User talk:71.183.16.202

September 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yo-Yo Ma, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   02:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, 71.183.16.202. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

About the article William Galison
Hello. I see that you say you are William Galison, and that you have been editing and making changes in that article. It has been explained to you that you should not edit the article yourself, because you have a conflict of interest. You can edit the article's talk page and propose changes to the article, which someone else can then implement. I have protected the article, which will keep you from editing the page, but leave you free to comment on the talk page and other areas of Wikipedia.

Please stop accusing other editors of having it in for you or trying to harass or harm you. They are just trying to follow Wikipedia's policies, especially the requirement that we must have Reliable Sources for what we say in articles. WP:Reliable sources are published, neutral sources which have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Sources like personal web pages or user-posted material are not used here, because they do not meet our definition of reliable sources. If you can find additional references supporting your version of what the article should say, it would be very helpful to your cause. For example, you say you have released many recordings that are not mentioned in the article; can you provide a source for that information? Or you mention other musicians you have played with; is there a published source for that information?

In the meantime, please try to work cordially with editors like those who are making helpful suggestions at the BLP noticeboard or editing your article to improve it. Focus on provable details, and try to keep your comments brief rather than long expositions. (We have an expression here, TL/DR, which means "too long, didn't read". We are all volunteers, after all.) Good luck with your career and I hope you can work with us to improve the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi IP 71.183.16.202. Just to add on to what posted above, you might want to consider registering for an account and then having your identity verified by the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team to make it clear that you're really this William Galison. This might seem odd to you in that of course you know who you are so why should anyone not believe you. However, Wikipedia is much like everything else that you find online in that there are people pretending to be someone they're not just because they think they can get away with doing so or because they just like being able to fool others. Please understand that I'm not stating you're one of those types, only that it may be easier for others to help you if they know they're really dealing with you and not someone pretending to be you. You can find out more about this by emailing VRT here. Of course, once your identity has been identified and tied to particular account, people will know essentially that it's you behind the account and there can be a downside to that. It will make it easier for others to try and help you though.Finally, editing from an IP account is actually less anonymous than it seems because your IP address is publicly visible everytime you make an edit and some persons might be able to use your IP address to geolocate where you're posting from. One of the advantages of registering for an account is that your IP aduress isn't visible to others, except certain types of users who have been trusted with the ability to see such information. For reference, I'm not approved to see such things; so,  others like myself couldn’t see your IP if your account was registered. As it is now, anyone looking at any page you post on can see your IP address. Another advantage of registering for you account is that it will be clear that it's your account whose posting stuff, and not someone else who just happens to be sharing the same IP address as you. For example, if you’re posting using a public computer (e.g. one you might find at a library or school), the same IP address would likely be assigned to someone else using the same computer as you. If that person were also to start editing Wikipedia, there would be no way to technically differentiate between them and you so all the edits are going to be treated as coming from the same person. A registered account allows you to avoid this because only you will be able to post using your account as long as you keep your password secure. So, even if you don't want to have VRT verify your identity, a registered account might still make it easier for others to help you because it's going to be assumed that its you doing the editing regardless of what type of device you'rr using or where you're using it as long as you keep your password secure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not realize that I was not allowed to edit my page. I hope you understand that the Wikipedia article had libelous and false information about me that damaged my livelihood and reputation, professionally and personally. There must be some recourse to correct this kind of libel. The only thing you have "protected" this article from is accurate reporting, with easily verified sourcing online. I have also offered to send you official court documents and other incontrovertible proof of my statements.
 * You wrote: "you might want to consider registering for an account and then having your identity verified by the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team to make it clear that you're really this William Galison". I will do that, but pease realize that even post-Trump, facts are facts, and the veracity and verifiability of the statements is what is important; not the source of those statements., "Finally, editing from an IP account is actually less anonymous than it seems because your IP address is publicly visible everytime you make an edit and some persons might be able to use your IP address to geolocate where you're posting from." That is 100& fine with me, and it would seem like my identity could be readily confirmed by this method. I have nothing to hide, but I have a reputation and a livlyhood to protect.
 * I believe your mission at Wikipedia to inform the public of true facts; not to publish false, defamatory and incomplete information. There are two articles used as "reliable" source material for the article. One is accurate and the other is not. Why would you use the false material when I have offered to send you documented proof of the veracity of the other article? Why would you omit mentions of my accomplishments, and ignore my corrections, when they are easily verified with a cursory Google search?
 * "Please stop accusing other editors of having it in for you or trying to harass or harm you." I'm sure you are aware that there examples in the history of Wikipedia where editors intentionally malign the subjects of articles. That is why Wikipedia requires all false and libelous statements to be removed immediately. When the editor incorrectly wrote that "Madeleine Peyroux accused me of physical abuse", can you imagine the kind of damage that has done to my reputation since it was included; probably years ago? I tried to correct the statement, stating that Ms. Peyroux testified under oath that I never harmed her in any way, and that she never told anyone that I did. That deposition is public domain, and I offered to send you the transcript. The editor at first refused to change that and then replaced that statement with other false statements, first saying that Ms. Peyroux's lawyers accused me of abuse and when I corrected that, they wrote, without any source at all, that Rounder Records said I abused Ms. Peyroux. Rounder never said any such thing. What possible reason would an editor have to double and triple down on a false (and non-existent) allegation. Is it malice or laziness that motivated the editor to write these things?
 * Or, perhaps the editor has obtained his information from people involved with the other side of this dispute- or the publicists they hired to skew the story- who have changed the details to obfuscate the fundamental nature of the dispute. That is, that Peyroux's lawyers signed a fraudulent contract with Rounder, falsely saying that Madeleine was the sole owner of "Got You ON My Mind". When they failed to trick me into selling them my rights, they tried to blackmail me into not commercializing the album. This included a threat of criminal charges, but they never charged me with anything, so what is this even worth mentioning. I could THREATEN to charge you with murder, but if I never do, why should my threat be mentioned in your Wikipedia page? They also threatened to sue me for copyright infringement, but I immediately took THEM to court where the judge ruled that I was the copyright owner, as well as ms. Peyroux, and that Peyroux's contract with Rounder had no bearing on my rights to commercialize the album.
 * There remain many ommissions and several false statements that remain in this article. I am asking that you correct them. If you refuse to, what is my recourse?
 * The false statements include the following:
 * ...Galison continued to sell the recording and claimed that he was owed payment for canceled performances."
 * As I stated repeatedly in my letters to the editor:
 * a) "By the end of the year Peyroux had moved out and the couple had broken up, but they continued playing together and recorded a seven-song CD called Got You on My Mind in February 2003
 * We recorded tribe album that eventually became "Got You On My Mind" two years later in mid 2002 at Excello Studios in Brooklyn (The engineer was Hugh Pool). Ms. Peyroux and I were still very much living together and in relationship. What is your source? How could you (or anyone beside me and Ms. Peyroux) possibly know when Ms. Peyroux and I "broke up"?
 * b) The seven song album called "Playin'" was sold at our shows. It was not called "Got You On My Mind" until it was released in late 2004. The 11-song album "Got You On My Mind" was released in 2004 and is still in print. It received rave reviews from Jazz Times, Downbeat writer Bill Milkowski, All That Jazz, and dozens of other music publications. It has sold many tens off thousands of copies and was recently released on vinyl. Yet the 11-song album "Got You On My Mind" is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Why is that?
 * c) I did not "continue to sell the recording" (Playin') after Ms. Peyroux stopped performing, until late 2004, when I published the 11 song album "Got You On My Mind". Of course, I had every right to do so had I chosen to, so why is this mentioned? Why would Peyroux being told to stop selling the album in a contract have anything to do with my copyrights? This can only be mentioned to imply that Peyroux or Rounder sued ME, which they didn't do until they COUNTER-SUED me for the proceeds of the album which they tried to prevent, months after I sued them for copyright fraud, libel and tortious interference with business interests. My lawsuit was withdrawn when I found a major distributor to sell GYOMM (and have sold tens of thousands of copies with no objection from Peyroux, her lawyers, or Rounder) and Ms. Peyroux testified that I had never harmed her in any way. Their countersuit was dismissed with prejudice in 2011.
 * d) I never "claimed [I] was owed payment for canceled performances." Again, this is a distortion peddled by Peyroux's lawyers to justify this dispute.
 * e) "After threatened legal action from Peyroux's lawyer, Galison sued Peyroux, the lawyer, and Rounder." (see above).
 * As you can see, the above misrepresentations are not random. They have one unifying motive; to obscure the actual facts of the dispute behind "Got You On My Mind", which show unbridled malice and unethical; practices by Peyroux's lawyers and Rounder, and to make it appear that I did something illegal or actionable. I would be happy if the article did not mention the "controversy" at all. That is is in the distance past, and the album "Got You On My Mind" continues to sell briskly and delight people around the world. Please correct this, or inform me how I can do so.
 * The omissions include many professional accomplishments, including dozens of performances, collaborations and recordings by me as leader and co-leader. I don't require every detail to be in my Wiki page, but why should an editor block my correction when they are instantly verifiable online?
 * I can ask someone other than myself to fill in the omissions regarding my career, which is not only in music, but in social and political activism and journalism. Clearly, the editors who manage my Wikipedia page have no interest or motivation to research my life and accomplishments, even if they have the energy to maintain falsehoods against me. Wikipedia should not be used as a weapon.
 * I look forward to your response.
 * Will Galison 71.183.16.202 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Will Galison 71.183.16.202 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, IP, you ignored my suggestion about being brief, but I decided to go ahead and read all of this despite TL/DR. Please understand that diatribes do not make people inclined to do what you want! But I would like to deal with any actual misinformation in the article, and to add any missing information that is Reliably Sourced. So I’m going to give it a shot.

First, let’s talk about the “omission” of material about your musical career. On the article’s talk page, I posted several sources that could be used about your musical career, including several reviews. No one seems to have picked up on that, so I will see what I can do with it.

Second, let’s talk about how much to include about Peyroux. One of our criteria for inclusion is, how much coverage did this get? Our criteria for WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE are that our coverage should reflect the prominence of coverage in reliable sources, without undue weight being given to something minor. I will review that whole situation in the light of WP:DUE to decide how much to include. We base that decision entirely on coverage by neutral, third-party Reliable Sources - not on statements from the attorneys in a dispute, not on legal depositions or judgments, not on what the subjects tell us. That may seem odd, but we usually do not base our information on WP:Primary sources, only on WP:Secondary sources such as reporting by neutral third parties. So I will review all the material in that section and its sources, to see how much of it is DUE, and how much of what we say is actually cited to Reliable Sources.

You say that a lot of information about your performances, collaborations, and recordings is “instantly verifiable online”. That is what we need: please give us links to those Reliable Sources that report the information. We cannot change the article based on what somebody says on a talk page. We need to see the actual reporting.

Also, if we are to mention your “social activism” and “journalism”, we will need to see evidence that it has been reported in Reliable Sources.

You said that you would consider registering for an account, and emailing the Volunteer Response Team to establish your identity. That was good advice. If you do, please post something here at this IP-address talk page so that we can follow you to the new name. And please realize that you will be required to disclose that you are the subject of the article, and you will have to abide by the WP:COI rules.

One more thing: please stop throwing around words like “defamatory” and “libelous” and “malice”, which suggest you are accusing Wikipedia of deliberate wrongdoing. If you start to sound as if you are making WP:Legal threats your ability to edit to the encyclopedia could be withdrawn. Please understand that nobody here is your enemy or trying to sabotage you or your career. We are just trying to report accurately and neutrally, and if we make mistakes, we will try to correct them.

I am going to do what I can to straighten out your article, but you must realize that all of us are volunteers and our time at Wikipedia is limited by Real World commitments. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)