Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Explosives Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I noticed that someone had deleted the paragraph on how to make a 'homemade smokebomb'. I have rewritten the formula for it but left out how to mix the ingredients. I am hoping it is now acceptable. PyroTom 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was redirected to this page from "Smoke Generator" and followed a link to "smoke machine." There's absolutely no information on wikipedia about the kind of devices I am interested in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.61.58 (talk • contribs) 22:35, January 5, 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article contain any kind of formula for making napalm? Although the warning makes it slightly more acceptable, it is phenomenally stupid to include this kind of information, much less encourage the using it to create such an extremely dangerous substance! --superscienceman 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I want to do a re-edit in which potassium nitrate and sugar are not melted together, because this is a very dangerous step, and it works just as well to mix it with water and just let it evaporate for a day or two. It can also be made with Paraffin to consolidate it. I just wanted to let you know in advance of the edit. Chem teacher (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For whoever edited the information about the "Legendary Smokebomb" - The compositions you linked to vary both in ratios and the process to make it. it is not the same kind of smokebomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.241.142 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not try this at home failure includes destruction of surrounding area. In most states this is illeigal to make injury is assured if failure takes placeDO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.141.99 (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is probably the worst wikipedia page i have ever read.... it looks like it was written by a bunch of 11 year olds. This article needs significant changes and cited sources! Just because your 12 and think that you're an expert in pyrotechnics doesn't give you the authority to pretend you understand anything! this article sucks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.3.2 (talk • contribs) 16:36, July 5, 2009 (UTC)

Which is not cited, considering the book came out in 2016 and the fact was added around 2009 (Citation notification was added in 2013) I'm just curious as to the rules as using the book as a citation to something that it most likely copied itself from the article, as it is almost word for word and certainly came out after the article, and if this is the case (I'm not aware) Is this a common thing to happen with Wikipedia articles? Book in question is called "The Mad Scientist teaches: Chemistry: 50 Fun science experiments for grades 1 to 8" thanks. PanzerFauster (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page comes nowhere near to meeting the criteria of an acceptable Wikipedia page, and as it stands does more harm than good to the Project. Its purpose and scope are unclear. It has NO relevant external references. (It was first flagged ten years ago, yet still lacks them.) The history section is dubious at best, and the author seems to see no need for ext refs. The scope seems focused on a few prank uses (possibly dangerous), while their military and leak detection uses are not discussed at all.

I have little knowledge of the subject, do not know how such changes should be made, and have no time or interest in addressing this further. But I do think it important to do so because, as it stands, it does a disservice to Wikipedia's reputation . Jimmy Hers (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% this article is just a worse smoke grenade, it is shoddily written and not sourced, I suggest it be deleted, and a sektion on smoke bombs be added to smoke grenades Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So smoke bombs were invented by a dude in the UK in the 1800s but they were being used in 13th century Japan? This makes no sense whatsoever. 35.131.224.205 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you take something and remove the modifiers it often changes the meaning.

"The smoke bomb was first created in 1848...Early Japanese history saw use of a more rudimentary form of the smoke bomb. Explosives were common in Japan during the Mongol invasions of the 13th century."

is not the same as

"The first smoke bomb was created in 1848...Smoke bombs were common in Japan during the Mongol invasions of the 13th century."

If you feel the wording needs to be changed to clarify this, feel free to suggest new wording. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]