User talk:Wgalison

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edit to Madeline Peyroux
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I undid your revision to Madeline Peyroux because it appears from your username that you are a party to the dispute about which your edit pertains and the website that you provide for verification appears to be published by you. The practice of contributing autobiographical information and using self-published references are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia (see WP:BLP, WP:AUTO). If you do decide to make any more edits about this subject I would recommend that you to cite reputable third-party sources in order to better verify your edits. --HonztheBusDriver (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your response. Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia have very strict guidelines which are intended to ensure that they are written from the most objective, conservative, neutral point of view possible (WP:BLP, WP:NPOV). As an individual presently involved in a dispute with the subject of the biography, you can certainly see the overwhelming potential for a conflict of interest which severely reduces your ability to write on this subject from a neutral point of view.

Regardless of the factual accuracy of the content of your letter to Ms. Peyroux, it cannot be considered a verifiable third-party source, even if it provides a collection of material which is copied-and-pasted from other verifiable sources. The source is still a work which you published yourself.

Also please note that I was not particularly uncomfortable with the material itself, nor am I even familiar with this particular artist or her work. At issue was only the manner in which the material was added. --HonztheBusDriver (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, Wgalison. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article William Galison, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Jonathan Lippman
Hi, I once again undid your revision to Chief Judge Lippman's page and replaced it with a smaller, neutral point of view mention of the complaint to which you refer, its contents, and the lack of action taken on it so far by the SDNY USA's office. As I stated in the explanation when I removed the original post, the longer version you rely upon appears to be the result of original research and lacks a neutral point of view. Both of these things violate the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. In addition, it appears that you are the named person on the complaint itself, and perhaps the architect of the blog cited. There, you are probably running a foul of the [| conflict of interest guidelines]. Please review these policies and consider whether your additions are in accordance with them before re-adding the material a third time. --Sneekypat (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jonathan Lippman. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Please note a blog is not an acceptable source, per Wikipedia policy. Please review WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP.'' Killer Chihuahua 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuaha,

My name is William Galison. I am not experienced in editing Wikipedia articles, so I appreciate your guidance on the rules. However, I believe that a disservice is being done to to the accuracy and balanced discussion of the article on Judge Jonathan Lippman. I hope that this is the proper way to respond to your admonition and notice of impending sanction.

Judge Lippman is a public figure, and the target of many complaints of corruption by citizens of NY State and elsewhere. It is unbecoming and indeed violative of Wikipedias mission to include only laudatory comments about a biographical subject and to forbid facts regarding legitimate criticism of the subject.

There are currently dozens of pending lawsuits against Lippman in his capacity as Chief Judge, as well as his former positions. One of these lawsuits, of immense constitutional significance was brought by the Center For Judicial Accountability.a public interest group that has been fighting judicvial corruption for decades. This suit is pending before the NY Supreme court, and alleges corruption and conspiracy by Lippman and other top NY officials in a measure granting pay raises to judges.

Likewise, the complaints about Lippman submitted to US Attorney Preet Bharara have been published on the internet for six months and no one has ever contested the allegations despite over 4,000 hits on the blog and many more on the CJA website. These allegations, backed by indisputable primary evidence, claim that NY Senate Judiciary Committees 2009 confirmation hearing was rife with violations of Senate rules, and therefore illegal.

One (among many) concrete example of a violation, which was removed wholesale by "sneekypat" was that:

1) The “Public Hearing” of the NY Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) on the confirmation of Lippman to Chief Judge was not publicly announced until less than one day before the hearing, in violation of NY Senate rules which require a five-day notice.

The first link in this phrase show the actual announcement on the NY Senate's official web page, released by then Senate leader Malcolm Smith, ONE DAY before the hearing held on February 11th. The second link goes to the FAQ page of the same website which says that "“All Standing Committees may hold public hearings. Assembly rules require that not less than two days notice of such hearings be given, and the Senate rules require FIVE DAYS NOTICE"

The proof that this was a PUBLIC hearing, is that members of the public were invited to speak, including me, Ms. Sassower of the CJA and others. If it had NOT been a public hearing, we would not have been allowed to speak.

Clearly, the announcement of a public hearing without the required FIVE DAY notice is in violation of Senate rules. If the Senate Judiciary Committee violated Senate rules in a hearing, the results of that hearing are not conclusive, putting doubt on the legitimacy of Lippman as Chief Judge.

That is important information for anyone who is interested in Jonathan Lippman to know, and the sole source of evidence is the official website of the NY Senate.

Why should these facts be censored from the Wikipedia article on Jonathan Lippman? How can they be characterized as "poorly sourced"?

By the way, the same documented allegations against Lippman were published by Truthout.org on September 19th 2012, and copies sent to every member of Congress and the Senate, the FBI and the entire NY State Senate.

Is it Wikipedia's policy that public record pending lawsuits or their content may not be mentioned by editors of an article? In no way can these references to these lawsuits or complaints therein be construed as "libelous". All pending lawsuits and complaints to public officials are matters of public record and are specifically protected as free speech.

Consider these Wiki articles, a sample of thousands, which report unadjudicated allegations of wrongdoings by public figures and stand unredacted and uncensored:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_doping_allegations

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikipedia_founder_embroiled_in_affair_and_financial_allegations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

They describe allegations against public figures, exactly as do the documents cited in my edits; the lawsuit and the two complaints to Phreet Bharara. If there is a difference, please explain what it is.

I have no conflict of interest:

I am a part time reporter for the Black Star News and Truthout.org and an activist against judicial corruption - not against the person of Jonathan Lippman. Wikipedia was created so that individuals with knowledge of subjects could share that knowledge, and ONLY an activist against such corruption would be aware of the public complaints against Lippman, and where they can be examined. Clearly, "sneekypat" has no interest or motivation in sharing this important information. Any criticism of any public figure must come from a source that has a reason for being concerned about that person's behavior, even if it is simply a concern for the public good.

For me to enlighten the public about allegations against Lippman is the kind of service for which Wikipedia was created.

Sneekypat's Apparent and Real Conflicts of Interest

The person who wrote the entire article is "Sneekypat", who claims on his userpage that he is a lawyer who practices in New York State, and clerks for a Federal judge. As such, his career path and livelihood is dependent upon maintaining an ingratiating relationship with members of the Judiciary hierarchy, of which Lippman is the top in NY State, where sneekypat practices. Furthermore, if "Sneekypat" should ever pursue the career of Judgeship in New York State (as his current employment indicates he may), he would directly benefit from the controversial measures challenged by the CJA lawsuit. Is it not an apparent and actual conflict of interest, when he deletes every reference and citation to the lawsuit against that measure?

In fact, as an "officer of the court" it is reasonable to assert that "sneekypat" is an employee of the Unified Court System of New York. As such, he has a direct vested interest in protecting the reputation of that institution. Censoring factual statement critical to the NY Courts is further in his interest.

It is immediately apparent that "Sneekypat"'s intention in writing the article on Lippman was to praise him as a judicial reformer, and to paint him in the best possible light. That is against the rules in itself. But to then repeatedly delete any factual, documented information that is critical of Lippman would seem to be a cardinal offense for Wikipedia.

Consider this paragraph by "Sneekypat":

Much of Lippman's career in the justice system in New York has been in administrative roles, where he distinguished himself as an able and thorough administrator. He has been credited with persuading the state legislature to double the financing of the court system and pass other reform measures creating special purpose courts and updating the jury system. '''Justice Lippman wrote a summary of this work in January 2009 in the New York Law Journal.[7] His resume as an appellate judge has been described as "thin," but in the 20 months that he was Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, First Department he presided over more than 2,000 cases and wrote 14 opinions.[8]

1) Who says he "distinguished as an able and thorough administrator?" That is not a factual statement, and has no citation whatsoever. It is simply advocacy and flattery.

2) "Who credited Lippman with "persuading the state legislature to double the financing of the court system and pass other reform measures creating special purpose courts and updating the jury system.'' No citation? why is this permitted?

3) His resume has been described as "thin" by WHOM? And why is no one cited for this remark while the argument against it is linked? Here is one reference for Lippman's "thin" resume,  " In fact, he has spent so much of his career as a bureaucrat that he's written only 16 signed judicial opinions, 14 of them since Paterson's predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, made him the presiding justice of Manhattan's Appellate Division in 2007." 16 judicial decisions in 18 years of judgeship is paltry by any standards.

In his "External Sources" Sneekypat only includes sources complimentary of Lippman. He does not include or reference the scathing cover article in the Village Voice http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-02-11/news/paterson-duped-again-shelly-silver-gets-childhood-pal-jonathan-lippman-state-s-top-courts-job/

"Paterson Duped Again: Shelly Silver Gets Childhood Pal Jonathan Lippman State's Top Courts Job".

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter ASAP.

Thank you,

W


 * In order to include content on Wikipedia, you need reliable sourcing, preferably tertiary (third party), such as a newspaper or book by a recognized expert or noted journalist. The blog you have been using is completely unacceptable as a source. As far as primary sources such as court records, we prefer not to use them without any tertiary sources, especially for any negative content, which per our biography of living persons policy, must meet a high standard of sourcing. Given that anyone can file suit against anyone, including frivolous lawsuits; no, you cannot put that in the article. Now, if the judge were to be found guilty and that fact recorded in not only court documents but also other (RS compliant) sources, you could probably (but not definitely!) use the court document as a secondary source for the information, or for a detail such as the date. But filing? No. We don't include undecided lawsuits except under extraordinary conditions, such as widespread coverage in the mainstream news, and that is subject to discussion and gaining consensus of editors that the content is worth including, and is not giving space to a minor incident. In short, you cannot include this information. Please do follow the links, they lead to relevant polices which you should familiarize yourself with.
 * I should add that the Village Voice is generally considered a reliable source, and if you were to write brief content sourced to that article, it would probably stand. Should there be disagreement between yourself and any other editor(s) of the page regarding such sourced content, please post on WP:BLPN OR (not and!) WP:RSN - the first if the content is disputed as being a violation of BLP, the second if the source (The Village Voice) is being challenged as an RS. If neither BLP nor RS is at issue, but there is disagreement about the desired edit, pursue dispute resolution - I suggest filing a Rfc if you and the other editor(s) of the article cannot work things out. Killer Chihuahua 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I would appreciate your reading the newest revision of my note to you, because I made important points that you did not address in your response:

1) The facts concerning the violation of senate rules on the confirmation hearings can not be disputed. Do you deny that the Senate Judiciary Committee's violation of Senate rules in the confirmation of the highest judge in New York State is a matter of importance?

2) What is your reaction to my assertion that "sneekypeet" as an "officer of the court", and an intern to a judge, has a vested interest in supporting a measure that provides tens of millions of dollars to judges?

Does Wikipedia REALLY -in it's charter- require the mention of a lawsuit to "receive widespread coverage in the "Mainstream media". If so, why would that be? What if the lawsuit was against the mainstream media, and the mainstream media decided not to publicize it? What, as in the case of the yellowcake uranium or the WMD in Iraq, the mainstream media is compelled NOT to report it?

Furthermore, the CJA website is no more a "blog" than www.wikipedia.com.

In your response you cited various reasons why the information I posted was censored by Wikipedia:

1) "In order to include content on Wikipedia, you need reliable sourcing, preferably tertiary (third party), such as a newspaper or book by a recognized expert or noted journalist".

Q) Why is the Center for Judicial Accountability, the public interest organization that has archived, documented and reported complaints and evidence of judicial corruption for decades, not considered an "expert" on judicial corruption in New York State. If they are not expert, who is?

Who is a "noted journalist"? My editor Milton Allimadi, publisher of the Blackstar News, and I were given the Midyear Journalistic Integrity Award for our coverage of a murder that is being covered up in NY State. We shared that honor with Rachel Maddow. Milton's paper has broken dozens of stories that the MSM would not touch including the misdeeds of Bernie Kerik, the CIA connections to "Koney 2012 and other huge stories that were in some case picked up by the MSM. He is a contributor to NPR, NY1 and an expert on African affairs. Is he noted? Who decides who is a noted journalist? You?

2) "The blog you have been using is completely unacceptable as a source" The Blog www.judge jonathan lippman.com is merely a repository of documents and links to other sites. For example, in order to present facts about NY Senate rules It contains a link to the NY Senate's own website. You will find that there is no editorial content on this "blog", only documentation, including representations of communications with and complaints to public officials. If the format was changed from "blog" to website, would this change the status of my submissions?

The blog does not say "lippman did this". It merely shows officially acknowledged complaints that are pending investigation.

2) "As far as primary sources such as court records, we prefer not to use them without any tertiary sources"

Q) why would you "prefer" tertiary sources over primary sources? Primary sources are factual and incontestably the documents they purport to be.

3) "especially for any negative content, which per our biography of living persons policy, must meet a high standard of sourcing"

Again, the sourcing for the information regarding the violations of rules in the Lippman confirmation is the NY Senate Website. What source would be of higher quality?

4) "Given that anyone can file suit against anyone, including frivolous lawsuits; no, you cannot put that in the article." The evidence in the CJA lawsuit is anything but frivolous, and Wikipedia has tens of thousands thousands of pages mentioning unresolved lawsuits.

As you well know, there are legal mechanisms to weed out "frivolous" lawsuits, and Mr. Lippman is familiar with and has access to all of them. Lawsuits are rejected at their inception But the deadly serious CJA lawsuit has survived many reviews over two years and has never been even challenged as "frivolous", therefor it is not frivolous by any definition.

The Wikipedia page about Senaor John Sampson (the chairman of the SJC that nominated Lippman, states: "On May 6, 2013 Sampson was taken into federal custody following a public corruption investigation. The charges against him include embezzlement, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.[5]"

Until proven guilty Sampson is as innocent as you and I, but here is a mention of his arrest and indictment?

I rely on Wikipedia and have made many contributions to it in the past. Your apparent censorship of irrefutably documented information critical of a public figure is distressing. It smacks of control by vested interests, which would be a tragedy for all of us.

I will leave this here.

I can promise you that I will not come to an agreement with "sneekypat" about the importance, validity and verifiability of my posts. So if I have not convinced you that there are issues regarding Lippman's legitimacy that should known by your readers, I will file an Rfc, whatever the hell that is.

w

I will summarize by saying that the rules regarding submissions that are not complimentary to Mr. Lippman seem to be based upon subjective criteria as pointed out above.

For example, whether or not a reporter is "noted'. what constitutes a "minor" matter, what constitutes a "frivolous" lawsuit (which is actually legally defined), and when Mainstream media can be trusted to cover all "Important events"

The complaints and lawsuits against Lippman however are not subjective. EVERY statement is backed by unimpeachable evidence. If you can identify one statement or allegation that is not so backed, i would appreciate your pointing them out.

Otherwise, I beg you to weigh the absolute, objective importance and factuality of my submissions, against the subjective and to some degree arbitrary Wikipedia rules. This will entail a small amount of effort, but I believe that the contribution to to the dissemination of TRUTH - which is the stated aim of Wikipedia- will be well worth it.

Thanks

wg


 * It is clear you have read none of the pages I have linked. Read the linked policies and pages, they will answer your questions. Once you have actually studied the pages I have linked, and followed WP:DR as I have advised, if you still have questions you may post a on your talk page and someone will come to answer your question. Killer Chihuahua  22:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, remember to sign your messages on discussion pages, including your talk page here, using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Don't sign with your initials. Killer Chihuahua 22:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)