370:
policies and perhaps your idea of how things should work will carry the day and the policies will change. Until that happens, nobody gets to singlehandedly decide the rules don't apply to this article, because guess what: Yes, they do. As for your disgust for the wording of the template which will need to remain at the top of the article until the indicated issues are addressed, take it up with those
Wikipedians who work on templates. While you're taking the time to get at least a basic familiarity with how Knowledge works (and how it doesn't), also read
84:
284:, and even if it were, it doesn't support the assertion) another goes to a web page that doesn't support the assertion. FAIL, those are not references. The tags and templates are staying until someone puts up real references. And the paragraphs you complain about having been removed, were not germaine to this article. This article is about the Ford FE engine, not a much later engine not at all related to the FE except both were made by Ford. That engine has its own article. 03:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
74:
53:
530:
22:
764:
A moderated forum still represents each individual person's comments without a true editorial function. And moderators are not likely to expect that content is properly reviewed (fact check, etc.) for use as a cited source. Further, if there is a question whether there are enough reliable sources in
176:
Please note; the changes I made to the 1964/1965 NASCAR info is correct, as the
Chrysler 426 Hemi was NASCAR legal for the 1964 season, as a minimum number of engines wasn't required that year, as long as they were put in assembly line built vehicles. The 1964 NHRA Super Stock Hemi Mopars were built
369:
and/or don't support the assertions they're used on, don't get to stay in this or any other article. Off-topic babble about a 2010 engine completely unrelated to the FE engine also doesn't get to stay. If any of this bothers you, go participate in the ongoing effort to shape the
Knowledge rules and
234:
isn't a reference, either. It's a web page that doesn't say anything at all to support the claim it's being used as a "reference" for. There's a reason why tags and templates get put up on an article. It's so people will come and fix the issues. Taking taking down the tags and templates and putting
965:
The Small Block Ford (90-degree, Windsor V8) began with the introduction of the 221-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 260-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 289-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 302-CID version. Production of the 302-version
483:
As I asked above, I think some common courtesy is called for in your editing. The process, to my way of thinking anyway, should be to flag something as "citation needed" or "orignal research", and then allow some reasonable amount of time (I'm thinking more than a few hours), for other editors to
308:
There, you see? The system works! The two new references added are ideal. The two non-reference "references" still don't get to stay, so I've removed them. Neither does the off-topic material about the non-FE engine, so I've removed that, too. The article still contains a whole lot of unsupported,
180:
NASCAR outlawed the Hemi prior to the beginning of the 1965 season, therefore the comment that it was allowed that entire season is incorrect. They didn't lift the ban on the Hemi until the summer of 1965, in July. If wanted I can present exact dates & additional info on said rule changes.
772:
Yep, it's best not to get in the habit of using non-reliable sources. It's a slippery slope. For instance a user might have gotten part of the information from a reliable source, and a bit from a non-reliable source. There should only be content from the reliable source - and adding unreliable
437:
No, madam or sir, you didn't "add relevancy". All you did was state right out in the open that the 2010 Hurricane engine is completely unrelated to the engine that is the subject of this article, the FE engine, and make a bunch of unsupported assertions about the
Hurricane/Boss engine using
253:===actualy, those ARE references. You don·t decide alone what are and are not ·references·. It should be discussed. Also, it is common courtesy to request a citation, and give editors time to provide the requested citation before arbitrarily deleting entire paragraphs.
776:
If you have a complaint to lodge against someone's conduct, that's a different process. I am not seeing anything here, but most specifically on your talk page, that would be considered "abusive". If after reading the criteria you think the situation meets the
628:
one of the citations is to a commons image file, that is not a verifiable source of information (e.g., a person could create an image file, with the information, what is needed is a secondary, published source, which would include the publisher, title,
737:
Added numbers to respond to the items. Please sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end of the comment. When you "save" your response your user name/IP address will automatically be saved with a date/time stamp.
661:
I have a couple of other comments about the article, but first I'd like to stay focused on the reason for the third opinion request. Is there something else besides needing references that is an issue?--
695:
many of the sources flagged as inadequate are merely secondary to the primary reference and were added to bolster the primary source, so, eliminating sources for appearance sake is the recommendation?
692:
they are moderated forums. If you compare authors with the "published" sources you would find that they are the same...the forum provides them a place to discuss and expand on their published work.
966:
was interrupted by the production of a 255-CID version not mentioned in the article. All of these were "low-deck" Windsor small blocks (by contrast against the "high-deck" 351-CID version. The
208:
446:
support for your claim that Ford reused 1950s engineering in 2010 on a clean-sheet engine design, by all means go ahead and provide the citations. Please remember to keep talk page discussions
891:
225:) for what counts as a reference. You don't get to just make up random factoids that you think sound good and then put whatever random junkola you want in between the < ref : -->
272:
Dude, no. Actually, they're NOT references, regardless of whatever discussion you think is going to happen here. That's because "reference" is defined for
Knowledge-wide use. See
909:
905:
709:
264:
343:
984:
442:. The "V" stands for "Verifiable". Questionable/unsupported/dubious assertions are likely to be removed, and that's what has happened here. If you can find some
140:
189:
492:
332:
References are
Excellent! as long as they include Barry R's book? When that is replaced by a different reference, then suddenly you're unhappy again.
303:
785:
and you have specific examples of added content (link with compared text) that is abusive, click on the
ConductDispute link and follow the process.--
848:
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add
757:
713:
595:. I'm not sure that I'm clear about all the issues, but regarding references, there is definitely an issue and I tagged the article with the
404:
added relevancy. What will you be unhappy with now? Are you using this contretemps as a substitute for real person-to-person interactions?
804:
504:
459:
419:
391:
1008:
130:
988:
637:
of the citations should be reviewed to ensure the content is reliable, verifiable, with secondary sources and correctly formatted per
960:
649:, with review of the common parameters used. (I used these links because it seems that templates are used throughout the article).
201:
106:
973:
I don't know why the
Editing Talk page associated my comments with the Ford FE engine, to which they obviously don't relate.
705:
955:
1003:
171:
260:
197:
500:
451:
411:
383:
339:
320:
291:
242:
980:
97:
58:
769:
issue. Since your saying that these people have written books - why not use the books as a reference? I'm confused.
680:
582:
357:
Oh, good, you're here. Look, it doesn't matter who writes the books used as references, it matters whether they're
824:
908:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
607:
347:
235:
in bogus "references" doesn't improve the article, it damages it. Cut it out! 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
165:
158:
33:
480:
I added current references that refer to the
Hurricane as the modern version of the 427 FE SOHC. Be happy.
927:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
313:
violations, so the templates at the top of the article need to stay put. 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
277:
231:
227:
856:
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
615:
276:
for starters, and, once again, one of your so-called "references", which formerly went to nowhere, now
778:
698:
thanks, no comments about abusive editors? AT LEAST WE KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT PROBLEMS TO ADDRESS.
365:
and support the assertions they're used on, get to stay in the article. "References" that don't meet
621:
a book was used, but there's no page number, which means that it makes it very difficult to verify (
798:
782:
751:
674:
576:
633:
A lot of the citations do not have the common parameters for the cite type. From what I can tell,
450:. That means discussing the article, not what you imagine other editors' personal lives are like.
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
622:
592:
193:
912:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
618:
because there is no editorial control to ensure that the information is accurate and verifiable.
928:
603:
496:
455:
415:
387:
324:
295:
246:
947:
915:
861:
646:
557:
is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
520:
39:
976:
935:
882:
766:
701:
549:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on
488:
407:
335:
316:
287:
256:
238:
185:
8:
773:
sources is not needed. You just need one citation per cited text, so I am again confused.
642:
596:
230:
is not a reference. Go on, click it and see where it leads you...absolutely nowhere! And
21:
894:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
638:
970:
Knowledge page mentions both of these engines (viz. the 221 and the 255), and others.
934:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
843:
786:
739:
662:
564:
943:
438:
valvetrain geometry from the FE engine. Remember, content on the Knowledge must be
226:
tags, close your eyes and wish real hard, and turn it magically into a reference.
851:
837:
654:
542:
Dispute over reference and content acceptability. 21:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) )
447:
553:
and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The
833:
550:
379:
222:
900:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
997:
371:
310:
765:
books, magazines, newspapers and other reliable sources, then you've got a
535:
443:
366:
362:
358:
281:
273:
218:
901:
554:
439:
375:
214:
177:
on the assembly line, therefore making the Hemi NASCAR "legal" for 1964.
89:
102:
529:
73:
52:
867:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
862:
http://www.bluebird-electric.net/tony_densham_commuter.htm
832:
I have just added archive links to one external link on
614:
a forum or a blog was used - this is not an example of
606:
tags with the reason on several of the citations (See:
309:
questionable assertions, many of which look a lot like
209:
Non-reference "references", deletion of tags/templates
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
904:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
484:note your concerns and take steps to address them.
995:
359:reliable sources as defined by this encyclopedia
890:This message was posted before February 2018.
591:I am here because I saw the posting at
19:
996:
879:to let others know (documentation at
657:was run that cleaned up 12 citations.
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
1009:Low-importance Automobile articles
14:
1020:
961:Windsor Engine List is Incomplete
836:. Please take a moment to review
213:The Knowledge has rules (such as
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Automobiles
528:
118:Template:WikiProject Automobiles
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
860:Attempted to fix sourcing for
539:
505:03:44, 28 February 2014‎ (UTC)
1:
989:04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
805:21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
758:21:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
714:18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
681:17:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
583:17:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
540:Talk:Ford_FE_engine#Excellent
460:18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
420:13:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
392:01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
348:13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
172:1964/1965 NASCAR information
7:
1004:C-Class Automobile articles
653:The interactive portion of
10:
1025:
956:01:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
921:(last update: 5 June 2024)
854:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
829:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
563:better sources are needed
141:project's importance scale
134:
67:
46:
278:goes to an advertisement
202:01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
825:External links modified
361:. References that meet
98:WikiProject Automobiles
604:Template:Better source
28:This article is rated
655:Reflinks utility tool
647:Template:Cite journal
645:, and for a magazine
555:third opinion process
536:third opinion request
902:regular verification
968:Ford Windsor engine
892:After February 2018
871:parameter below to
616:WP:Reliable sources
602:There are also now
597:Template:Refimprove
121:Automobile articles
897:InternetArchiveBot
34:content assessment
991:
979:comment added by
954:
922:
783:WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE
704:comment added by
625:) the information
589:
588:
508:
491:comment added by
410:comment added by
338:comment added by
319:comment added by
290:comment added by
259:comment added by
241:comment added by
205:
188:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1016:
974:
950:
949:Talk to my owner
945:
920:
919:
898:
886:
855:
847:
801:
795:
794:
754:
748:
747:
716:
677:
671:
670:
623:WP:Verifiability
593:WP:Third opinion
579:
573:
572:
532:
525:
524:
507:
485:
422:
350:
328:
299:
268:
250:
204:
182:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1014:
1013:
994:
993:
963:
953:
948:
913:
906:have permission
896:
880:
849:
841:
827:
799:
788:
787:
752:
741:
740:
706:173.165.107.105
699:
675:
664:
663:
577:
566:
565:
523:
486:
405:
333:
314:
306:
285:
280:(not legal per
254:
236:
211:
183:
174:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1022:
1012:
1011:
1006:
962:
959:
946:
940:
939:
932:
865:
864:
840:. You may add
834:Ford FE engine
826:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
774:
770:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
696:
693:
659:
658:
631:
630:
626:
619:
587:
586:
559:
558:
551:Ford FE engine
546:
545:
522:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
481:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
397:
396:
395:
394:
352:
351:
305:
302:
301:
300:
210:
207:
173:
170:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1021:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
1001:
999:
992:
990:
986:
982:
978:
971:
969:
958:
957:
951:
944:
937:
933:
930:
926:
925:
924:
917:
911:
907:
903:
899:
893:
888:
884:
878:
874:
870:
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
845:
839:
835:
830:
806:
802:
796:
793:
792:
784:
780:
775:
771:
768:
767:WP:Notability
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
755:
749:
746:
745:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
715:
711:
707:
703:
697:
694:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
678:
672:
669:
668:
656:
652:
651:
650:
648:
644:
640:
636:
627:
624:
620:
617:
613:
612:
611:
609:
605:
600:
598:
594:
585:
584:
580:
574:
571:
570:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
543:
541:
537:
531:
527:
526:
521:Third opinion
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
482:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
421:
417:
413:
409:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
331:
330:
329:
326:
322:
318:
312:
297:
293:
289:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:
266:
262:
261:71.23.137.141
258:
251:
248:
244:
240:
233:
229:
224:
220:
216:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:Bluesman Mark
187:
178:
169:
168:
167:
162:
161:
160:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
975:— Preceding
972:
967:
964:
941:
916:source check
895:
889:
876:
872:
868:
866:
831:
828:
791:CaroleHenson
790:
789:
744:CaroleHenson
743:
742:
700:— Preceding
667:CaroleHenson
666:
665:
660:
643:WP:Cite book
634:
632:
601:
590:
569:CaroleHenson
568:
567:
562:
534:Response to
533:
493:12.73.238.42
487:— Preceding
452:24.87.84.143
412:12.73.237.43
406:— Preceding
384:24.87.84.143
340:12.73.237.22
334:— Preceding
321:24.87.84.143
315:— Preceding
307:
292:24.87.84.143
286:— Preceding
255:— Preceding
252:
243:24.87.84.143
237:— Preceding
212:
184:— Preceding
179:
175:
164:
163:
157:
156:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
981:50.86.48.33
883:Sourcecheck
639:WP:Cite web
610:, because:
112:Automobiles
103:automobiles
90:Cars portal
59:Automobiles
998:Categories
936:this tool
929:this tool
738:Thanks!--
608:this edit
304:Excellent
166:Archive 2
159:Archive 1
977:unsigned
942:Cheers.—
844:cbignore
779:criteria
702:unsigned
501:contribs
489:unsigned
448:WP:CIVIL
408:unsigned
336:unsigned
317:unsigned
288:unsigned
257:unsigned
239:unsigned
198:contribs
186:unsigned
952::Online
869:checked
838:my edit
380:WP:BRDC
223:WP:CITE
139:on the
30:C-class
877:failed
852:nobots
372:WP:UGH
311:WP:NOR
36:scale.
629:etc.)
599:tag.
444:WP:RS
367:WP:RS
363:WP:RS
282:WP:RS
274:WP:RS
219:WP:RS
985:talk
873:true
800:talk
781:for
753:talk
710:talk
676:talk
578:talk
497:talk
456:talk
440:WP:V
416:talk
388:talk
378:and
376:WP:V
374:and
344:talk
325:talk
296:talk
265:talk
247:talk
232:this
228:This
221:and
217:and
215:WP:V
194:talk
910:RfC
887:).
875:or
635:all
131:Low
1000::
987:)
923:.
918:}}
914:{{
885:}}
881:{{
850:{{
846:}}
842:{{
803:)
756:)
712:)
679:)
641:,
581:)
544::
503:)
499:•
458:)
418:)
390:)
382:.
346:)
327:)
298:)
267:)
249:)
200:)
196:•
983:(
938:.
931:.
797:(
750:(
708:(
673:(
575:(
538:(
495:(
454:(
414:(
386:(
342:(
323:(
294:(
263:(
245:(
192:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
