User talk:GiankM. M

Welcome!

Hello, GiankM. M, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All We Know Is Falling

Is there something different about the version you uploaded? They look exactly the same to me, why do we need a new one? dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMusicEditor Hello. About your question, yes. The difference is that it's a png file with higher quality. I was just adding it as other albums have png files of their respective album covers. GiankM. M (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers are intentionally low in quality so they constitute fair use. dannymusiceditor ^oops 13:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMusicEditor Yes, I'm aware of fair use. That's why I compressed it to be compatible with fair use. As far as I know, I just put a png file that is compatible with all the guidelines of fair use. The articles of other albums like Riot!, Paramore and After Laughter have png files instead of jpg. All of the covers (including the one I put in All We Know is Falling) comply with fair use, so I don't see any problem for my edit to be reverted. It's just my point of view and I don't want this to be a conflict. My regards. GiankM. M (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just really confused why there was another one and I was a little suspicious of the legality of such a move on Wikipedia. You may restore it. I was unaware the others were also png - this sounds like a rare case indeed for them to change like this. I was just really confused is all. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. GiankM. M (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your uploads

Please stop uploading new images where the only change you've made is which file format they're stored in. Unless your upload is an improvement, you shouldn't be uploading totally new files for no reason. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:IUP#FORMAT, specifically Photos and scanned images should be in JPEG format [...]. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My regards. About the uploads, I know I am just changing the file format but for me it is an improvement. As you showed me that the photos or scanned images need to be in JPEG format, you omitted that "though a PNG may be useful as well" and "PNGs allow further editing without degrading the image." If they are not an improvement why there are many other album covers that have a PNG format, even though they had a JPEG format before? GiankM. M (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you omitted that "though a PNG may be useful as well" – I omitted it because it is irrelevant, as that clearly went on to say especially for software screenshots when only a raster image is available. Do not try to cherry pick your way through this. If they are not an improvement why there are many other album covers that have a PNG format, even though they had a JPEG format before? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Will you stop uploading PNG images of JPG images or is it your intent to defy the Image Use Policy? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor:

GiankM. M, I have to agree with Locke Cole here too. It appears your entire edit history on Wikipedia is replacing JPGs with in some cases only marginally better (if one squints) PNG covers. I do not understand why it is the intent of some editors here to replace album and single covers that already exist as if their ListFiles page is a pretty gallery to look at. I'm not saying that's necessarily what you're doing, but it looks like it because as has been said, these Björk, Marina, Sigrid, Enya etc. covers were already present. Unless your version is a clear improvement over a blurry, tiny JPG, it's probably best to leave it alone. Ss112 07:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. To be honest, I did not want to be rude and look like a user that wants to be renowned on Wikipedia. I intended to change the file formats because I felt that it was better to change the files to a better quality format for people that are not related to Wikipedia to have a good experience using the encyclopedia. A friend told me that he was quite disappointed that the images on Wikipedia look very blurry and felt that Wikipedia does not make them look properly (he is aware of the resize of fair use but he still feels that that is not an excuse). I recognize that I took it very seriously and I want to apologize for that. The reason I wanted to enter this project is that I would make a better encyclopedia for people that want to learn more about any topic (specifically music) and have a good experience using it, without the desire to want something in return. I will give my effort not to change a file that already exists and upload a better quality to the original file if that is okay. GiankM. M (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases a JPG will be preferred for album covers. There are some instances where a PNG (especially if the original source is a PNG) might make more sense, but it really is a case by case thing. With PNG it's also important to avoid indexed PNG files, as those can be smaller (as far as file size goes) while actually being worse quality. Not saying that you've done that, but it might be something you find in the wild when looking for images online. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Blómi

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blómi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods We Can Touch chronology

I wanted to thank you for your extremely helpful edit summary on this revert. I don't know how the fact that it was a compilation completely slipped my mind, but your rationale for reverting makes perfect sense to me and I appreciate you explaining it so thoroughly! Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, so glad I could help. GiankM. M (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alejandra Villarreal

Hello, GiankM. M

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Alejandra Villarreal, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png

Thank you for uploading File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Laun chba ller 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Laun chba ller 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora singles

Hi! We've talked about Aurora's singles on her fourth studio album, The Gods We Can Touch, in here. As I'm trying to improve this article, I have questions. Are "The Woman I Am", "The Devil Is Human", "A Potion for Love" singles from deluxe edition? Or, should they be called as non-album single? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 11:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to talk to you again! Yeah, this problem continues to be confusing for me also. But for me I guess we should put them without "The Gods We Can Touch" in the infobox because, even though it appeared in the Japanese deluxe, the singles did not directly promoted that edition. We can put that "The Woman I Am" and "The Devil is Human" appear in the first vinyls of the album, while "A Potion for Love" was the B-side of "Cure for Me", aside of the Japanese deluxe to clarify that they are part of thr album, just not singles that directly promoted the album. However, I think @CatchMe can help you more with this, I'm sure they can be more sure with what you can do with the singles. For me, they are non-album singles but still related to the album. Hope I have helped you! GiankM. M (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! Hm, I think I agree with you too, that they are non-album singles but still related to the album.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks again! :) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, I recently opened a discussion about release date of two singles, "Apple Tree" and "Daydreamer", in here. I want you to join this discussion, if you know any reliable informations about these singles. Thanks! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 15:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for dedicating your time to Aurora's music. I would look up a bit and when I get reliable info I'll let you know. :D GiankM. M (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK! As I love Aurora so much too, I'm trying my best to get reliable sources of her songs. (Specially thanks to NME) Please take your time, and I hope you have a great day! Camilasdandelions (talk!) 16:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm not familiar with the that album rollout and its singles, but as far as I can tell, I agree. I think it's a similar case to the Fan and Japanese CD editions of Smile, which included standalone singles that were part of the "era". CatchMe (talk · contribs) 12:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got it! Thanks for yohr opinion. If you don't mind, can you please tell us about "Daydreamer" single on Talk:A Different Kind of Human (Step 2)? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 12:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Billie Eilish - Wildflower.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Billie Eilish - Wildflower.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Tree & Daydreamer

Hi, nice to meet you again @GiankM. M! I have struggled to find more sources about "Apple Tree" and "Daydreamer"... (but I failed) And I remember that we concluded to just leave these two singles on the album's infobox.

But @Binksternet said (in his discussion page): Your Apple Music link shows that a remix of "Daydream" was released as a single, with the non-remix album version offered as the B-side. What's your think? (Maybe "Apple Tree" is regarded as same case too) I thought both could be regarded as singles of the album, but I found that Apple Music didn't name them as original names. Here's the link. [1] [2]

If they didn't put (Georgia Remix) and KDA London Dub next to original names, I would say these songs can be singles. I want to ask your opinion about this, thank you :). Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, glad to talk with you again. That's what I was also looking in the streaming links that I found. The links from Norway that I added in Step 2's talk page are not dubbed with (Georgia Remix) and KDA London Dub but they have the remixes as first tracks like in the versions from other countries. I think that, unless we can't find a reliable source that says the album tracks were released as singles, we should put them as promotional singles since the remixes did not directly promote the album. I'll try looking for Norwegian-language sources since I have a feeling that they might have talked a bit more about these songs (I'm sure they would be valid as Aurora is from Norway) or with any radio release date I can find.

PS: I've seen that Aurora released "Through the Eyes of a Child" was released as a single and there are several reliable sources that can back it up, with the addition of entering charts in the UK. So I'm sure we can add it as an official single. (and possibly also creating its own article!). GiankM. M (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your precious reply. Yes, maybe we can regard these two as promo singles then. Also, thanks for "Through the Eyes of a Child" one, but I'm afraid, and I have wondered if Totalntertainment can be regarded as a reliable source. However you provided other reliable sources anyway, so I'm sure that we can add that song on the both infobox and aurora discography article too. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you know when that song was released as single? The apple music link you provided indicates 2016, but Aurora is promoting that song in these days. So I'm considering between 2016 or 2025. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late response. The link says to me that it was released on 28 March 2025, it's strange that it tells you 2016 (maybe it can be a regional issue because I see that in Apple Music of other countries they mention a 2016 release date. As you say, we should put the 2025 date since the song became promoted as a a single this year (this case is similar to the song "Bloody Mary", an album track that was released a single after it received attention from a series). It doesn't make sense to use the 2016 date because the song was not known to be a single at that time, aside of the other sources that mention the 2025 date. GiankM. M (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is said March 11, 2016. But anyway, then I'll follow 2025 one. But do you know the exact date of it? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but I'm wondering about this case, first of all, was this song promoted as "the album's" single? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deezer also mentions the 28 March 2025 date like in the Apple Music link, and the other sources I found mention the song was released as a single after that date, so I'm sure it's 28 March 2025. About being promoted as a single from All My Demons, though the single release says it's was released from the Adolescence soundtrack, it doesn't appear there. That's why I don't think it can be a single from the series' soundtrack and it's like what happened with "Bloody Mary" (even though the song didn't even appear in Wednesday). GiankM. M (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. By the way, I'm considering if we can regard "Winter Bird" as promotional single, just because it contains a music video - but it's not a proper thing to regard it as a single or promo though. What's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the music video was created in some sort of partnership with YouTube, Vice magazine, and the Carnegie Mellon University, I think we can put it as a promo single. While promo singles are mostly released before its parent album, I've found that the case with "Winter Bird" is similar to Lana Del Rey's "Burning Desire". The music video and other related media related to the song was done in collaboration with the Jaguar F-Type, because Lana was promoting the model, with the song being released as a promo single after its parent EP release. So I think it's similar to the "Winter Bird" music video since it was used to promote a big tech collaboration between a research university and media platforms. GiankM. M (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Thank you for your opinion. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 08:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiankM. M sorry to calling you again, but in Billboard they said "2016 single", in here. What's your think? Other sources, The Line of Best Fit, called this song as 'previous single' of "The Flood". I'm confused :( Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that they made a mistake from Billboard because it's not true that the song was a single in 2016, it was just an album track until this year. As most sources said it was released in 2025, it's better to stick with them.

PS: I also think that they made a mistake when mentioning "Murder Song" as lead single from the album. I found two sources that can back up that "Runaway" and "Running with the Wolves" are singles from the album but I haven't answered because I remember that there was an interview somewhere that said that both songs were the album's first singles and now I can't find it XD. So about that, I'll take a bit more of time with answering that one but don't worry. :) GiankM. M (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]