Talk:Colliding beam fusion

Removal of some lines about a "Progressive thermalization fusion reactor"

Hello to all,

I proposed a new type of fusion reactor (article published in the EPE journal https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2022.141003) this year. I worked in the Nuclear industry (now I'm retired).

The proposal was removed and I received a message from someone which pseudo is "Femke":

"I've removed the same information again. Please do not reinsert edits when others object (see WP:bold, revert, discuss). You can discuss edits at Talk:colliding beam fusion to try to find consensus. You will probably not find consensus to include it unless you can show there are independent secondary sources about the concept. Femke (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]"

The reason given is obscur and much more looks like to an arbitrary censure.

Is Femke the administrator of the "Colliding beam fusion" Wikipedia article ? If so, what are the unsaid reasons which leads to be removed (so, at least, to not lose time with adding some information on Wikipedia). If Femke is not administrator, what are the ways to avoid to have be systematically removed by this person if I do an "Undo" of his/her action.

Thanks in advance Patrick Lindecker F6CTE (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1) You should not be writing about your own work per WP:COI and 2) Scientific Research (or scirp.org) is a well known predatory publisher. They do no meaningful peer review and are not a usable source on Wikipedia. In fact links to their website are blacklisted here. - MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

About 1) I'm not a company but a simple retired man. Moreover I don't speak of me but about one of my articles. I added this contribution because it could be of interest for readers to present an alternative way to generate nuclear fusion. Now it's just a proposal, simply partly simulated on a PC (I'm not rich enough to built a nuclear plant...). I'm not a lawyer but I don't see where it is mentionned that it is forbidden to speak of its own work. However, if it is true, I accept, of course, that my contributions be banned.

About 2) Who decides to blacklist the EPE journal? After some investigation, I found that the EPE journal pertains to SCIRP and that a certain Jefferey Beall posted a predatory list in 2012 and 2014, where SCIRP appears. Now it's just the opinion of this person. Another person would have posted another list. But in any cases, this list is now considered by several persons (let's be optimistic, a very small minority I hope) as the "truth". This list appears to be equivalent to the "List of Prohibited Books" ("Index Librorum Prohibitorum") with several self-appointed censors in charge to remove all the contributions refering to an editor present on the list. No lawyer to defend the editors and no possibility given for the editors to improve their methods (supposing that they were reprehensible). The editors of this list are condemned for eternity. This is really sad. I'm just an engineer and I had an high consideration for science and its tolerance. Today, I lose my illusions and I'm afraid for the future, if this minority imposes its rules by a form a violence (as to directly ban contributions). Moreover, I don't understand how intelligent people can lose their time controlling if a journal pertains or not to a condemned editor, rather than reading what the contribution says.

Patrick Lindecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by F6CTE (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)