User talk:TracieBurns

License tagging for File:Jeffress1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jeffress1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jeffress1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jeffress1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing the article now

It hasn't been used in any articles yet, but I'm drafting one called Lloyd A. Jeffress that still needs work before I submit it. Thank you for clarifying.

TracieBurns (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lloyd A. Jeffress (June 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

This person probably meets notability for WP:ACADEMICS but the article itself has some problems. First, do not include a full list of his publications, but instead create a shortened list of the best known or most frequently cited. (WP is not a CV.) Next, do not cite anything that is not directly about him (thus, remove Luther Trant, facts from UT, and anything else that is peripheral.) Avoid "telling stories", e.g. "The cardiograph, the pneumograph, the pendulum chronoscope, and the skin galvanometer all piqued Jeffress’s curiosity sufficiently for him to enroll in a psychology course..." Just state the facts: He enrolled in a course.... Another example: "It was with this advice and positive attitude that Jeffress began a teaching career at the University of Texas that lasted more than 50 years." Not necessary, and we do not remark on someone's attitude unless it is key to notability and cited to a reliable reference. The article, when limited to the facts, could be quite a bit shorter.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lloyd A. Jeffress and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! TracieBurns, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lloyd A. Jeffress (June 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

Unfortunately, one of your main references has gone missing: the memorial resolution. I searched the site using his name and didn't find anything. Can you fix it?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lloyd A. Jeffress and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lloyd A. Jeffress has been accepted

Lloyd A. Jeffress, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for your article

I saw your new article—nice work! I'd be proud as a lion on the moon if I wrote that. Now, a couple suggestions if I may: Ordinarily, the titles of works (including journals) are written out in full in citations using title case, so: "Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology" instead of "J COMP PHYSIOL PSYCH." In my opinion, it makes citations a lot easier to glance over. (You can even wikilink these if they have corresponding articles, as the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology does.) It may also help make your citations and bibliographic entries look more consistent if you used the citation templates {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, and friends instead of hard-coding it yourself. Either way, congrats. Rebb ing 04:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I definitely understand your point, and will be happy to make those changes when I finish hearing from the scientists who are (not incorrectly) nit-picking my Jeffress Model explanation. Q: Why is there a : after the [[ in your journal cite? This was my first article, and I'm drinking from the firehose trying to understand some of the intricacies of WP coding. Also, why do you think the posting editor rated thea article so low? Citation style? Appreciate any insight! TracieBurns (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TracieBurns[reply]

Of course—they're not urgent. I'm glad you've got capable people looking over the scientific stuff.

Putting a colon in front of a wikilink disables what are called "backlinks": on any page on Wikipedia, you can click "What links here" on the left-hand side navigation panel and get a listing of pages that link to the current page. Disabling backlinking on a link keeps it from showing up in that list. It should never be done in articles, but a minority of editors use it on talk pages to keep irrelevant mentions from cluttering that view. The colon trick also disables categories and images: if I wanted to mention Category:Living people without adding this page to it, I'd use it; similarly, it keeps an image link for showing the image.

I'm honestly not sure why SwisterTwister rated the article like he did. But I did see a lot of referencing issues my second time through:

The McFadden, Young & McKinney piece is a key source for much of the article, but, as it's written by his former colleagues and not published, it's not a reliable source.
Some of the material isn't referenced at all; and many of the end-of-paragraph citations you've put in don't actually support everything in the paragraph.
While picking out page numbers for some of the citations to the McFadden piece, I noticed some material had been lifted out of it verbatim and even more was borrowed with only minimal paraphrasing. As in academia, plagiarism is heavily frowned upon on Wikipedia. ;)
It appears there's some original research and "synthesis" happening. On Wikipedia, every factual statement is supposed to be supported by a reliable source, and—critically—every conclusion we draw must have been made by a reliable source.

That should give you something to work on. I know it sounds like a lot, but please don't give up. If you wouldn't mind telling me, I'm curious what promoted you to write this: it clearly took some time. Rebb ing 05:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input and the education!

The short answer on why I wrote it is that I grew up with these guys - Lloyd, Linus, etc. My maiden name is McFadden. And I thought it was terrible that there was some discussion of the Jeffress model in a few articles in WP, and of course Linus mentions him, but nobody had written an article about all the contributions he made to neuroscience - and to mine hunting, which I thought was so cool but is so hard to find information about because the Navy does tend to keep secrets. So, essentially, this was a Father's Day gift to my dad that ran quite amok. There is probably synthesis, but there is certainly no original research in here. Can you point out areas in particular that you feel might be (gasp) original?

I assure you, I had no intent to plagiarize and certainly want to steer clear of any suggestion thereof. I have made and combined a lot of notes, and may have rewritten back to how it was written originally, which is annoying, but certainly fixable. After all, he did teach me to write! It's really kind of frightening how that happens with him and me. And sometimes, there's just no other clear way to say something. But, I will go through again and make sure there are quotations where they need to be.

Now here's a question: Because the McFadden, Young & McKinney memorial was adopted by the University and is published online, that isn't enough to constitute being published? It needs to have been in print somewhere else? There is another version published in a journal, but Dad didn't have a copy and I didn't want to pay $12 to get the PDF, but if that would improve the rating . . . .

Again, all your help and feedback is tremendously appreciated. TracieBurns (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response: I bookmarked this but forgot until today. I think this was an absolutely lovely (and large) gift.

By "original research," I meant there were instances where the article draws conclusions not explicitly made by the sources—a natural and ordinarily useful habit. An example would be the sentence: "Both psychology and physics would remain of interest to him, and he often had to struggle with his loyalties to one or the other." It's reasonable to conclude from the source that Mr. Jeffress struggled with which interest he wanted to pursue, but it's not a conclusion the source gives. There were other examples, but I forgot.

As for plagiarism, I wasn't accusing you of doing anything wrong, just pointing it out. As an example, the article has this:

It was only after he began his long association with UT's Defense Research Laboratory (DRL) in 1950 that he had assistants capable of, and interested in, doing all the menial work necessary to implement and run the experiments he said he had been thinking about all along.

which is nearly identical to this passage from the McFadden, Young & McKinney piece:

[I]t was only after he began his long association with UT's Defense Research Lab in 1950 that he had assistants capable of, and interested in, doing all the menial work necessary to implement and run the experiments Lloyd had been thinking about all along.

There were other, similarly-improbable borrowings as well, but, like I said, you're not being called out here.

The reliability requirement is less about physical publishing and more about having an editorial process and an established reputation for accuracy. For instance, CNN's news website is considered a reliable source, despite not being printed, but many small alternate newspapers aren't, and anything published by self-publishing services like Amazon's CreateSpace is categorically unreliable. The memorial piece was issued and published by UT's faculty council, which doesn't, in itself, have an established reputation regarding its publishing accuracy. Additionally, the authors and publisher were closely connected with the subject. That makes using the memorial for favorable facts and particularly favorable assessments problematic, and having a print copy wouldn't make a difference on that score. It's possible I'm wrong about this, and, if you'd like a second opinion, feel free to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. In the meantime, a somewhat questionable source is better than no source, and I wouldn't feel bad leaving it as is.

The article rating is not worth worrying about. Good article status is a big deal, but the sub-GA project ratings (assigned, ideally, according to the WP:ASSESS rubric) exist just so each WikiProject can calculate how its articles are coming along. I'm a fairly pedantic editor, and even I don't make a big deal of them.

All this said, I hope you don't get the impression I expect you to fix anything: I'm just offering advice about what will be done when someone has the time; Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress, and there are no deadlines here. More than anything, I must say that you've done a truly laudable job with the article, especially for a new editor. The encyclopedia is better off for your contribution. Clearly, you are a gifted writer, and you should be very proud of yourself.

Best—Rebb ing 08:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TracieBurns. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gerald H. Jacobs

Hello, TracieBurns. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Gerald H. Jacobs".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TracieBurns. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]