User talk:Wireflight

A welcome from Emersoni

Hello, Wireflight, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Enjoy your stay with Wikipedia!

Emersoni 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Scientific racism has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GeneralizationsAreBad. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GAB^Hello! 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Hi,

Thanks for contacting me on my talk page. I have no real connection to the article in particular. The reason I reverted your edit is simple: Wikipedia's policy is not to provide color commentary or "warnings" on the factual state of the article. Some alternatives could be tagging the page with "POV" or the like, and definitely bringing up your concerns on the talk page of the article. I am sure that other editors would be happy to discuss this with you on the talk page. Indeed, I wish I was an enlightened person! Thanks, GAB^Hello! 01:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read your post on the talk page, which is presumably the one which you copied to my page. If you were to make some suggestions and edit proposals (or just be bold and make the change you like), this might be the best course of action. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 02:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information comment under "BMEP Typical Values" section in the article

As of 2017-06-17, at 14:37 CDT (USA), the article contains the following quote: "As piston engines always have their maximum torque at a lower rotating speed than the maximum output, the BMEP is lower at full power."

The article cites piston engines having maximum speeds lower than 16500/pi rpm (approximately 5252 rpm), which is the point at which the numeric values of torque and horsepower are by definition exactly equal. Only above that rpm does the numeric value for horsepower exceed the numeric value for torque; at all lower rpm, the numeric value for torque exceeds the numeric value for horsepower.