User talk:SteveOak

Welcome!
Hello, SteveOak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Rifling twist
The recommended twist rate of a chambering is actually mentioned by the C.I.P. and part in their TDCC's. You can find the value in the Grooves section under the "u =" entry. Some examples http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page23.pdf and http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page97.pdf Since it is not dangerous to fire under or over-stabilized projectiles the twist rate value "u" can be chosen otherwise by a barrel manufacturer without breaking laws in C.I.P. member states. Since barrel manufacturers normally intend to provide customers shooting factory ammunition a satisfactory shooting experience it is common practice the follow the recommended twist rates. Customers who intend to use specialized projectiles normally custom order barrels with deviating twist rates.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Thank you kindly for replying. I do not disagree that there may be a recommended twist rate. My point is that the section is "Specifications". It is not a requirement to follow a recommendation. "Specifications" must be followed within the allowable tolerance. That is not the case with Twist rate. I do not disagree with mentioning the "recommended" twist rate elsewhere in the article but feel that it is not appropriate to place it in the "Specifications" section. Best regards, Steve 72.193.165.187 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Than according to your logic the Template:Infobox firearm cartridge should be changed. It is currently defined as: rifling – optional – typical rifling to stabilize the bullet fired from the cartridge. The Template talk:Infobox firearm cartridge already has a contribution regarding omitting twist rate. I can think of much more discussion points but do not share them in open forums like Wikipedia, since that would encourage people to highly dangerous practices. I know all to well in some jurisdictions people have the freedom the experiment themselves and bystanders to serious injuries or death with ammunition and sometimes do so.--Francis Flinch (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for replying. I agree, the Template:Infobox firearm cartridge should be changed. It is false to state twist rate and som eof the oter information contained there as "Specifications". The Specification box should be divided and "Specification" and "nominal values" should be segregated so as not to cause confusion. Good suggestion. Steve SteveOak (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have another way to approach this that would be easier to implement and still be accurate. For those items presently included in the "Specifications" box that are not actual requirements, such as "Twist Rate", note them as optional or whatever is appropriate. Please let me know if you can agree to that. SteveOak (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Xi'an metro
Can you source your statement that Line 3 "as of October 23rd, 2016 has not yet began operations."? Ar2332 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly for asking. I am living and working in Xi'an. Line 3 will be very convenient for me to use so I check every day. I took a photograph Sunday of two Line 3 stations that were shuttered and locked. SteveOak (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I noticed that in this edit to Fortune 500, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. 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. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was too quick on the button.
 * I have added the explination. SteveOak (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)