Talk:Alfred Lee Loomis

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alfred Lee Loomis

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit warring over book cover 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)[reply]