User talk:Sixtyfix

Welcome
Hello, Sixtyfix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The Standells
To be honest I am somewhat with you on the lack of references to a dispute over the name. However what we have been seeing is back and forth edits between evidently involved parties over the recent use of the name, included repeated assertions about who originated it, along with the sudden and well referenced, after 46 years managing without, registration of the service mark by Tamblyn. Lastly, when any editor pops up out of nowhere to make edits relating to a single subject, including reverting controversial information, there is always going to be that suspicion. To your credit, unlike those other editors you appear prepared to argue your case via summaries & discussion pages. I am sure you will find Ghmyrtle reasonable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sixtyfix. I must admit that after reverting your edit I did have some second thoughts, but as Wwwhatsup says we have recently been having to deal with competing claims by rival single purpose accounts, and I felt that it would be best to stick to my wording, which was devised to try to find a compromise that mentioned the legal issues that all parties involved seem to agree exist.  Tamblyn is quoted about the legal issues here.  What I have now done is to use his words in that interview to come up with a better wording - though I recognise that it could be argued that that gives undue weight to his side of the story.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I don't have the book, so if you want to go ahead and make edits based on its content I certainly won't stand in your way.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I made the changes, plus fixed several citations; replacing them with references. Sixtyfix (talk) 16:33, 05 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Woo!! Thanks for the barnstar - I appreciate it.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The removal of Marsland from active members was per announcement on Standells Facebook page on September 21, 2011. here. Other than what Reallifedude (talk claims, this seems to be the only active news source for the Standells. There is no other active web site regarding the group. (Sixtyfix (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fine by me, thanks - I added the reference to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And who exactly is Sixtyfix? Is it Larry Tamblyn or one of his reps or friends? Is he back editing on Wikipedia in disguise? Wasn't Tamblyn (Larbabe) banned? And exactly what is all this about (above) between Sixtyfix, Wwwhatsup and Ghmyrtle regarding the band name dispute? Was Sixtyfix trying/aiming to remove the fact that there's a legal dispute over the Standell's name? That would be wrong (and deceptive). If so, kudos to the admins for holding their ground. However, why is it okay that Sixtyfix gets to change band member names, and no one else is allowed to? This is absurd. Additionally, verifiability comes not only in direct form, but also from common sense and the law. For example: regarding current band members: there are current members of The Standells who, obviously, continue to enjoy common law trademark rights which began in 1962 and which are, obviously, superior to any federal trademark rights circa 2010. Yet, Wikipedia seemingly persists in using "verifiability" as to "current members" according to Tamblyn's alleged falsifications and ongoing misrepresentations, nor does Wikipedia seem to want to check the most basic settled law as to such matters- to the detriment of current Standells members who Wikipedia refuses to let be listed as such. Hopefully, at very least, Wwwhatsup and Ghmyrtle are not going to allow Tamblyn and co to resume editing The Standells page. And, with all due respect, if the admins cannot agree or cannot easily verify which members are actually current, they should, certainly, not take Tamblyn's word for it and rather -look to the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallifedude (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no connection, other than an active interest in the Standells. I resent the implication and especially resent the derogatory comments regarding anyone currently associated with the Standells. Please provide references for your claims and we will be happy to investigate them. (Sixtyfix (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Reallifedude: No-one has yet provided any verifiable evidence that "there's a legal dispute over the Standells' name", or what that dispute is. Allegations and assertions don't count.  Tamblyn's words are quoted in the article because they are referenced from a reliable source.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)