haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicMarcusKitten (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, omg! How embarrising! XD Erm, No I am not German, but I love Germany, and the germans! I wish I took German in school now, but sadly, not enough people opted to do it, therefore, I had to take french! :@ I love german music as well, i.e. Lena Meyer-Landrut, and No Angels! I also love Atomic Kitten, they had a #1 in Germany for 6 weeks! AtomicMarcusKitten (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Yay, I remembered to sign!!! :D[reply]

Just to make you aware of the background: Andy593 has been blocked under 19 different accounts. If you only look at the one account you will get a somewhat distorted picture. Still, Amalthea and I could both see that he is a potentially valuable editor, which is why he is being given a chance to show that he can edit productively. You are right that he isn't a vandal, just an editor that needs to learn how to discuss his edits.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Kww said: this was strongly influenced by the behavior of the prior accounts. When a person gets into trouble with so many accounts, and regularly gets blocked independently of the block evasion, patience does run out (see e.g. 1 2). Boldness or immaturity is fine as long as there's some willingness to discuss disputes and learn from problems, and conform to some of the most basic community rules. The WP:Standard offer, FWIW, would require him to stop editing completely for six months, and then make a good case for an unblock. These harsh restrictions he is under now are in no way intended to humiliate, and it is no "ritual" at all. The intention is to avoid the issues from his numerous prior blocks, and for that he needs to understand why it happened, how to avoid it in the future, and to edit more considerately in the future. Amalthea 09:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is some sort of a set rule that industries follow to determine their certification-levels, it seems they adjust the levels per number of units their markets are able to generate. As you have noticed, the French certification-levels for albums are much lower (half the size) than that of in Germany, but their levels for the singles are almost the same as Germany's levels. I'd like to think that the French manage to sell more singles than Germans, but looking at the number of French Gold-awards for 2009 singles, it doesn't seem their market produces enough sales for the singles (only 9 Gold-awards). Whereas, the German market has managed to produce 27 Gold-awards in 2009. It may be premature of me to say this, but it looks like, the French may reduce the levels for their singles-awards from Platinum=250,000 and Gold=150,000 to Platinum=200,000 and Gold=100,000 (just an assumption). But their Gold-award-level (50,000) for albums seems just about correct for their market, countless awards for 2009.--Harout72 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to do this. Sorry.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the feedback, sorry for the late reply. I respond here rather in the Die Linke article talk page, since the issue is wider than the just Die Linke. I proposed deleting 'position' from the infobox 2 years ago, but never got any reply. Perhaps the wikiproject talk page would be a better place to raise the issue.

To pinpoint a party on a universal left/right axis is virtually impossible, at least in a npov manner. A person that is considered as moderate leftist in the United States would be a rightwinger in Scandinavia, for example. Some cases are not so problematic, when labels are entirely uncontroversial. But 'far left' carries with it a derogatory tone, denoting that the party would somehow be outside the political mainstream. Sourcing is not the solution, since that only indicates the author's evaluation. For example, the Guardian uses the word 'far-left' in a passing mention, which in a British political perspective might be a reasonable assessment.

Having multiple positions in a box just confuses further, since there are no explanations to them. Likewise, it would be possible to state that CDU is "centrist, centre-right and rightwing". In such a case "position" doesn't really give the reader any useful info about the party. Rather it is better to discuss left/right axis position in relation to something concrete, such as saying that Die Linke is the most leftward party in the Bundestag in the article text. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janfire. Thank you very much with your message. I disagree with the location of "center-right" of CDU in Germany. CDU is traditional centrist party and initially after the II WW was in the christian left so in moderate position between centre to the center-left. During Kohl administration was located in the right-wing and now with Merkel in centre. In the last congress of party Angela Merkel said that the CDU has to incorporate voters that are moderate social democrats that oppose to the split of the SPD in the left-wing and ecologism. Party isnt' more in the centre-right. What do you think? --HarrisonIT (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,
wie ich gesehen habe, hast du bereits das Cover der Single Love Me hochgeladen. Da ich leider noch nicht dazu berechtigt bin, wollte ich dich bitten, dir mal das hier anzusehen und dann das Cover für die Single Touch a New Day hochzuladen. Das wäre super nett.
Danke und Gruß, --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herzlichsten Dank. Im Übrigen kannst du auf Deutsch mit mir kommunizieren (ist auch meine Muttersprache). Ich muss mir bei Gelegenheit auch mal meine Benutzerseite einrichten. Denn bis jetzt habe ich nur in der deutschen Wikipedia gearbeitet. Aber ich werde in Zukunft auch hier öfters schreiben.

Nochmals Danke für deine Hilfe und viele Grüße, --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,
könntest du mir einen Gefallen tun und bitte folgende 2 Cover hochladen und mir dann auf meine Diskussionsseite stellen?

• Britney Spears - Unusual You
• Katie Melua - A Happy Place

Herzlichen Dank, --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hat sich erledigt. --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Könntest du die Cover bitte doch noch hochladen? Und dann noch ein drittes von dieser Seite: Amy Macdonald - Love Love. Danke --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herzlichen Dank. Der Artikel wurde von mir ausgebaut. Unusual You kann anscheinend (siehe unten) nicht überleben. Naja, einen Versuch war es Wert. Wie gesagt, vielleicht schaffst du es bald, das Cover für Love Love einzustellen. Nochmals Danke für deine Hilfe und viele Grüße, --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dankeschön. Auch Love Love ist fertiggestellt. --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Chartposition habe ich von hier übernommen. Eine andere Quelle habe ich leider nicht. Soll sie dann so drin bleiben oder rausgenommen werden? --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ein Benutzer hat eine Quelle hinzugefügt. --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich würde gerne selbst 2 neue Cover hochladen und eines aktualisieren, da ich die Dateien auf meinem PC gespeichert habe, sie im Internet momentan aber nicht finde. Wie kann ich Cover hochladen? --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

Sorry if it seemed like I was threatening you or something, but this has been an issue for a long time of Britney fans trying to turn this place into a wikia. It has been discussed in its talk page a number of times, and given that it doesn't fulfill any of the points above, "Unusual You" clearly doesn't deserve a page. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Britney spears unusual you.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, nun sind sie fertig - meine ersten beiden Artikel.

• Guilty Pleasures
• Best Kept Secret

Und eine kleine Überarbeitung:

• My Heart Is Yours

Bei meinen eigenen Artikeln gibt es nur das Problem, dass sie nicht in der Liste oben rechts angezeigt werden, wenn ich die Begriffe "Guilty Pleasures (Did..." oder "Best Kept Secret (D..." eingebe. Was ist da das Problem? Außerdem fehlen mir noch die passenden Kategorien für die Lemmata. Kannst du dir das bitte mal ansehen?

Gruß, --Euglena-Amöbe (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lena Meyer-Landrut you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Lena Meyer-Landrut for things which need to be addressed. GoP_T^C_N 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lena Meyer-Landrut you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lena Meyer-Landrut for comments about the article. Well done! GoP_T^C_N 20:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Janfrie1988 for helping to promote Lena Meyer-Landrut to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I like giving People barnstars. But I chose You Because you always try to help with everything and I saw that on Lena Meyer Landrut articles. You try to sort things out in a positive way. Which Is why I'm Giving You........... The Barnstar of good humor!!!!!!!!!! BellaFan262 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Janfrie1988. 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)[reply]

Lena Meyer-Landrut, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Janfrie1988. 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)[reply]

Hello, Janfrie1988. 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]