Talk:Listing and approval use and compliance

Author's Rebuttal To MikeDayoub

OK, I tried to do this in private e-mails, to which you do not respond, so here goes:

thanks for your interest in my business, but I have no intention of discussing my business plans with you. If I violate NPOV, please bring it to my attention.

I don't have the remotest interest in your business, nor your plans. Nor did I ask about your plans, as you falsely and knowingly claim. It is obvious that you cannot establish bounding for any product that has no test standards or tests. It is likewise obvious that commercial success for a construction and fire protection product is hampered when those fundamentals do not exist. That is what is at issue and that is the basis of your discomfort with this article. If it were anything else, you would have pointed this out.--Achim 00:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your interest in the topic is commercial. You have invented a product and patented it and it is listed right here:

http://www.freshpatents.com/Power-strip-with-smoke-detection-auto-shutoff-dt20050804ptan20050168901.php

Your background in fire protection cannot be found on the web, apart from the above mentioned patent text. No building code and no fire code makes the use of your product mandatory. Consequently, no test standards exist to test it or compare it to anything else. Consequently, you have no acceptable proof that it works, because that is ordinarily established through the existence of active product certification, for which you are not eligible, and for which your text indicates you have no funding.

You stated below, a few days ago, that you agreed that you should become an expert in fire protection before editing subject related text. Your written agreement can be seen below. When it became clear that you have no significant background are in the field and are unlikely to become with great rapidity and without working in the field, you then decided to write from the "reader's", or in other words layman's perspective.

Suddenly, a few days later, you sent me a note suggesting that unless I debate you publicly, after refusing to engage in this via e-mail between us, you indicate that you will do a major re-write.

Let's make one thing very clear: All that bounding is, is that field-installed products and systems conform in all respects to the product certification listings, such as those available from Underwriters Laboratories. Since no code calls for your product and no standard exists to test it, you are not eligible for certification of your product, which I believe is your exclusive interest in here. If someone used your product without certification, there would probably be no law against it. However, nobody will touch it because without any certification, people worry about potential problems. Nobody will listen long enough to understand that going above and beyond the code (by using your product) is OK in and of itself and until industry supports your concept not much will happen.

Therefore, the concept of bounding is a thorn in your side because it is the very thing that keeps people from accepting, marketing, buying and selling your product. That, however, is not so much a legal requirement for your product as it is the necessity for comfort level with your product to stimulate the sales you want. That is exclusively what is at issue, which explains your sudden interest after the publication of your patent. If it were of interest generally, you would have challenged the matter previously. I did not want to air this here, but you forced my hand.

Now, specifically to your statements below:

The origin of the term is from the nuclear industry. Speak to anyone at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the OWFN building, for instance, or any licensed reactor, and you will hear that everyone knows that installed configurations must be bounded by acceptable test results. That is where the term is from.

Industry extended its use to the commercial/industrial realm.

The fact that you have questions about this underlies the fact that you have a way to go to attain your expert status.

MikeDayoub's Added Note

Added note: it occurs to me that perhaps we have a language issue? Maybe you're referring to whether certification is legally binding, i.e. whether it is a legal requirement that a certification test lab's standards be implemented? or whether a test lab is a legally binding authority, i.e. it is illegal to sell products of that category unless they are certified by the lab? --MikeDayoub 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Author's Reply: There is no language issue. The origin of the term is explained above. Your comment clearly exposes your fundamental need for industry understanding. The certification or testing lab uses public standards and when it publishes results of the tests, it is required to be able to document that it adhered to the standards in getting the results. Nobody on a construction site, for instance, can comply with ASTM E119. It's not possible. They don't fire test inside construction sites. UL has to comply to it whilst running a test. An authority likewise cannot be legally binding. Contractual terms are legally binding for parties to a contract.

MikeDayoub new definition of what bounding is NOT

Actually, bounding does not refer to a legal requirement. In the context of test labs, bounding refers to the max and minimum of test criteria. For example, in electronics one such parameter which is subject to bounding is the maximum joules a product will be subject to in a power surge test. Another example of bounding is when smoke detectors are tested, they are bounded by the conditions the detector would be subject to such as temperature, humidity, smoke density (obscuration) etc. Example: [1]

Author's Reply:

Laboratories comply with test standards in order to maintain their accreditation. You could extend the term into that realm if you wish but it is not customary and I suggest you get acceptance from somone in the field of testing and certification. I don't think they're interested in the help. In the construction field, and particularly, though not exclusively, in fire protection, bounding, again, means that installed systems comply with certification listings in all respects.

MikeDayoub suggested advantages of bounding

The advantages of bounding are

• customer usage of tested products can be recommended to be limited to those bounds
• designs can be bounded (example: what the WTC can withstand in terms of shock, heat, etc.)
• predictable test conditions

Author's Reply: It does not matter what you think the advantages of bounding are. The issue is code compliance. "Customer" terms are completely irrelevant here. Codes define that items whose fucntionality must be demonstrable, such as a 2 hour fire-resistance rating, must be tested to a public standard, such as ASTM E119. The standard number is shown in the code text. The codes further define that the items used in the field must be included at the time of test. That's the way codes put it. You cannot expect municipal building inspectors and fire prevention officers to pore over test results for every widget on a construction site. That would take ages. Consequently, they use the short versions of the test results, which are listings. Items installed in the field that comply with the listings in all respects are bounded. An Authority Having Jurisdiction, is obliged by mandate to accept only the nationally accredited laboraties, who have accreditation not only for testing, but also for certification. This makes sense, because testers write no listings. Nobody would take responsibility for interpreting test results. That is why certifiers write listings. That is why AHJ's will only accept certification listings by nationally accredited certifiers, such as UL, ULC, etc. The use of such listings to be sure that installed conficurations are bounded, is the construction industry's means of complying with its fire codes and building codes. Whatever other advantages you may see, are not relevant. The only thing that matters here is the ability to prove that code compliance has been achieved. The absence of code compliance spells negligence and thus culpability. In construction, there is no tolerance for venturing outside this realm, which is what is hampering the commercial success of any products that do not fit the mould. To check this out for yourself, ask a local building inspector or fire prevention officer about using products that do not have this sort of back-up. In any civilised country, the result will be the same. If the use of the product is mandated by code, you have no alternative but to provide the back-up. If it goes above and beyond the code, you're on your own anyway. You advocate the use of your product for unoccupied buildings. The primary purpose of codes is life safety. If there's nobody whose life needs to be saved, you're into property protection and coninuity of operations, which falls outside the normal realm of codes in the first place.

MikeDayoub's belief about the use of bounding for structural fire protection

In terms of structural fire protection, I believe bounding refers to surfaces of a structure where thermal transfer can be measured and inhibited, firestops can be installed, and smoke containment is possible. I don't think it's a legal term implying some sort of protection or liability, except for when products are used outside of the bounds defined for tests or implementation. Example: [2] (a municipal fire code) If you can provide references to support bounding as some sort of legal term, please do so because it would be a valuable learning experience for me. Unless references can be cited to support the previous versions of this article, I recommend it be replaced with a much shorter definition and the older content be moved to more suitable articles on test lab certification. MikeDayoub 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Author's Reply

Here's an example from the code text in the hyperlink you provided:

c. Subsection R323.1.7 is hereby revised to read as follows:

"R323.1.7 Flood-resistant materials. Building materials used below the design flood elevation shall comply with the following:

"1. All wood, including floor sheathing, shall be pressure-preservatively treated in accordance with AWPA U1 for the species, product, preservative and end use or the decay-resistant heartwood of redwood, black locust, or cedars. Preservatives shall conform to AWPA P1/13, P2, P3 or P5.

"2. Materials and installation methods used for flooring and interior and exterior walls and wall coverings shall conform to the provisions of FEMA/FIA-TB-2."

The FEMA standard mentioned can also be found here: http://www.portsmouthva.gov/planning/flood_irc2000_r327.htm

When installed configurations comply with systems or certification listings published by accredited certifiers, they are bounded

Here is a specific government text reference to the term bounding in passive fire protection

A direct quote from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

6. Comment. The basic premise of the NRC rule change fails to address industry experience in properly bounding fire tests for the myriad of fire seal configurations deployed throughout nuclear power stations. In one case, the licensee improperly used a single test to bound 2000 fire barrier penetration seals in many different fire seal configurations. This omission does not lend to the credibility of the agency's argument. Such evidence documents improperly tested seal configurations.

You can find that sentence on the following website from the US Government:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2000/secy2000-0080/2000-0080scy.html

Here is another text reference from http://www.nirs.org/:

3.1.c The Petitioner contends that after Duke Power performed the three-hour fire tests at Omega Point Laboratories they utilized a hose stream test in accordance with requirements of EEEI 634. The referenced test standard is used exclusively for electrical penetrations using a light shower of a fog nozzle hose stream test. The test required for all other penetrations seals (mechanical, seismic, etc.) is ASTM-E and requires a hose stream test that uses a standardized one and a half inch nozzle at 30 psi.

The Petitioner contends that the Duke Power fire test does not provide an adequate test for standard fire fighting techniques likely to be utilized in the event of fire at the applicant units. The much gentler fog nozzle hose stream test provides for a preserving shower of water and does not simulate the pressure rating behind a standardized play pipe hose stream.

The Petitioner therefore contends that the Duke qualifying fire tests do not provide the appropriate bounding hose stream test for fire barrier penetrations seals in the applicant units to include all mechanical seals.

This quote is copied and pasted from this website:

http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/mox/nirsmcguirecatawbacontentions.htm

Installation requires that additional insulation material be placed on the top section of the cable trays, which, in turn, provides a more restrictive heat transfer system, potentially causing the cables to heat up to temperatures higher than those predicted by the test. This is a non-conservative requirement outside the bounding limits of the test. The 50°F rise above ambient temperature is questionable since the tests were performed in a warehouse without controlling the surrounding ambient air temperature.

That passage was copied and pasted from the following website:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/1999/secy1999-204/1999-204scy.html

MikeDayoub's question about attention on pfp for bounding

Why does Bounding in structural fire protection merit special attention in this article? Are we expecting an expert in consumer electronics to contribute a similar paragraph? and another expert on pharmaceuticals, etc?--MikeDayoub 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Author's Reply:

While the use of the term may be extended to other areas, its origin is PFP in the nuclear industry. It has spread to the commercial and industrial realms. The definition provided here certainly does not limit its use to other fields.

--Achim 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

MikeDayoub's new questions after Author's replies above, 19. August 2006

May I edit this page so that bounding is closer to the description you provided here in the talk pages?

All that bounding is, is that field-installed products and systems conform in all respects to the product certification listings, such as those available from Underwriters Laboratories

I find it much clearer than the article's current introduction which defines bounding as a legal term.

In terms of your authorship, I will be respectful of your contributions, keeping in mind Wiki guidelines regarding original thought. My intent as an editor is to improve the clarity of these articles and I will adhere to Wiki guidelines. I won't dispute your expert background but on Wikipedia we are both editors without ranking.

In terms of proposed edits for this article, I expect ultimately more suitable topics for this article are

• standards,
• bounding for design, and
• bounding for test inputs and test outputs.

It might also be useful if we find citable prose for how bounding reduces liability for designers and implementors of procedures, emergency plans, products, structures and facilities. I will attempt to document verifiability using citations and links for some of the other prose in this article. The section on structural fire protection I propose moved to a fire protection article. The sections on confidentiality and governmental accreditation I propose be moved to articles describing different uses and types of test labs. MikeDayoub 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Author's Reply:

• 1. your editing question

You are free to edit, as is anyone else. Reversing edits is also equally fair ball, especially if the edits are demonstrably without basis in fact. The above questions and answers clearly establish your need for expert knowledge in this field, without which, it is unwise to alter expert text. That does not prevent you from editing, but at some point, it may be deemed vandalism. You were clearly proven wrong above, offered no counter argument and refused to keep the debate to e-mail between us, preferring to carry on a dispute on here. Even the commercial basis, as the sole motivation for your edits, the motive of commercial success for your patent [3], you have no rebuttal for. The offer to have a telephone discussion, you likewise did not respond to. Instead, more verbiage on here.

• 2. "bounding as a legal term"

You are still not getting it, after many repetitions of the same thing, in the article, on this talk page and in e-mails to your house. Legal back-up for an installed configuration, or due diligence is proven via bounding. there are now three places for you to look this up...

• 3. "proposed edits by Michael Dayoub"

• standards,
• bounding for design, and
• bounding for test inputs and test outputs.

Again, you still don't get it. While it is possible to extend the term to those or a number of other fields, it is not currently in use there. It would not sui any purpose whatsoerver for you to attempt to superimpose terminology into any fields of which you obviously know absolutely nothing. You don't know about these fields because they are not your fields. You have a commercial interest in the success of your patent. You perceive this article appears to be a thorn in your side. If you attempt to use Wikipedia to superimpose terminology into unrelated fields, that is called vandalism and it will get you locked out of here. If you told me that you were a member on a task group at Undwrwriters Laboratories or ASTM or ULC on a consensus standard and the term were used there, then your word would carry some credibility. However, that does not appear to be the case. Bounding is a field term in construction. No standard is deemed to be "bounded" by anything. That is not the language used in the standards writing world, of which I have been a part and of which you have no knowledge whatsoever, as is extremely clear from your prose here.

Likewise, design teams in cosntructions muist abide by codes and the standards to which the refer and sound engineering practice. While the term could be used there, there is no evidence that it is actually in use, which would make your contemplated edits nothing other than commercially motivated vandalism.

• Test inputs and outputs?

That little catchphrase you just invented is likewise not in use in the world of product testing and certification. I have run hundreds of tests over the years in my own labs and in third party labs such as ULI, ULC, TUB, Nelson/Tulsa and more. You can see one example right here: http://www.geocities.com/astximw/test.html. The term bounding is not used in that realm. It IS used where described in the article.

So, I can't stop you from editing and neither can you stop anyone else from reversing what you intend to do. If you're going to do it though, I suggest you do your homework a little better and answer the biggest question of all:

What is MikeDayoub's editing motive apart from his commercial interest in his patent [4], which has trouble succeeding because its use is not a code requirement and because there is no specific standard to test it meaning that bounding cannot be established, which hampers distribution and sales?--Achim 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to MikeDayoub:

Check out my latest edit to see if that makes you happy:

Bounding refers to a legal requirement for goods and services whose use is mandated by law. It means adhering to the requirements of installing and/or using safety-related products and items in conformance with an active certification listing that has been issued by an organisation that is nationally accredited both for testing AND product certification.

Products whose use is not mandated by any building codes or fire codes often lack a consensus test method. Unless there is a test standard in existence to prove the functionality and reliability of such a product, there can be no certification listings and thus no bounding. Such new products may be seen as optional, or going above and beyond the requirements of a code.--Achim 00:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Queen's English

1. Surely a technical term ought not to have evolved a definition that's too far from common sense meaning. Shouldn't "bounding" mean (a) necessity of the set of bounds is satisfied by the instance: that a particular system's components can be demonstrated to have measurable attributes that are within the bounds that would be necessary for acceptable performance (necessary -- that if not all were satisfied then unacceptable performance would/could occur); and (b) the set of bounds is sufficient: that as long as each attribute is within its bound, then that is sufficient to guarantee that a system will have acceptable performance?

If you want to see a technical term that's too stretched, check out the definition of "ideas of reference" in DSM IV TR.

2. "[...] insurance adjusters will seek evidence that bounding has generally been occurred." "Been occurred"???! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.13.131 (talk)

Bounding as a term

Following on the previous comment (Queen's English), I question the use of the word bounding as referenced in this article, and as referenced in many other WP articles. The word bounding or bound is not found in any independant source I can find, making the word as used in these articles a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. It is not used in this context anywhere in NFPA codes, by UL, in model building codes, or in any standard fire protection resources (e.g., The NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, or The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering).

The references cited above in the discussions between Achim and MikeDayoub are citations of the term used by an individual making comments to a large regulatory agency. However, the agency itself only uses the term in responding to the original use of the word in those comments.

The information included in the article is not at issue in this comment - only the definition of the term itself. NFPA uses the term listing in this context, which is a broadly accepted and used term. Fireproeng 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the question before the court is whether or not we have a reliable source to substantiate the use of the word "bounding" as the definining word for this concept. If we can find a proper citation for "listing", then we need to move the article to that title. I recommend Listing (safety) as the move target in that case. However, we have a bigger problem first. There are NO citations whatsoever for this article. Thus before we even think about worrying about big changes, we need to get a whole load of citations to verify what's already in there. I consider that far more important at this juncture. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is now a defined term Certification listing, with a representative example of the plethora of listings. The references in this talk page provide ample evidence of the use of the term, which perhaps you two don't seem to understand. The mere suggestion of equivalency between listing and bounding indicates a fundamental lack of understanding. The article is very clear, even though the FPE handbook authors may be unaware of it. In the first place, I don't see that as an authoritative source on the topic of testing and complying with listings. But even for the novice: you have an installed configuration, it complies with a listing, it is now bounded. You have a 20A circuit, you now put in a 30A fuse, it is no longer bounded because it is being used outside the parameters of the applicable certification listing. It overloads and you have a fire - that's why. The article is self-explanatory, as is the use of the term in industry, even if you two are not familiar with it. The references are equally clear, both from the government (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and from industry, both nuclear and non-nuclear. The term originated in nuclear and has spread from there, as the article indicates. It is also a very necessary term, because otherwise you get more novices out there using terms like "approved" when they really mean that there's a UL listing on something with no clear idea whether or not the installed configuration is in compliance. Example: a 1 hour rated spray fire proofing, with a UL listing, used when it should be a 2 hour rated system. The novice or charlatan says "approved" because it makes you feel good. Bounded is different. Now you actually look at the certification listing and find out that perhaps the "listed" stuff was listed for a flame spread rating and then used as a firestop. The presence of a listing is one thing. Complying with it in all respects of an installed configuration is another. Before dissing the term and tagging it without an understanding despite the clarity of the provided material, you may want to actually look through the plethora of links provided in the talk page plus the ones added to the article itself. --Achim 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept that the final use configuration of a safety component or system should be within the limits of the design rating (or "listing"), which is based on testing, is clear and is not being questioned, so it does not need further explanation. The term is what's at issue. The sources cited are self referencing as explained above. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research for guidelines for adequate sources, especially the section on Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Also, the primary sources cited use the term "bound" in the context of "encompassing" or in establishing "boundaries".

Additionally, extending this very limited use of the word to anything other than fire-stops as referenced in the nuclear industry is not supported by any sources at all. Fireproeng 06:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is being used beyond the realm you mentioned in the very links cited. If you read them, you will find that. Apart from that is is a necessary term, better than the code lingo "included at the time of test", which does not hit the nail on the head exactly. The fact is that a plethory of back-up exists. The article is referenced multifold through governmental sources. So what's your real problem here? That FPE's haven't hear about it? They use it in the realm. Just check with NRR (where a load of them typically work by the way, crating paperwork to justify the use of testing done minus accreditation), for instance, and you'll find it in use far beyond firestopping. --Achim 21:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is with the editor offering the text. I have read some of the sources, and I have not seen the use of the term anywhere near to the extent you cite. If there are sources, please cite them explicitly. This is not a question of who knows what – if there are not proper sources per WP guidelines, the term does not merit an article or use in WP. Fireproeng 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "bounding" is a common term used for many years by the NRC and the fire protection engineers at Underwriters Lab. It is the term used to describe the acceptable range of a tested systems acceptance. For example if you fire test a simple schedule 40 pipe system, the annulus space, coatings on the pipe, and all perimeters of the test configuration has been determined to be the bounding limits of the design. I don't understand that after 30 years in the passive fire protection field why we are asking Wikipedia to determine something like a "personal definition" of an industry used term in fire barrier testing configuration-bounding limits? This article simply used the most prevalent and accepted term used by the industry. If you have another acceptable term for the intent of bounding it probably should be considered however if it hasn't been used as "common usage" as "bounding has been" I would leave the article alone. I would suggest "if" you have a "personal or profit" incentive here you should be disallowed. Gerald W. Brown

Unfortunately, this discussion is becoming repetitious, as the points are not being addressed. "If there are sources, please cite them explicitly. This is not a question of who knows what – if there are not proper sources per WP guidelines, the term does not merit an article or use in WP."Fireproeng 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The governmental sources used for this term match the guidelines. What's more is that there are plentiful sources, which are cited. Your statement that they are inadequate is simply nonsense. Your statement that it is simply understood that installed configurations have to be bounded, to use a common industry term known to people who work in fire protection, is one of the main assumptions which make enough FPE work that I know of hazardous, to put it mildly, is also known in the industry. In England, for instance, it is absolutely rampant, because product certification is optional, as it is in Yemen and Burundi. As a result, supposedly learned FPEs render assessments on top of assessments, many of which would not survive a half an hour in test sample on a furnace. At UL and ULC, they are often defeated, much to the chagrin the of the sponsors. This sort of thing is routinely defeated by reality on construction sites as well. Therein lies a large crux in your very profession. You and your peers don't know that you don't know and the term must seem threatening. The burden of proof is amply justified and the last guy to take it on had a proven self interest, as you can see above. As soon as it was altered to state that his new product was exempt from bounding because no test standard was in existence for his product, he backed off immediately, but never defeated the term on merit. I see it as indicative when this term is attacked, because it is always without merit. Would it not be nice, to live in a world where a fire protection plan for an occupancy can exist on the basis of nonsense assumptions, such as that fire protection products are installed in a bounded manner? Then your computer simulations, which are often junk, work out, right? It's a two hour drywall - period. Not so. Why? The devil lies in the detail and you have absolutely nothing to challenge that with. This is an industry term that has been in use for a long time and the burden of proof has been clearly stated. For some reason, you find that threatening. You also offer nothing to to de-value the existing citations. That, and nothing else, is what is repetititive here. Don't you have a better way to spend your time? --Achim 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Again - this is not a question of your opinions - it is one regarding WP guidelines. You have not provided sources to the requirements of WP standards as cited several times. I have been civil, and have assumed good faith on your part, but have not seen the same respect from you. I have refrained from editing, based on your above comments regarding your interpretation of revert edits as vandalism, as it would only result in an edit war, which I will not entertain. I will not be drawn into a debate outside the realm of WP, regardless of your derogatory comments for others outside your personal experiences. In order to efficiently resolve this, per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, I will ask for an opinion via the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Fireproeng 00:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing in on my last post to this extensive discussion on the term or word bounding. I am relieved it has gone to the board. This "risk based" approach may or may not have merit? I have no patent pending and I do not understand the problem with the industry wide usage of "bounding"? Gerald w. Brown

There is wide spread usage of the term "bounding", however an encyclopedia, unlike a dictionary, requires a higher standard than mere usage in order to justify an entry. The opening paragraph has been {{fact}} tagged and so far nobody has cited reliable secondary sources explaining the term. Addhoc 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Lacking response from {{fact}} tags, and based on the creation of bounding as a neologism (WP:NEO), I plan on merging the sections of this article with Product certification. Fireproeng 23:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is a tag team effort, not effective mediation. The mere notion of having bounding included with product certification is indicative. A certified product's field installation and use is the realm of bounding. The process of product certification itself is a separate matter. But then, my learned colleague also thinks it's OK to substitute listed, proprietary products for generic ones. If anyone thinks that this is a bit odd, why not ask Underwriters Laboratories what they think of it? --Achim 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Youre still missing the point. "Bounding" cannot have a "realm", as it is a neologism WP:NEO. Also, you have my beleifs confused, please stick to yours. Fireproeng 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the spelling, I take it you're not an English major either, are you? --Achim 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that sources haven't been provided, I would suggest going ahead with the merge. Also, I'll close the medcab case - Achim, if you want to wants to pursue mediation could I suggest you consider formal mediation? If that doesn't work, I recommend WP:ARBCOM.--Addhoc 23:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Product Certification

Per above, am preparing merged article. Bounding to be mentioned in revised Product certification as restricted to a term used in fire stopping in the nuclear industry. The concept of the Bounding article will be included, in that a prodcut can only be expected to perform as intended in the field if it is installed in the same configuration as it was tested. Fireproeng 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the link to the failed mediation (tag-teaming) is simply removed and still, nobody bothers to answer any specifics. Better just to hide even the ugly questions it raised? These are the actions of people who absolutely cannot under any circumstances appear under any name other than an one invented just for the purpose of appearing in Wikipedia because to actually reveal identity would be far too unpleasant. And the next move is to further tagteam as necessary to ensure that the current status quo is preserved and all looks just wonderful. How sad indeed, to find it necessary to perpetuate this: http://www.pacificfreepress.com/content/view/1571/81/ .--24.150.176.16 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01_Bounding

This case is unresolved. It is being arbitrarily closed without having the tag-team against me answer any real specifics that would be embarrassing. Here is the next step. The avoidance of the specifics and then moving on to remove the good work whilst questioning whether the Pope is catholic and pretending that vital facts are needed, which are widely known in industry. I remain disgusted.--Achim 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Product Certification

This response is intended to maintain the continuity of the work on the proposed merger. I have been very busy lately, and will complete the merger within the next few weeks. I did not see the comments placed on the Talk:Product certification page by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca, using a sock puppet, as they were not placed as identified on this talk page per the Merge notice, per WP policy. Those comments were not not to point on the results of the mediation, resulting in "bounding" being a neologism. Achim, refrain from personal attacks, as listed there and as you have done by vandalizing my Talk page. Fireproeng 21:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Ahering@cogeco.ca, if you revert the Merge tag again, I will ask for an administrator to review and consider block based on 3-revert rule. Fireproeng 04:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, avoiding uncomfortable questions, Fireproeng

• 1. Unfounded accusation of using sock puppets. Proof: 0
• 2. Avoiding, as usual, the substantive questions raised with meaningless verbiage. "maintaining the continuity of work on the proposed merger". This is once again a one-man show, at best aided and abetted by his tag-team partner, found through mining as to who argued with me before - but neither are capable of bringing any susbstantive answers to the table.
• 3. Instead: Let's use threats! Certainly an administrator can be found who is best buddies with the tag team partner, who would seek to maintain a pathetic status quo, right?
• 4. No matter what the utterly pathetic and highly transparent excuse (soooooooo busy), by no means can Fireproeng answer why hordes of his willing friends are not flocking to his cause in getting rid of an industry term that is used by the federal government of the United States of America, as well as industry, easily proven yet dismissed by his tag-team partner?'
• 5. Let's look at a convenient piece of disinformation: The comments about "the merger" (proposed by Fireproeng because it aids the cause of a status quo convenient to his trade) were made on the appropriate page right here. He's talking about sock puppets. Perhaps it's time to sort out his sock drawer at home? Are we getting confused? Why is it that Fireproeng cannot bring himself to answer the actual questions raised by the only comments on the talk page?
• 6. Let's give orders! Achim, refrain from.... Who, Fireproeng do you think you are? And while on that topic, if your prose on here, which consists pretty much exclusively of messing with other people's work whilst contributing not much of anything at all, no pictures, new articles, just preserving a pathetic status quo, demanding proof that the Pope is Catholic, which he ought reasonably to know if he had the schooling he claims, which he will not prove of course and takes offense at the thought of having pointed out, just who are you really? You just cannot say, can you? Few people in the fire protection trade find that level of secrecy this necessary. Are we going to find some skeletons? Are you worried that your written statements can and will endanger whatever licenses you claim to hold? I have seen enough of your writings to flunk you from assorted exams. I point them out and you avoid them. You cannot stand to answer uncomfortable questions and when you do, I take them apart and you avoid it again. If you believed what you said, you would act differently. Why don't you try it just for once? Look at the text I just wrote. Whenver a sentence ends with a QUESTION MARK (?), provide an in-depth answer. I believe you lack the intestinal fortitude, knowledge and conviction. All you can do is hide, remain anonymous, cry the blues and find tagteam partners who know even less about fire protection than you do. How pathetic.

--Achim 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is a horrible mess

I am not an expert on the subject, but even to me it is obvious that this article is a horrible mess. I've added several tags to the article, and here is a brief comments of them:

• there is no one single reference in the whole article. It clearly violates the very principles behind Wikipedia (see WP:CCPOL and WP:VERIFIABILITY); all material (especially in the article heading) should be either referenced or removed.
• from the article, it is completely unclear which industry it refers to. From the article wording, is looks that it aims all the industries, but the article itself and external materials seem to suggest that it mostly (or even exclusively?) applies to building industry and fire protection. This is a fundamental question for this article and must be clarified to make it useful.
• any discussion about laws and/or regulations is inherently specific to a specific country/jurisdiction, and generalizations, as a rule of thumb, do not stand; just one example: I have *extremely strong* doubts that phrase "Even an organisation that is nationally accredited for testing purposes may not necessarily issue test reports that provide assurance that commercial products tested by it are the same as what is being sold or used by the public." has *universal* standing across the world. In any case, burden of proof of such a bold statement lies with the editor who adds or restores material (WP:BURDEN), and if not provided, I will be moving to remove this and similar statement on the basis of WP:VERIFIABILITY. Overall, I'd suggest to rewrite the article in the following way (the same way most articles which involve legal matters are written): to specify basic principles, which apply universally, and then go into specific details on per-jurisdiction basis, avoiding implications that these specific rules apply world-wide.

Ipsign (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we all just get along??? ~~SadIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.212.4 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Answers to Ipsign

Not an expert on the subject?

This is why there are many items linked here. Whilst reviewing the items lined to the article, the answers to the reader's questions should become crystal clear.

The aim of encyclopedia (and Wikipedia) is to provide short description, usable for non-experts (it is not a specialized publication). Also we need to remember that it is written for readers (not for editors nor for experts), and readers are not interested in fulfilling full-scale research on the subject. Article is a horrible mess (I don't remember a single article which is worse - save for highly controversial advocacy stuff), but unfortunately I don't have time myself to dig into subject area deep enough to be able to fix it. Ipsign (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I admit that this kind of article (summarizing regulations from different countries) is one of the most difficult ones to write, and I admit it was a good effort to write it. Still, I feel that it is in a desperate need of improvement, because for casual reader it is extremely difficult to comprehend. Is there a chance to rewrite at least lead of the article so it becomes more readable to the casual encyclopedia reader? As I've said - I cannot do it myself, as it will take years to become competent in this convoluted field. Ipsign (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

References exclusively to fire protection products in buildings is a problem?

The article mentions toasters as well. Rather than to just point out areas of improvement, is there anything that would prevent any editor from adding on other items where this applies, such as electrical appliances? Pointing out a desire to remove work and justifying this, is not as useful as ading the needed items in. If you bathe with your plugged in toaster, for example, you are not using it in a bounded manner and the instructions clearly point that out, which is more than likely a requirement by the certification organisation. Why not add what would help, rather than to criticise what is there?

No single reference in the article?

There are links to Wikipedia articles as well as direct links to subject related organisations, like DIBt (Germany), SCC (Canada) and UL (USA). If one actually studied the referenced material, it would become self-evident that the desired back-up is actually provided. But this requires perusal of the referenced information, as opposed to assumptions, followed by threats of removal.

Intra-links are never enough, please familiarise yourself with WP:V and WP:RS (Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes). And links are not references, they're not enough either. Ipsign (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you fix it. I am tired of people who find fault but won't trouble themselves to actually do something constructive to fix things themselves. Instead they just tag, make the existing work look bad and never do the actualy work themselves to improve things.--Achim (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

international certification differences

Again, the referenced information would have to be perused in detail to be able to make judgments. I fail to see how this could have happened here. Specifically, a certification organisation does not purport to have checked every lot manufactured. Instead, UL, as an example, checks 4 times per year. They just walk in and are permitted complete access to the plant, what goes on in the shop and in the records. At the end of this inspection, the listee gets a report. If any noncompliances are found, they must be dealt with swiftly or the right to use the certification mark is removed. That's a lot of checking. Certainly, not every lot will be seen. But the UL label is superb evidence that systemic issues are very unlikely. They can walk in any time. Why would you risk messing with that as a manufacturer? The Germans do it a bit differently, but it works well too. The lab does not have the formula (for example if the product being made is a chemical mixture). DIBt has the formula. But the lab still comes in and checks for physical characteristics that have stated tolerances, takes samples back to the lab and then tests those materials further to make sure everything is the same as what was tested. Reports, compliant as well as noncompliant, are sent to DIBt in Berlin first. They remove the approval right away and then you can argue to get it back later. It's a different way of doing it but it works just as well. In some countries, anything goes. So not every lot made by the plant has been witnessed. But if you are labelled, it is very hard to hide any systemic issues and foremost, there is really no incentive to doing anything that gets your label removed because then you're out of business. All of what I have written here is public domain information and it is provided in the referenced links. But if you don't read that, you can delete everything based on your assumptions I suppose. --Achim (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)