For additional information Click Here
Elementary Particles, Part J-4 - The Preonic Wars: Moving On From the Wikipedia Deletion
In this series of PRs I am focusing on a question that has intrigued mankind for millennia, and that question is "What is the World Made Of?" In Parts A and B we looked at the history of proposed answers to this question, eventually arriving at the present theory of quarks, leptons and force carriers, which combined is known as "The Standard Model". In Parts C and D we saw how a new particle model - the ABC Preon Model - can model nature's particles in a way that is different from the Standard Model. In part E we looked at neutrinos, quarks and weak interactions in the ABC Preon Model, in part F we looked at preonic masses, and in Part G we investigated additional high energy physics (HEP) experiments. In part H we compared the ABC Preon Model to its competition, and in part I we summarized and put a perspective on the previous parts. In part J we're taking a look at some of the difficulties I have had with getting the word out concerning the ABC Preon Model.
The past three PR's concerned the trouble I've had trying to get a serious review of my ABC Preon model, a posting I made to Wikipedia, a bad review on a Quora post, and the eventual deletion of my Wikipedia posting. See my previous PRs for details.
During the time the decision was being made to delete my Wikipedia article I copied all of the article, as well as the talk page comments, and also the deletion discussion itself. Wikipedia allows users to have their own personal pages, and I have posted it all on my user page. To date, no one has asked me to remove that, so if anyone wishes they can view it here. If you look into the deletion discussion you can see the rather big deal that the lead attacker placed on his presumption that the ABC Preon Model did NOT appear in a reviewed journal. This despite the fact that the article clearly refers to a reviewed journal article as THE BASIS for the Wikipedia article. It is my guess that reviewed journal articles may be "notable" enough that they are deemed sufficient for publication, but I did not find such a criterion during the deletion debate. It also shows how little effort the censors put forth to evaluate the works they are censoring.
After the Wikipedia article was deleted in early summer of 2014, another webpage appeared online in support of the ABC Preon Model. You can visit that site here. I was heartened to read many of the comments on that forum post, as several were quite supportive of my effort. Unfortunately, more than one of the posters would have liked to have voted in the deletion battle but did not know how to.
It is possible that I could have appealed the deletion at Wikipedia, but I chose not to. It has generally been my experience that I lose such appeals, and my goal remains one of winning the war. Each battle takes time and effort, and I believe it best to put my efforts into things that might advance the cause rather than continuing to hammer away at things that don't pay off. It is my guess that even if I would have gained three or four more votes from the posters at the abovetopsecret.com forum that what would have happened was that the attackers would have found enough other supporters to continue to shout me down. So my plan became one to get everything written up and posted in several other locations. Such articles would then be "secondary sources", and if there are enough of them I can revisit posting on Wikipedia at that time. The effort here at IBO is one such effort, and I also recently concluded a similar effort at AboveTopSecret.
Do you want to help bring fusion to the world? Join BookWormBiz and make money growing your business! When you make money, the corporate BookWormBiz makes money too! And BookWormBiz is devoted to using a significant portion if its money to bring fusion to the world! Click here for details on BookWormBiz!