Talk:The American Dollar (band)

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Ryulong, we are trying to edit the page, can you help us with this so the updates will not be deleted? We are the band themselves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Americandollarband (talk • contribs)

The fact that you are the band means you should not be editing the page about you. Post something on your official website about your planned tour and then the people on Wikipedia can write about it. Wikipedia is not a free method for you to post news.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest / self promotion / notability[edit]

A small group of Wikipedia losers seems to really have a stick up their ass over this band... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.24.209 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page appears largely self-promotional (it's worth noting that the subjects of the page appear to have been editing it themselves) and I think it needs serious editing. I'm going to have a go at it myself, but have also added a COI flag to the top of the page in case anyone else feels like helping.

I think notability is also an issue here: the band have received relatively little press for their music, and appear notable solely for their habit of filing optimistic (possibly even vexatious) lawsuits against major music streaming companies. I'm going to add a section on those cases to more accurately reflect this. Smells like content (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the band have re-added all of the promotional language, so I've reverted their changes and flagged the page with other editors. If User:Americandollarband happens to see this: if you continue to re-add promotional content to this page, it'll be reported to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, and you may end up blocked from editing it altogether. Smells like content (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There now seems to be a sock User:Beachbum0809 adding back the promotional content.Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A second likely sock puppet popped up from nowhere: Oldyeller123. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Cullen328, Theroadislong, and Smells Like Content appear to be the same person removing content and adding bias. 8 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldyeller123 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sign contributions to talk pages so we know who you are. I agree with User:Cullen328 and User:Theroadislong about the possibility of these being sock puppet accounts: they've only just been created, and haven't edited any other pages. In terms of accusations of myself, Cullen328 and Theroadislong being sockpuppets ourselves: we've all been editors for a long time, with entirely separate user profiles. It should be clear that we're different people. I also note that no substantive arguments are being made against the point that this page is heavily self-promotional, or that the band's editing of their own page violates conflict of interest. Is there a way to escalate this to more senior editors to ensure that we don't end up in an edit war, and to prevent ongoing sock-puppeting or vandalism? Smells like content (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how to do that, but if you wish to make biased/inferior/incorrect edits, you should discuss them first on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldyeller123 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You put four tildes after your name: details are available here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tips/How_to_sign_comments

In terms of the edits made to this page, I've outlined my reasons very clearly above in the talk page. I edited the article because it's been repeatedly edited by the band themselves (which goes against Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies) and the text contains numerous examples of un-encyclopaedic or self-promotional language. For example, the claim that "The band has achieved considerable success in mainstream culture both within the United States and internationally while working in traditionally eclectic genres" is both devoid of citations and arguably inaccurate: I think most people would understand "mainstream success" to refer to highly visible and internationally popular bands, of the level of (say) Radiohead. This is a band who've had a couple of albums out on small labels, self-released others and had a few tracks synced to TV. The only mainstream news coverage I could find refers to their ongoing lawsuits rather than their music. This kind of language reappears throughout the article, and merits being removed Smells like content (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain the bias you see and propose edits that are not promotional and do not violate the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this page blew up after I reported the SPA. Could we revert to the last good edit from before the sockpuppets were blocked? That should be the starting point for any changes. (In the interest of full disclosure...yes, I am asking that the page be reverted to my last edit.) Chubbles (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. I think that's where the page is at the moment (it's been temporarily protected), but it makes sense for your last pre-sockpuppet edit to be the starting point going forward. Given the band's approach so far, I assume they'll be back with another sockpuppet when the page becomes unprotected, so probably worth keeping an eye on things. Smells like content (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More self promotion / unexplained edits[edit]

Hello again! I've been keeping half an eye on this page since all the trouble earlier this year with the subject of this page writing about themselves, using sockpuppets, and then getting banned. A couple of months ago I removed an improperly sourced quote (a description of the post-rock genre from an article which also mentioned the band was used here as if it was referring specifically and solely to the band themselves), and re-added some context related to their copyright lawsuits. Those edits were reverted without explanation. I guess this might have been the band themselves sockpuppeting again, with an eye on making the page more promotional, but in the hope that it was just a normal editor: can we discuss those edits and come to an agreement on them? I've re-added those edits just now. Smells like content (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thank GOD this user has taken such an interest! We're all so impressed by how much free time you have to destroy an independent band's webpage! Also Wikipedia is a lame dictatorship of brown nosing nerds and losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.224.83 (talk • contribs)

Edit semi-protected page[edit]

This edit request to [[:First page: “The case was dismissed, and subsequently settled out of court.” Replaced by, “The case was voluntarily dismissed in Texas, and a new case was filed in New York. At the request of the Judge, the case was re-filed in Texas. Joel Osteen and the Lakewood Church filed a motion to dismiss; but lost. After Osteen lost his appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the case settled.”]] has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

https://www.law360.com/articles/465286/5th-circ-won-t-toss-copyright-suit-against-televangelist; http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1641782.html.Rgarbarini (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)rgarbarini.[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]