Talk:SU carburettor: Difference between revisions
AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →peswiki.com as a source: new section |
Undid revision 470462326 by AndyTheGrump (talk) remove un civil material |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
: Did I write those? I would have done. The beauty of the SU ''is'' that it's a simple and elegant mechanism. Emulsion tubes, in comparison, are a horror. It wants citation of course, but I (as someone who has built a good many engines with both SUs / Strombergs and Webers) would strongly agree with everything you quoted here. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) |
: Did I write those? I would have done. The beauty of the SU ''is'' that it's a simple and elegant mechanism. Emulsion tubes, in comparison, are a horror. It wants citation of course, but I (as someone who has built a good many engines with both SUs / Strombergs and Webers) would strongly agree with everything you quoted here. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) |
||
== peswiki.com as a source == |
|||
The peswiki.com source is about as unreliable as one could find - a wiki (obviously) linked to a conspiracy-theory pushing 'free energy/cold fusion/gravity motor/tinfoil-hat-required' blog. Can I ask that someone finds an alternative source for this article. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:06, 9 January 2012
Copyright violations
The entire History section of this article, as well as SU carburetor are taken from the SU Carburetter Company corporate site. The text was added on November 6, 2009 but User:Burlenwiki. I will add both this site and SU Caruretter to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 May 19 Scottanon (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violations Explantations
The history information contained on this page was indeed taken from the SU Carburetter Company corporate website. This is because we own the SU Carburetter Company and hold all of the copyrights as it was our company that wrote the original history featured of the corporate site itself. 14:08, 20 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burlenwiki (talk • contribs)
Very Opinionated and Weasely
This article desperately needs a rewrite from somebody other than the manufacturer of the SU. It is crammed with weasely opinions with almost no citations. "The beauty of the SU lies in its simplicity and lack of multiple jets and ease of adjustment" is a bad one, and so is referring to the venturi carburettor as "an inherently inaccurate device whose design must incorporate many complex fudges to obtain usable accuracy of fuelling." Andacar (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did I write those? I would have done. The beauty of the SU is that it's a simple and elegant mechanism. Emulsion tubes, in comparison, are a horror. It wants citation of course, but I (as someone who has built a good many engines with both SUs / Strombergs and Webers) would strongly agree with everything you quoted here. Andy Dingley (talk)