User talk:RLCampbell

My name is Robert L. Campbell. I am a psychology professor, co-editor of a psychology journal, and co-editor of a multidisciplinary journal. The interests that once drew me to Wikipedia include the genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget, other issues in psychology, the life and ideas of Ayn Rand, and the history of jazz, blues, and gospel music.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is now of archival interest only. I am no longer actively editing at Wikipedia (see below).-RLCampbell (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently some Wikipedia administrators have failed to note that I am no longer active as an editor, therefore it is useless to make any requests of me here. I have added a reminder to that effect.-RLCampbell (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

 * Since you're doing so much work on The Passion of Ayn Rand, you might want to consider joining Wikiproject Objectivism. Regards, TallNapoleon (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * TN, thanks. How do I go about doing that? -RLCampbell (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just sign your name at Wikiproject Objectivism under "Participants". And don't worry about all that fine print about the forfeiture of your immortal soul, it's just boilerplate... TallNapoleon (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -RLCampbell (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Hi, Robert. I wanted to try to give you a little more context to think about in regard to the original research policy. I realize that it can be frustrating sometimes for someone who has expertise and personal contacts on a subject. I sometimes encounter this myself. But I think it is a good policy for Wikipedia to rigorously exclude original research and require previously published reliable sources for material. The key is to remember that anyone can edit on Wikipedia. There is no requirement that they be well-informed, trustworthy or even basically honest. So if it were acceptable for editors to insert material that wasn't verifiable from outside sources, there is no end to the mischief that could appear in articles. You may have an entirely legitimate point to make based on your own discussions with, say, Barbara Branden. But thanks to open editing, someone who never even heard of Branden before could show up and start claiming that she said something else that is completely false. Or worse, they could claim to have had a personal conversion with someone who is deceased and therefore not able to contradict them. Or an editor could claim to have performed scientific experiments to prove a particular point. Etc. Wikipedia has articles on hundreds of thousands of subjects, some of them quite obscure, so there is no practical way for other editors to validate all the claims that might be made. Requiring that material be previously published in a reliable source provides a layer of fact-checking that editors simply can't perform directly. This may prevent some material from appearing here, and of course requiring sources doesn't entirely prevent errors from appearing in articles, but I think the current policy is reasonable compared to some of the alternatives. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RL, thank you for the explication. I realize that Wikipedia does not have its own gatekeeping mechanism that functions like peer review at a journal, and that asking for citations to material that was peer-reviewed elsewhere (or subjected to editorial review, etc.) helps to repair that deficiency.  Anyway, the best that any of these procedures can do is reduce errors significantly, not eliminate them entirely.  So instead of bringing up Barbara Branden's lack of knowledge of Russian, I will confine myself to pointing out, as the Passion of Ayn Rand article currently does, that Jeff Britting had access to some Russian-language documents that Branden did not have. (Of course, I've left out  Jim Valliant's preferred explanation, which is that Barbara Branden turned out to be wrong because she had made up the Remington Rand typewriter story :)).-RLCampbell (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Barbarabranden.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Barbarabranden.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Gladstein.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gladstein.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks
Greetings, RLCampbell. I noticed some of your redlink deletions at Ronnie Boykins and King Records (USA). There's a Wiki guideline on this you might want to take a look at. The core premise is : "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Of course, there are exceptions and mitigating circumstances, discussed in further on the guideline page. Happy editing, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of figured that there didn't have to be an article, as long as there was a plausible expectation of one being created for the person or entity referred to. A lot of the names and phrases I delinked didn't seem to me to be ones that would have articles about them.  For instance, Ernie Shepard (bassist in Chicago) was given a link in the Ronnie Boykins article, and I just don't see Ernie Shepard being considered notable enough to rate an article in Wikipedia.-RLCampbell (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example: The Boykins article had a link on the Melodic Art-tet, a jazz combo that to my knowledge never recorded. A Wikipedia article about the Art-tet is a remote possiblity at best.-RLCampbell (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a judgment call, for sure. One argument for leaving marginal redlinks is that it helps identify 'missing' articles.  Also, if an article is indeed created, redlinks are already Wikilinked.  However, it's a pain to search for the relevant instances of the article's title within other articles after the fact and Wikilink them.  I've done it both ways.  But then, I'm lazy.   Cheers,   Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings RLCampbell - notwithstanding the above, and regarding any redlink on any article page we happen to coincide on, can I take it as read (pun intended) that said redlink requires an article? I have a few days of intensive work coming up and it would be great to have some "directed" tasks resulting in summat constructive as a way of switching off. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if a redlink is present, it suggests that another article is needed. If a redlink points to something not notable enough to have an article on, it's better off delinked.-RLCampbell (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Right! We're on... --Technopat (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
Greetings RLCampbell and welcome to this 'ere great Wikipedia. Look forward to seeing your contributions. I have just reverted one of your edits (don't take it personally) to the Johnny Griffin article and supplied an inline citation to an interview he gave. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Griff recalled T-Bone Walker's brother leading a band, but what was the other Walker's first name, and what did he play? T-Bone Walker was in Chicago for several extended runs, 1942 through 1945, as a headliner at the Rhumboogie.-RLCampbell (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The answers must be out there somewhere, even if it's at local, hearsay level. I'd be inclined to think that it would be an elder brother who'd lead the band, and I suppose calculating birthdates and gig dates might be a step in the right direction. The music industry is unfortunately prone to ignoring great musicians and many "musicians' musicians" are not even given a redlink here at Wikipedia. But it's an ongoing project... --Technopat (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for undertaking the page on King Fleming. One of those musicians' musicians.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks! Glad to see that someone's noticed! More stuff in the pipeline - am preparing stubs on ..., and ... and ... (have to keep those darned "notability" freaks at bay!) Plenty of material there for a professional like yerself :)

Ps. Bit of a long shot, but I thought I was onto something with this one: Lowell Fulson and the Phillip Walker Blues Band - One More Blues Includes liner notes by Dick Sherman (is that Wikilink right?). Personnel: Fulson (vocals, guitar); Walker (guitar); Mike "Iceman" Vannice (tenor saxophone); Art Hillery but it led to naught... --Technopat (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, too young to be leading a band in Chicago in the mid-1940s. There are two Richard Sherman articles on Wikipedia, but neither is about the blues collector and writer.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and all apologies
Thanks for checking Fate In A Pleasant Mood for errors... I feel guilty about basing so much of the discography on yours and John Szwed's work, but wikipedia forbids original research and demands best sources... hope you don't mind. As always, I only took on Ra's discography because no-one else had bothered to do it. And it's been undeniably fun. My knowledge of his work grinds to a halt about 1970 (I've never heard Continuation, for instance) so I might have to end it at Atlantis. Perhaps next stop a piece about El Saturn and the links between the street preaching and the records? Whichever, thanks again Franciselliott (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ra discography covers a lot of territory. Thanks for pitching in.-RLCampbell (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Images
Ok, I got one image fixed and sent you an email regarding the other.  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing the photo of Mimi Reisel Gladstein, which is now back on its page. I have asked Barbara Branden for a new permission email employing the legal form that you pointed to.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that we delight in being able to offer images to enhance articles; but in a litigious time such as this, we must exercise a really absurd level of diligence in order to avoid trespassing, however inadvertently, on copyrights. Given that some editors' level of sophistication reaches no further than "I found this pic online, so it must be okay to use in an article", we have been forced into setting up an increasingly intricate maze of licensing and permissions folderol. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chance Records
Hi. Can you clarify your position on Articles for deletion/Chance Records? The standard assumption is that the nominator of an article for deletion favors deletion of the article. It looks like, in this case, you brought it to AfD to foster discussion on the fate of the article and not to get it deleted. I'm trying to gauge whether there is anybody who currently active favors deleting the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like you commented on the AfD before the nominator did. However, with your comment at the top of the article, it makes it appear like you nominated. Sorry for the confusion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abc518 has switched to a "keep" not-a-vote. Since I'm pretty sure you mean to keep the article, I have closed the AfD discussion early as a "speedy keep" for withdrawal of the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Greetings RLCampbell - thanks for tweaking that clumsy Johnny Pate paragraph I left - it was poking its tongue out at me but I couldn't get to grips with it. Cheers and happy editing! --Technopat (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

COI rules
Based on some recent edits, I thought it would be appropriate to point you towards the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest in editing. Going slightly beyond the guidelines themselves, I personally encourage caution in regard to, for example, citing your own works or editing material about subjects with whom you have a close connection (such as journals you might have done work for). Even when a particular edit may be the best thing for an article, I've always considered it wise to be very open about any possible COI issues, for example, by mentioning them on the article's talk page. That way it doesn't become a "revelation" in some subsequent editing dispute. (In an example that I believe you followed, it was damaging to the reputation of the editor who inserted many references to James Valliant's book into the Objectivism articles, when it was learned that there was a previously undisclosed relationship between that editor and Valliant.) Anyhow, I'm not saying this to object to any particular edit. It's just my general advice, which you may or may not find useful. --RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll mention this on the Objectivism talk page.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I put a disclosure on my main user page, as well as the talk pages for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and We the Living. By the way, I log in when I edit, and wouldn't be at all upset if Wikipedia adopted a policy against unlogged-in edits by persons from reasonably free countries.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, the editor in the case you alluded to actually was James Valliant, part of the time.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!
Greetings RLCampbell - thanks for popping in to tweak/expand the Club Delisa article. I'd been running a little bet with myself as to how long it would take you to detect it - I won! Re. the DeLisa/Delisa debate on the discussion page, I see now that it's a surname and should therefore be written with that L, but I await your considered opinion on that one. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was usually spelled DeLisa in the Chicago Defender. Also in the Jet article about the club closing.  Do you have access to Dempsey Travis's book An Autobiography of Black Jazz?  There's a bunch about the earlier days of the DeLisa in it.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And for Jimmy Coe!--Technopat (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * De nada.-RLCampbell (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings again...
Greetings RLCampbell. Good to see you back - let's see how this one develops. I just don't have time right now to get involved in any OTRS - if normal Wikipedia red tape is so time-consuming, I don't even want to imagine what that one involves. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the documentation on OTRSes is not the world's clearest... But I went ahead and filed an RfC on the issue at Talk:Ahmad Jamal.-RLCampbell (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings RLCampbell - I'll try to help out with whatever I can, but am not particularly optimistic... Regs.--Technopat (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of release list from Chance Records article
I don't think a full RfC is warranted. However, I've opened a discussion topic (Talk:Chance Records). If you can explain how the list is verifiable, doesn't give undue weight to the list, and doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR, I'll be glad to restore the partial list. —C.Fred (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the portion of the list you've put in so far. Are you having to hand-key it as you go? I'm wondering if it wouldn't be useful to go ahead and put it in table formatting now, since I'm thinking it might be useful to have a sortable table like this example:


 * Actually, as funky as sort and sortname are, if you input the list as raw text, I can come back and format it later. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Brief question re: Sun Ra
I keep meaning to continue with the Sun Ra chronological discography; as such, do you have any opinions on when side one of Atlantis was recorded?? Within the logic of the timeline, c.67-69 would place it after Continuation, which would make Atlantis the last of the New York records? Or would you say Continuity probably came after, prefiguring the funkier Philadelphia cuts?? Not that it really matters either way.. Franciselliott (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Been away for a while, sorry about being so late to respond. It's hard to be precise about the dating of Side A: 1967-1968 is the best I've been able to do. That means there was probably some overlap between Side A of Atlantis and some items on Side A of Continuation.-RLCampbell (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings yet again...
Greetings RL Campbell - it's been a while since our swords paths crossed. Hope things are fine. There's something that's been on my mind for some time now that you might be able to help me out with - being fortunate in living in Chicago and given your knowledge of music (cause and effect?)

What's the likelihood of Billy Branch being the son of Ben Branch. It would certainly add weight to the choice of name for The Sons of the Blues, as Lurrie Bell and Freddie Dixon are the sons of Carey Bell and Willie Dixon respectively, a detail that is mentioned all over the place. Not sure how much of a long shot it is, but googlng hasn't brought anything up along those lines.

Answers on one side of the sheet only and no primary sources or original research. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pat, I really don't know, but I shall ask around.-RLCampbell (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

...and again...
Greetings RL Campbell - though I see you’ve been away for a while, not especially worried ’cos I expect your courses are winding up and you’ll soon be able to enjoy your well–earned rest far from the madding crowd. Be that as it m., any chance of popping in and helping out on a couple of AfDs. Not from your neck of the woods, but equally deserving, despite lack of sources and what–have–ye. Better not tell you what they are or some sticklers will accuse me of whatever heinous crime against the guidelines, so maybe you can check ’em out on my contributions page on or around this date. Cheers and enjoy your vacation!--Technopat (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Becoming Inactive
Having developed some knowledge of Wikipedia and its practices, I find Wikipedia's rules too convoluted and its internal politics too contentious to warrant my continued involvement with the site. I thank everyone who helped me get my bearings here. Wikipedia editing has been a valuable experience for me, as I'm sure it will continue to be for others, but I have realized that in the end there are other venues in which I am more likely to be able to make a worthwhile contribution.=RLCampbell (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings RLCampbell. Sad to see you're leaving - but understand you perfectly. Just want to thank you for your great contributions to this project and for expanding my scanty - but heart-felt - knowledge (there's a good line of investigation for a psychologist: can knowledge be heart-felt - learnt by heart?) of the blues, jazz and related genres. Now that I'm here, I'll just mention that I'm linking the excellent stuff over at Clemson to the Spanish Wikipedia, which is where I've been at lately. All the best. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:StatesRecords147.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:StatesRecords147.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe Williams (jazz singer)
A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux  Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reminder of inactivity
Wikipedia administrators are advised not to leave posts on this page. I have been inactive since 2011 and only if there is major turnover among Wikipedia administrators would I even consider returning to activity here. Happy holidays. RLCampbell (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Matthew Sciabarra for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Matthew Sciabarra, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Chris Matthew Sciabarra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)