Talk:Alfred Lee Loomis

Batman?

What's the source for the statement that Batman/Bruce Wayne were modeled on Loomis? There's no citation there and no reference to it later in the article (only in the summary). I've never heard anything about this, and I'm skeptical. Jason (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that. Just removed it. There's a lot more material here than I remember from when I was writing Aberdeen Chronograph. Much of what's been added smacks of "junior high school book report". So I added a cleanup tag. Yakushima (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Electroencephalography

I haven't been able to substantiate that Loomis invented electroencephalography, a technique that appears to have been in use from before he was born. Perhaps he held a patent on a particular technology in that area. A good number of his inventions were collaborations, and improvements on existing ideas, so its wise to check the claims in detail. Yakushima (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

moved here for continuation

Your changes are acceptable until more documentation is provided. Thanks for the heads-up about your reason for the edit about the electroencephalograph. Take the following for what it is worth, I've always presumed that assumption of good faith includes refraining from ridicule of other editors -- perhaps you ought to contemplate that as well, before making comments as you have above under Batman ?, such comments are not necessary and always can be misunderstood. Part of being a good editor here is getting along with others who have a right to edit, just as you do. -- 83d40m (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for deeming my changes "acceptable", 83d40m. Or should that be "Mr. 83d40m"? As for your advice about being a good editor, point taken. However, here's a point I'd like to make clear to you: the most important part of being a good editor of Wikipedia articles is actually being good at editing Wikipedia articles. That's what I strive for. And most of that component is work: fact-checking, dredging up sources, verifying stuff. In the case of the claim of Loomis inventing encephalography -- I checked encephalography and it didn't mention him in the History section. I Googled on his name and "encephalography" and mainly found instances of Loomis using encephalography in lab work (though one mention of a possible patent on an encephalograph -- however, that doesn't make him the inventor of encephalography). This took me only minutes, which made me wonder: why didn't the person who wrote that Loomis was the inventor exert even that tiny bit of effort? Moreover, somebody who might, say, glance at an Amazon review that compares Loomis to Bruce Wayne (an intriguing parallel, but only that), then somehow turn that into "Loomis was the model for batman" is clearly not trying very hard where it counts for Wikipedia readers: being accurate and relevant. Those kinds of contributions are really not much above the level of junior high school book review, we owe readers better than that, and I'll call those as I see 'em. A junior high school student writing book reviews has the excuse of being a junior high school student, and of working under a deadline. With Wikipedia, we're (mostly) adults here, and can take the time to do it right. There just isn't much excuse for not even trying. Yakushima (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: characterizing contributions as "junior high school book report" in quality, if that's what they are, actually is "assumption of good faith". After all, saying Loomis was the model for Batman, without backing it up (or even showing any sign of trying to back it up), is what you'd expect from someone who is too young and/or inexperienced to know any better. Yakushima (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Over reliance on Tuxedo Park

You've made a number of contributions to this biography, in the process apparently taking Tuxedo Park as the last word on Loomis (and possibly violating publisher's copyright and WP:FURG with the use of the cover image.) In fact, this book seems to incorporate a number of inaccuracies, as you might see from carefully reading the review at American Scientist [1]. Several of these inaccuracies are in the direction of exaggerating Loomis' career and contributions. The book is also criticized in that review for its relative paucity of source notes.

Wikipedia biographies, like all Wikipedia articles, are founded on source-based research. Some sources will, of course, exaggerate, or contain falsehoods. It appears that the author of Tuxedo Park was sometimes making things up, perhaps for the sake of a good story. I suppose if you take the book to heart, Loomis could actually start seeming a little like Bruce Wayne after all.

Still, Tuxedo Park seems to be a useful source, if you take it with the appropriate grain of salt. I suggest that, from here on out, if you plan to work further on this biography, that you quote directly from Tuxedo Park (with clear attribution, including page numbers) rather than simply rephrase statements from Tuxedo Park as if they were fact. This makes it clear that the statement quoted is one author's view, and not the last word on Loomis. Quoting has another advantage over paraphrase: you're less likely to get the author's meaning wrong, regardless of whether what the author means is accurate or not. Yakushima (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media

Thanks for uploading Image:Al Loomis on Tuxedo Park cover 83d40m p2croped.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice -- a check of the file indicates that it has been restored to the article and I will follow the direction at the image ---- 83d40m (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain why it's fair use, and in conformance with Wikipedia policies on images. Haven't seen that. Reverting to group photo. 60.42.122.78 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That last comment was mine. This comment is as follows: there is a curious correlation between edits made to Alfred Lee Loomis from IP address 65.196.169.194 and the articles you often edit. You have a history of contributing images in a problematic way (see extensive "thank-you-but..." comments above from others. The cover of Tuxedo Park is a similarly problematic image. You don't seem to have learned. If I don't see either you or 65.196.169.194 contributing on the Talk page about whether the Tuxedo Park cover is a violation of WP:FURG in this case, I'll look into a possible IP block of 65.196.169.194. Yakushima (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for editor assistance filed, FYI Yakushima (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Lee Loomis images

1940 meeting at University of California

image cropped to eliminate portions not necessary for use

Here are two images that have Alfred Lee Loomis in them. They are from two different sources, one, with Loomis shown peripherally, from a department of Energy site, that was uploaded in February 2007 for an article. The other is a cropped image of Loomis prepared from a book cover with focus only upon the portions that were essential for use as an image in Wikipedia for articles on the subjects, that was uploaded in July 2008 when my last edit was made. The rationale for the use of each image is given at those files. Both have been reviewed in the normal manner and passed review.

Are personal attacks, demands, and threats considered good behavior for editors at Wikipedia? I do not think so. It is curious that some editors prefer to harass other editors—who are exercising a right to edit at Wikipedia just as any other editors—seemingly for having opinions or preferences that differ from theirs, and no matter how far removed—more than thirty edits ago, in July.

For the record, 60.42.122.78 and yakushima from the revision history of the article and this page are acknowledged above to be one.

I believe that when there are differences of opinion, cordial collaboration and assumption of good faith are very useful tools for building good articles. I also consider the energy expended in wars as a waste of precious time that could be used editing, and, as evidenced clearly, decline to engage in them. ---- 83d40m (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a right to edit Wikipedia, but not in any way you wish. If your Talk page is any indication, you have a tendency to violate WP:FURG when it comes to images. If in fact your choice of the Tuxedo Park book cover for this article is also a WP:FURG violation, your right to edit Wikipedia does not override the copyright holder's right to litigate against Wikipedia for non-Fair Use of that image. Need I point out that litigation against Wikipedia hurts us all, especially if it's successful litigation? Feel free to explain why WP:FURG isn't really an argument against using the cover of Tuxedo Park. Perhaps we can move on to other issues after we have that issue out of the way. As an aside: this has nothing to do with my personal feelings about Wikipedia policy on images. I have several excellent images for several articles, bogged down (probably permanently) in the process of getting formal permissions. It's very frustrating, and seeing other editors acting as if WP:FURG doesn't exist makes it even more frustrating. Yakushima (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to get you started, 83d40m, note that WP:NFCC apparently only permits the use of cover art in the very restricted case of Wikipedia articles about the item with the cover. If you were to write an article called "Tuxedo Park (book)", the cover would probably be OK as an illustration. (The book almost certainly clears the bar for notability, so an article about the book might even be appropriate.) However, this article is a biography of Alfred Lee Loomis, not an article about a particular (copyrighted) biography of Alfred Lee Loomis. Wikipedia policies on use of cover art images are so stringent that -- as you can see -- images categorized as non-free are automatically removed, whenever they are found on pages that are clearly NOT article pages (such as this discussion page). Think about that. Acquaint yourself with WP:FURG and WP:NFCC. Otherwise, you'll keep making the same mistake, over and over, and pretty soon people will stop "thanking" you for uploading and using images in non-compliant ways, and start looking into disciplinary measures. Yakushima (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

items above—after September 16—were moved today to accompany the rest of the discussion and unfortunately, to retain the context, there might be redundancy following in order to display the comments following the original copy. ---- 83d40m (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over image

The group photo, while not centrally featuring Loomis, is nevertheless an illustration of his role as a collaborator (which is, after all, mainly what he was, according to the biography itself), and the image is apparently in the public domain. The cover of Tuxedo Park is a copyrighted work; insofar as I understand WP:FURG, it would be permissible under only for an article about the book, or possibly (but probably not) for one about Tuxedo Park, but not for a biography of Loomis. Perusal of the talk page for 83d40m, the contributor of the Tuxedo Park cover image, reveals that this editor has been quite unclear on Wikipedia image policy; perhaps this case should stand as yet another example of this editor's confusion. The argument that book covers are used to illustrate many articles is not, in itself, an argument for using this particular book cover. Some of the existing book cover images may be in violation of copyright and of WP:FURG and therefore irrelevant examples. Yakushima (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth rewording the opening paragraph to explain that Loomis's work was generally done in collaboration with other scientists. Such a change would place the picture of him with Lawrence, etc. in context. - I don't have a problem with using the Tuxedo Park book cover, but it does seem odd for the first (opening, introductory) picture. Maybe further down the page? On the other hand, how about a low-resolution scan of Loomis from the book? - I don't have the time just now to be a regular Loomis contributor, so let me just wish everyone happy editing. - Astrochemist (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alfred Lee Loomis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922015902/https://acs.lbl.gov/Seaborg.talks/65th-anniv/24.html to http://acs.lbl.gov/Seaborg.talks/65th-anniv/24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)