Talk:Stick bomb

message: I got sick of the way the insufferable pedants mangled this article which *I* started.  If you want to really learn the history of stick bombs, including my almost exclusive development of them, go to http://www.lunatim.com/kinart/stickhistory.htm and get the real facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.20.49 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE REAL HISTORY ALREADY 

message: While stick bombs are definitely a part of kinetic art, they're significant enough, IMHO, to warrant their own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.23.211 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 
----
"Stick bombs" have nothing to do with kinetic art. Bus stop 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  totally unrelated  

message: Are "stick bombs" different from "frame bombs"? They both use the same concept and technology, but Tim's stick bombs are only one method and frame bombs go into 3D and have lots of different forms. Frame bombs would definitely encompass the old schoolchildren kind. Also, I have a 3000 Popsicle stick frame bomb, but it is not really comparable to Tim's 1900 stick "stick bomb" because it's a different style. Maybe frame bombs should have their own article? I don't know that enough of a following exists. In my area, it's frame bombs all the way, but I don't know that that's a good sample.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe conflo (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  exact definition 

message: How could they be built in the 1500's? They didn't even have craft sticks, or anything I can think of to substitute without knowing what you're after.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe conflo (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: origins

message: I'm removing the safety section since it is completely bogus. Who says you must stand 5m away from a "detonating' stick bomb? Also, safety goggles are not required at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fca neo (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety guidelines 

message: I've decided to dissociate myself completely from this article, despite having started it.  People keep deleting important safety information from this article (you MUST wear safety goggles when making stick bombs).  I keep trying to upload an animated .gif of a stick bomb exploding in slow motion, but some damned bot keeps deleting it.  Finally, people keep deleting the link to my webpage as well--not that the 7 or 8 hits a week I get from it really matters much.  I'd rather put future articles on kinetic art on my own webpage where they can't be mangled by delete-happy Philistines.  I'm outta here...
:Learn how Wikipedia works. No advertising your personal site and give valid fair use information for your images. Also, your stick bomb "records" need a vaild reference. Most of the information you contributed is original research. 90.209.146.56 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: upvote! 70.180.48.16 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Bye

message: can someone tell me how you make stick bombs? it would be useful info to have a step by step guide for the making process (67.171.70.92 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help? 

message: I don't think it's at all apprioriate for this article.
It says it is "necessary" to wear safety googles, that it "must" be done - well, no it mustn't. There is no law that says you have to, you won't be breaking any fundamental laws of mechanics if you don't.  Just because some person thinks it's necessary, just because it might be a good idea, doesn't mean it should become written in stone in an encyclopedia article that you have to do something. 
Safety reccomendations are not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  Maybe for a "howto" page, but that isn't what this is.  This is supposed to tell the reader exactly what a stick bomb is, what it does, and where it comes from.   Safety reccomendations are just, well, almost pretentious.  
Not to mention, safety reccomendations are impossible to source - they are based solely on opinion.  Just beacuse you "think" you have to stand 1 metre away from anybody using a stick bomb, doesn't mean that everybody has to think that aswell.  It is not a fact, it is what somebody thinks.
An encyclopedia is not designed to tell people what to think or how to act.   It's supposed to tell people what stuff is. 
I suggest removing it.
217.42.219.185 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety guideline 

message: Can someone cite an legit reference to stick bomb explosive speeds?  Otherwise, I say it should be removed for lack of reference because it sounds like someone just made up the numbers without it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito151 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stick Bomb explosion speeds?

message: The reference to Handgranade and german Stielgranade makes no sense what so ever. It´s a disgrace. Please delete. 77.132.189.126 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handgranade 

message: Most of this article was written in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules for writing articles.  The person who wrote most of this article was Tim Fort who developed complex stick bombs and thus is in violation of the rule against using original research in Wikipedia articles.  Also, there is no empirical basis for the figures on stick-bomb speeds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.114.130 (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of Rules