Talk:Ford N-series tractor

Automobiles C‑class Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture C‑class Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NAA section removed

The entire NAA section was ripped from here, as such, it's been removed. --Sable232 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some rather heated edit-warring, User:174.130.54.221 has finally stated that they are the copyright holders - see User talk:174.130.54.221 -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but they have to explicitly release the content under the WP:GFDL, see WP:COPY for further info. – B.hotep •talk• 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just commenting here for info - didn't realise they were still reverting. I've added a comment to the editor's Talk page, pointing them over here again -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was hoping they were going to come over here and see my message (it wasn't really directed at you, I'm sure you're quite capable :) ). – B.hotep •talk• 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of my copyrighted material and do not want it to be part of Wikipedia anymore. I do not wish to contribute to Wikipedia since it is obviously not appreciated after I added a lot of information and then I'm told that I'm vandalizing Wikipedia. Please look back at my history. I do not vandalize Wikipedia, never have, never will. All I did was contribute good information. Please do not add this content back on. It is copyrighted by me and you do not have my permission to use it. No wonder Wikipedia is so screwed up with all the misinformed people editing it. When someone tries to edit and put good information that is factual nobody wants it. Then fine. I will contribute no more. Thanks for ruining a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.54.221 (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry you've chosen to do that. People do appreciate your efforts and contributions, but Wikipedia has to have very careful procedures for including copyrighted material on the site - even if it is your own material, it still needs to be explicitly released for re-use according to the GNU Free Documentation License. This is no attempt to offend or insult you, or to dismiss your efforts. But the rules have to be very carefully formulated to protect against people who are less scrupulous than your good self. We can't just accept someone saying "It's my material, so I can copy it here", because it's impossible for anyone at Wikipedia to confirm that you are who you say you are - anyone could register here at Wikipedia, say they are the author of your web site, and steal and republish all your material. And that's one reason why we need verifiable evidence from the source of the material that we can use it, not from the Wikipedia account of the editor claiming it's theirs and doing the copying (even if in real life they really are the same person). I do hope you will understand, and will reconsider and follow Wikipedia's approach to using copyright material. (Copied to your talk page too) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this troll is the copyright holder... the website says its proprietor is in Illinois, yet this IP resolves to Pennsylvania.

I also don't believe the serial number thing the IP deleted is copyrightable (whether on not it should be here anyway is debatable though). --Sable232 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAA section

This section has been moved to a separate article as this was a new tractor with very few parts carried over from the N-series and is actually more closely related the 600 series and other later numbered tractors. The infobox was added to make the article more similar to other tractor-related articles. Nyth83 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too saw the recent removal (undoing of Nyth83's edits) without any explanatory edit summaries. I did not know, without spending time to closely investigate, whether this was well-founded or ill-founded, so I had to assume good faith and let it pass. But I support undoing it if Nyth83 knows the details of whether it is desirable (which I did not know) and if the editor does not explain better. Please explain here at Talk or in edit summaries when you are wiping out whole chunks of content. — ¾-10 23:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Nyth83's edits because he obviously doesn't know that the NAA is still an N Series tractor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.111.231 (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The NAA in most definitely NOT an N-series tracter. It was a new design and shares very few parts with the N-series. It share more parts with the 600 series tractorts which were derived from it. Nyth83 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: In late '52 Ford introduced the new NAA series tractor for '53 which marked the end of 8N production. 1953 was Ford's 50th anniversary so the new tractor was called the Golden Jubilee in celebration of that event. The NAA - Jubilee had a more powerful overhead valve engine, live hydraulics, and redesigned front sheet metal with the "cyclops" medallion in the center of the hood. It was slightly taller, longer, and heavier than the 8N.. Also see this video: The New Ford Tractor 1953. The tractor also had an all-new overhead valve engine vs the sidevalve engine in the N-series. Nyth83 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this quote from oldfordtractors: The 600 series was basically the 134 cubic inch NAA with a few updates. You certainly can't claim that the 600 series tractor was part of the N-series. Nyth83 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this page Parts Catalog. The NAA is in the same catalog as the the 600, 700, and 800 series and the 9N, 2N and 8N are in a different catalog. Nyth83 (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyth83 you are incorrect. The NAA is still considered to be an N Series tractor even though it is quite different than the other N Series tractors. Note the N in the Model that is why it is an N Series tractor. A lot of people do not know that Ford considered the NAA an N Series tractor. You can deny it all you want, but the NAA is still an N Series tractor! Visit N Tractor Club and you will see that they show the NAA as an N Series Tractor. Look right on the home page. Read the models they have listed as N Series Tractors.

N Tractor Club 98.21.111.231 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyth83, Did you bother to read the video description of that YouTube video you linked to me? This one: The New Ford Tractor 1953. Read the whole description. The guy calls the NAA an N Series tractor several times in the description! You can deny it all you want, but the NAA is still an N Series tractor! 98.21.111.231 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]