Talk:Made 2 Rise

Deletions
I've gone and deleted lots of cheerleading, most of it poorly written anyway. Also, dead links and The Daily Caller for the last section, so hasta la vista, baby. WP:NOTRELIABLE & WP:WEIGHT. According to the notice board, "... the opinions expressed by the Daily Caller are so insignificant that they should not be presented." Cheers! Cypella (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again I've deleted sourced material as per WP:NOTRELIABLE & WP:WEIGHT. FrontPage Magazine is considered an "Anti-Islamic" site by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the FPM material about MR's record sales is quoted practically verbatim from the band's press releases. Please see their home page "Mission Statement" to confirm. If anyone can show me proof of the band's impressive sales, I'll be glad to revert, but I haven't been able to find any. Cheers! Cypella (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gah! My fault. I was looking to restore the referenced text that keeps getting chopped from this article by vandals and didn't research that one. If a better source can be found, the date of the release of the first album (regardless of sales) is a useful part of this article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Heyo Dravecky! Although I couldn't find a source for the actual day of release, the original "label" is available as a source for month & year. Anything to help pay back your attention to this article. Cheers 先生! Cypella (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit protection
Hello all! How do I go about getting temporary edit protection for this article? The band's management doesn't seem to understand they can't advertise their boyz total awesomeness here. TIA! Cypella (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. Sam Sailor Sing 09:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sam Sailor. Reading the page now. Seems we'll need more persistence on the vandal's part to warrant protection. Thx for your help! Cypella (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I will be working on upgrading this page beginning today to reflect actual fact based and unbiased information as per Wikipedia policy. Biased terms and unsubstantiated claims will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djabram (talk • contribs) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed seemingly deragatory "See also" references and re-worded the article to make it more fact based and neutral than either commercial or deragatory.djabram 10:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Madison Rising Management aka Djabram. Glad to see you finally engage. Suggest you read up, 'cuz this will be a looooong waltz. Looking forward to your participation.　First of all, you can't delete referenced quotes just because they are not flattering. Your boyz are "the Monkees of Conservatism" forever - take it up with the NYPost, not us.　Second of all, Wikipedia is reality based, so please back up claims with proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. "America's most patriotic rock band"???? Prove it. And prove they're rock. And prove they're a **** band. "Seemingly" doesn't cut it here. Oh, and on Wikipedia, "deragatory" is usually spelled "derogatory". Have a nice day 山芋 Cypella (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1. I am not Madison Rising Management. I do not appreciate the biased and argumentative labeling as such. I am not formally affiliated with the band in any professional way. I just happen to be a fan.

2. "The Monkees of Conservatism" quote you reference is one point of view and contentious at best, obviously being stated as an OPINION and not a fact based statement, therefore has no merit to being mentioned in the article. 3. My version of the edit did not state "America's most patriotic rock band" as factual information.....simply stated that they "refer to themselves" in that regard...which CAN be substantiated. 4. Prove they're rock? Is there really any question to their music genre? Proof? Listen to them. Refer to Wikipedia article on rock music. It certainly seems they fit all the necessary criteria to be categorized as such. 5. Prove prove "they're a **** band"  Really? Prove that men who play music with instruments and sing are an "expletive" band? 6. Thank you for the spelling check. Glad you had that to fall back on.

Now according to Wikipedia policy which states to "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" and "Avoid personal attacks" it seems you are in the wrong. I do not wish to get into an "edit war" with you and will seek dispute resolution processes as defined above if your personal attacks continue. Thank you for showing your character. I am impressed.djabram 16:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I ask you to prove they should be categorized under Jingoism & Kitsch. Seems I have as much merit calling them a rock band as you do implying they are either Jingoism or Kitsch related.djabram 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to ensure that all edits are in keeping with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Policydjabram 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Properly sourced critical reaction from reliable independent sources (yes, this includes the New York Post) are a normal part of articles, especially when the subject's notability rests not on album sales or mainstream awards but that critical reaction from the mainstream media. Certainly additional reactions from other reliable sources can be added for context and/or balance but removal of sourced content because you disagree with a reviewer's opinion is not okay. Also, I spent quite a bit of time finding sources for this article, integrating them into the content, and rescuing it from near-certain speedy deletion. Please stop undoing this formatting work as it degrades the quality of the article and puts it at risk. The best thing any editor can do for any article is to expand it with new content, properly sourced, instead of deleting existing properly sourced content. - Dravecky (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cypella, you were wondering about the source you added recently? Rest assured, the Las Vegas Review-Journal is "the largest circulating daily newspaper in Nevada and one of two daily newspapers in Las Vegas". It's a solidly reliable source. - Dravecky (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes - but actually I was more worried about their habit of suing people for quoting them (see wiki article.) I put it rather poorly; apologies. Also apologies for the "domestic terrorist" tag. It seems Senator Reid was referring more to the militiamen, not Bundy...(?) Will delete immediately. And, once again, many thanks for your invaluable help & experienced guidance! Cheers! Cypella (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Djabram
Dear Djabram, I suggest you read my message again, this time without the chip on your shoulder. I welcomed you warmly, thrice. I welcome you again - this looks like fun! Hi!

I also pointed out some hard truths about how Wikipedia works. If those interfere with your intentions, you shouldn't take it personally. They are not "personal attacks."

I do apologize for mistaking you for MR's management "team" - if you look at the article history, you'll see that you appeared with your very first Wikipedia contribution just about the time they were due for their weekly reversion. I just assumed. My bad.

"The Monkees of Conservatism" is a great quote that seems to sum up the essence of the band quite well, and from a reliably Murdochian source. Most other comparisons from reliable sources I found referred to MR as "worse than Creed" or "almost as bad as Nickleback". If you can find a quote from a reliable source that calls them "the Beatles of Gun Fetishism" then by all means add it. That would be awesome!

As for proving things, you quibble a bit. I was only making a point, not requiring you to prove things on the Talk page. And "****" stands for "kind" or "genre", not profanity. That's usually done with a mix of symbols, thusly: "&#$%@$". So please, a little less huffy self-righteousness. Wikipedia should be fun!

Finally, the jingoism & kitsch categories are warranted, as a simple search will show. This was the 3rd on Google: http://www.thenewportbuzz.com/madison-rising-or-how-to-wrap-yourself-in-the-flag-for-fame-and-profit/234668/ Yes, he used the very term itself, didn't he? And then the comment "It's a perfectly decent kitsch storm" from here: http://www.metalinsider.net/video/watch-this-patriotic-rock-band-ruin-the-national-anthem And as for the terms "patriotic" and "nationalistic" the band themselves use them, so... what's the objection?

Well, enough for now, so just let me welcome you one more time! Cheers! Cypella (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cypella: Its quite obvious you have your own agenda while editing this page.  No changes you have made or nothing you have added can even remotely be considered neutral and unbiased.  My attempts to clean up this page have all been in the interest of neutrality.  Yours have been to revert this page back to trying to portray these individuals in an extremist light.  Bottom line, it seems as if you have a personal agenda and are not an expert on the subject.  Dont worry, bro.  I am familiarizing myself with Wikipedia protocol and procedures.  Bottom line, it doesnt seem "right" to me that someone obviously so biased and lacking neutrality should be making edits to this page.  Seems to be counter-productive as to the true meaning of Wikipedia.djabram 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Always assume good faith when interacting with other editors. It's a core principle of Wikipedia. Also, please be aware of the potential pitfalls of being seen as a single-purpose account. - Dravecky (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dravecky: I do assume good faith at the start, but when actions begin showing otherwise, my opinion changes. Check the page history. I challenege you to find anything neutral contributed by certain individuals. I also challenege that anything that I have contributed that was either neutral or even slightly positive has been deleted. Hard to assume good faith there. Again, I am not trying to stir the pot, but when everything that I add to this article, or try to improve upon it gets deleted or twisted, I get frustrated. As for single purpose account, I have contributed in a few other areas before I created this account recently. I became frustrated seeing the ongoing changes and negative vibe this particular article has received, so I decided to create a permanent account to attempt to improve upon it. My intentions have always been and will always remain to provide factual based information not influenced by political or ideological prejudices and opinions. djabram 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit protection redux
Hello all! I'm looking for a consensus on whether or not to seek Temporary semi-protection for this article as per WP:PP & WP:RFP. Reason: Persistent vandalism – repeated insertion of unsourced content by IPs. @Djabram: no worries "bro"! Since you at least have the courtesy to engage, you will still be afforded the opportunity to continue your primary wiki education - only unregistered IP's will be affected. (You should put something on your User Page though; a red name is a lonely name.)

Any thoughts? Cheers! Cypella (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dates in Discographies
Ok. :) Cheers! Cypella (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Political terms.
It was brought to my attention that the people/gathering/mob/gang/what have you at the Bundy ranch did not qualify for "militia" status, and that there was no way to tell how many attendees were members of one. I now believe "supporters" is a better term, especially since the whole affair (and its terminology) is being hashed out here. Cheers! Cypella (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014
Please remove See also section because Team America reference is not relevant to the article. Madison Rising does not appear anywhere in the film, neither do any of their songs. Please remove Jingoism term under See also section because that term refers to a particular political point of view, and also is not relevant to an artist or band performing solely for entertainment purposes. Thank you!

TheGr8Gonzo (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 22:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Entry Issues
The opening does not follow guidelines. It quotes themselves about themselves and then the next paragraph singles out an event for only negative reviews (see WP:RECENT). I looked at the history of the edit war that has been going on and the reversion is correct but still lacks neutrality in many sections. Dravecky, I see you are the unofficial gatekeeper, what are your thoughts?--MattyMetalFan (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems highly contentious, despite Wikipedia standards. No idea why, but it is difficult to read because author prejudice seem to infest most edits. How about letting people make up their own mind about how to feel instead of pushing opinions on us through biased editing.

Hell even, Adolph Hitler's Wikipedia article is less contentious than fact based.ENumC (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it has to be up there, because those things are what actually made the band get prominence in mainstream reliable sources. Plus the lead has to summarize all the key points in an article; by removing the criticism, you're actually putting too much weight on positive viewpoints, which is non-neutral too. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Musical Style
This line - "several songs on their second album American Hero contain lyrics critical of president Barack Obama" - is not supported by the reference. It only talks about one song.--MattyMetalFan (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually expanded on that. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ViperSnake151   Talk , I saw your additions. Selective use of words like attack in quotes. Plus the Obama song re-write. OK, so you are not a Republican, lol. But seriously, is a YouTube viewership drive even Wiki-worthy? Maybe in today's world but that seems just like what you say the editors do to "outright turn the article into a piece of promotional puffery." I looked into the articles about the Star-Spangled Banner and it seems like an off-line PR push, for the negative. The Huffingon Post writer never even touched on music before or since, much like the editors on this page. You yourself flagged the page for not being Wikipedia worthy because they fell short of meeting the notability guidelines a day after all the "attacks" came out. Maybe I'm watching too much X-Files re-runs on Netflix. And BTW, I counted at least 9 complete fluff contributors since the page was created, all the same pattern of nothing before or since in terms of contributions to Wikipedia. And the anti-editors, if you will, I count at least 5 which follow the same pattern of no music contributions, then editing a band I never heard of.--MattyMetalFan (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)