User talk:JonathanFeldman

Hoverboard
Hi, thanks for your contribution to the hoverboard article. I had to remove the controversies section you added, because Wikipedia articles cannot contain unsourced speculation. and cannot synthesize conclusions that aren't specifically stated in the cited sources. Although one of the sources you cited used the term "hoverboard", it was not in the context of levitating boards, which is the subject of the article, and none of the other sources mentioned hoverboards at all. See WP:SYNTHESIS for more information.

Feel free to discuss your proposed addition on the article talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Amatulic#, I don't think you know what you are talking about. There is nothing UNSOURCED.  I gave you several references. You just DO NOT LIKE THEM and thereby allow Wikipedia to be a shill for corporate America and TNCs in China who produce these idiotic products.  I was using associative logic and theoretic analogies, something consistent with the logic of DEDUCTION.  Have you heard of DEDUCTION?  NO!  Wikipedia has not.  Look it up, it is a whole branch of philosophy.JonathanFeldman (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)JonathanFeldman
 * Regards, Jonathan Feldman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.84.10 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I liked what you added. I had to remove it because it violated our policy that prohibits original research in articles. Citing sources to synthesize a conclusion that isn't found anywhere in the sources isn't permitted here. I suggest you get familiar with Wikipedia policies before you continue (read the page I linked in my comment). Wikipedia has heard of deduction, but this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia articles do not use deduction or speculation. If you want to change that policy, the way to do it is by proposing a change and getting consensus on the policy page, in this case Wikipedia talk:No original research. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Amatulić, I get where you coming from! I can dig it. So, you basically saying, "Wikipedia can't dig deduction." So, "thou shalt not kill" does not interest Wikipedia, because it be based on speculation and such. Yeah, it's just speculation! We DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THOU SHALT NOT KILL is Wikipedia material until some material tests are performed? Anyway, why did you write this: "none of the other sources mentioned hoverboards at all" when in fact ONE DID! http://mdcoastdispatch.com/2015/08/19/surge-in-new-motorized-devices-on-boardwalk-leads-council-to-freeze-specific-rental-licenses/ Read the article? Did you read it? NO YOU DID NOT! Surge In New Motorized Devices On Boardwalk Leads Council To Freeze Specific Rental Licenses Posted on 08/19/2015 by Joanne Shriner Photo courtesy of www.monorover.com	Photo courtesy of www.monorover.com

OCEAN CITY – With an increase of motorized rentals on the Boardwalk, city officials have decided to place a freeze on issuing such rental licenses for the time being until town regulations are examined.

The topic of hoverboard rentals on the Boardwalk was brought before the Mayor and City Council on Monday evening following the Police Commission’s discussion last week.

WIKIPEDIA, with all due respect, KEEPS REPEATING MISTRUTHS. You rival Pravda. Peace out JonathanFeldman (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)JonathanFeldman


 * Yes, I did read all the sources you supplied before I reverted you. I haven't been on Wikipedia for 9 years without learning to do due diligence. That article that mentioned hoverboards did not mention them in the context of the article, which is self-levitating boards. In my edit summary of my revert, I was quite clear on that point. That source refers to the term "hoverboard" in a different context, and using to imply anything about the article subject, which is self-levitating boards, constitutes synthesis.


 * I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can seem byzantine and restrictive.... and when one learns enough about them, one sees that they are necessary to create neutral, fact-based articles appropriate for an encyclopedia rather than a news outlet or blog. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)