User talk:Laurencejwolf

Welcome!
Hello, Laurencejwolf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Superconductivity. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Superconductivity
I've reverted your edits to Superconductivity, as they are not appropriate as given. They appear to be self-promotion, and the tone is non-encyclopedic. Please discuss what you wish to add in the talk page Talk:Superconductivity before trying these edits again. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

These people are deleting valid referenced history. Calling it self promotion? Dr. Wolf and Dr. Halpern are both dead. They ran a program that lasted 18 years that including building the first SC power Naval Vessel done with the help of General Electric. This is important history that they are removing with one finger hurting the future of superconductivity. Someone may read their work and duplicate or even improve it. Fix my tone if you like but don't delete facts that reference MAJOR PEER REVIEWED publications and US Patents. If these guys had done this work 10 years ago instead of 35 years ago you would not dare question it because it'd be all over the Internet already. Laurencejwolf (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Laurence Wolf: Superconductivity is a very mature area. Wikipedia editors are wary, espectially for well established articles, of the sudden reports of under-recognized geniuses. We are doubly suspicious (forgive us, but we are trying to protect readers) when the new content appears to be fawning or a sales job.  So if you want to debate the contributions of Wolf, describe the situation on the talk page, and support your case with citations to Wolf et al from major textbooks (not patents).  If their contributions are not in textbooks, then there is the real risk that you are trying to rewrite history, or as we call it, conducting original research.  Wikipedia is a not the place to rewrite history, Wikipedia is a dispassionate machine for reporting widely accepted knowledge.    My 2 cents.  --Smokefoot (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Smokefoot et al. There is a difference between rewriting history and reporting history. I am reporting valid history that was overlooked. If Wolf and Halpern had done this work 10 years ago instead of 35 years ago you would not dare question it because it'd be all over the Internet already. Dr Wolf had over 150 papers published and received 24 US patents including 4 or 5 in Superconductivity. His PH.D. adviser was Dr. Y.H. KU.

Suppressing their work by just saying the results were wrong sounds improper to me. He worked closely with Dr. Schrieffer in this work - call Bob up and ask him. This was a peer reviewed major research effort that should not be ignored because it was ahead of its time. I'm not sure why citing textbooks has value. They are quite often wrong or outdated. You want scientific advances to succeed you have to get people working on them.

Consider that in the 1970s Dr. Wolf and Dr. Halpern predicted cupric oxides would superconduct. The guys in Switzerland who read their papers then won a Nobel Prize by following up on it. The next guy to duplicate the sodium colnate 277K results will get one too. Laurencejwolf (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Superconductivity. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Wifione  Message 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * For your information. Wifione  Message 08:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)