Talk:Certification listing

Bounding edits

Achim, you have disputed the edits made by Addhoc (see "Your edits to PFP pages ", User talk:Addhoc), in relation to the term bounding. In doing so, you have represented my opinions or viewpoints, which is not only an inappropriate presumption, but generally is wrong, so please stop. For the record, I agree with the edits made by Addhoc, for two reasons. The first is the reference to the term bounding, which has been the subject of a recent Mediation Cabal discussion. I am glad you removed the references to bounding in your revert, in accordance with the conclusions of that process. Second, the remainder of that paragraph is written in a non-encyclopedic manner, and does not materially add to the understanding of the subject at hand. I do agree that some reference to scope is appropriate, and I will offer an alternative here soon.

As a comment separate from the edits by Addhoc, this entire article needs a general re-write. As a series of photographs, it basically is one long visual example, which does not conform to Wikipedia article conventions. Certainly, examples can be useful as secondary references to aid in understanding, but they should not comprise the entirety of the article. Fireproeng 01:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tag by Terraxos

There was no information given as to what is supposed to be unreferenced here. You can look up the sample listing in the UL Building Materials Directory. Certification listings are known territory, even for tax people. You don't get an R&D tax break if your test resulted in a listing, because then it's not R & D anymore. It is known status quo, as described within and outside of Wiki. If you have a beef with the term, then state your claim. --Achim (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As my name was used without my permission by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca in reverting the unreferenced tag, I want to set the record straight. I agree this article is not properly referenced. Fireproeng (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that plenty of information exists on this subject in real-world sources, and this article is clearly drawn from them, so there's no problem there. All I'm really asking for is a 'References' section that lists the specific sources used so that a reader could find them for themselves. I'm not questioning the accuracy of anything on this page; I'm just saying it should comply with the recommendations for citing sources. Terraxos on Wikipedia's Manual of Style. (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you can download the system from the licensee for instance, but to put a link to it would then be subject to attack again, because then it references the current manufacturer of the material and his firestop products. That would be seen as promoting a manufacterer and someone would be sure to delete it for that purpose. There is also a UL page somewhere, where you can draw down all the listings. It's not easy to find. Then again, a link to them could be seen as subject to attack on here because perhaps you're providing a link to a company wanting to sell its building materials directories? --Achim (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UL listing is not hard to find, see below. Fireproeng (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawings are not public domain

The drawings are not public domain as claimed by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca. They are copyrighted by Underwriters Laboratories, and can be used only in certain circunstances, which are not met here. User:Ahering@cogeco.ca is not the holder of the copyright, as he claims in the commons citation. Fireproeng (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahering@cogeco.ca, do you agree that the drawings from UL should be removed as copyright infringement? Fireproeng (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the message exchange on my talk page, I sponsored the test. I paid for it. That means that the resulting UL test report, which included the resulting UL System, was submitted to me personally in return for my payment of the test. I designed the test set-up. It is, thus, my design. Drawings were submitted by myself to UL and ULC ahead of the test. They are my drawings. The report became my property by paying for the test myself. This report, which included the drawings, became mine when I paid the UL invoice. Apart from that, the UL drawings are based upon my submittal of the test design in the first place. The back-up for what I am saying was sent to the permissions people at Wikimedia Commons, which is where those jpgs sit right now, with the following tag:

--Achim (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UL Certification Listing is referenced [[1]]. It is registered to the 3M Company. However, it doesn't matter, as the copyright - the only issue for discussion of reuse of these sort of figures in Wikipedia, per WP:COPY - is owned by Underwriters Laboratories, per the following from their website:

"Copyright © 2008 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.®. UL permits the reproduction of the material contained in the Online Certification Directory subject to the following conditions: 1. The Guide Information, Designs and/or Listings (files) must be presented in their entirety and in a non-misleading manner, without any manipulation of the data (or drawings). 2. The statement "Reprinted from the Online Certifications Directory with permission from Underwriters Laboratories Inc." must appear adjacent to the extracted material. In addition, the reprinted material must include a copyright notice in the following format: 'Copyright © 2008 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.®' "

The use of these drawings do not conform to the above.

Fireproeng (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that does not negate the fact that Commons provided the following

{{OTRS permission|id=2007062310001048}}
Nor does it negate the fact that the test design is actually mine and was adopted by UL, nor the fact that the drawings are contained inside the test report itself without any such restrictions or copyright notices, which is what the commons permission is based upon. However, I'll ask them myself and get a response straight from the horse's mouth. In the meantime, if the commons permission is inadequate for you, I would suggest that you take it up with them. --Achim (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent an e-mail both to 3M and to UL to get confirmation whether or not they struggle with the use of those jpgs. --Achim (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting response from 3M and UL.... --Achim (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They must not think it's important. I sent the message to the head honcho for fire protection at 3M and his opposite number at UL. Both are experienced people. No reply as yet. If I don't get one, the Commons permission is still in effect though because it is my personal design, I paid for everything and UL's letter to me indicates that. This is what the permission is based upon. If and when I get a response from either of them, I'll indicate that one here. --Achim (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: replies received from both sides. No objection so far, e-mail going up the chain of command at UL. Once definitive answer is received, I'll put it up here. --Achim (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Approval received from UL

Hi Achim,
Sorry for the delay. I just received approval that it is okay to have this information on Wikepedia.
Thanks,
Kim

Kimberly A. Mulhall
North America Industry Manager
Fire & Security Sector
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. ...the standard in safety...

This was sent to "Permissions" both at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons to supplement the existing approval that is already in place.--Achim (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decimation of the page to oblivion

This article illustrated a listing not just with text and drawings but real-life photographs of the event to explain how these items come about. First came the completely unsunbstantiated attack over copyright despite the Commons permission, manufacturer and UL permission, and then Kilmer-san just removed everything citing undue weight. What was left explained nothing. This article, the way it was and the way I reverted it back explains how certification listings work. I mean why don't you just delete all of Wikipedia, just so that no rules are violated in your mind? --Achim (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kilmar's good faith edits on the prinicple of wikipedia's policies. There was substantial undue weight provided regarding fire stops in the article, and substantial unreferenced details which again much like the Fire test page are seeimingly unpublished- but im sure in this case some references could be found. I would be inclined to delete based on the fact that its basically entirely unreferenced (and trim due to undue weight to fire stops) and would be correct in that assumption to do so since you re-added wihout providing any secondary sourcing- But we dont need an edit war. So heres my compromise since you reverted, could you reduce the weight given to Fire Stops (do we really need descriptions of that many, See WP:UNDUE?) in the article (and also so as not to make it a fire stop design manual See WP:NOT), also could you provide secondary source referencig as well. I think both of those edits would strengthen the article and comply with wikipedia's policies, otherwise I see no problem with Kilmar's edits which address that by removing the text if your unwilling to address the concerns. If of course you would rather not deal with me (or Kilmar) regarding the fixing of this page and would like a neutral editor to provide feedback, your welcome to request such; (see Wikipedia:Third opinion) Happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I am not remotely interested in your opinion on the topic, or any topic for that matter. This is not because of your glaring spelling or grammar issues but because you refuse to answer direct questions and combine your strongly held views with zero experience whilst pretending to "rescue" the project through adherence to policy. Even when presented with hard evidence and references that you ask for, you continue to pretend that the evidence does not exist, which makes me think that either you did not trouble yourself to look at it or that the information was beyond your ability to comprehend, which tracks with your grammar and spelling. In kindest regards, --Achim (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achim, This isnt directly about an articles content nor is it about pretending- its about wiki's core article guidelines and policies which are being pushed aside by you- In the article they are; NO referencing and undue weight and the page appearing like a fire stop design manual. The policies are posted for you above to read. In this case i think you can add referencing, and instead of displaying 5 fire stops you could show one. Ive suggested a compromise to address them, and continue to think its the best course- Please stay on topic in the talk page, dont bite, and assume editors are acting in good faith (see; good faith). As for you interest in me editing, that doesnt concern me, there is no page ownership here, and no one needs to be experinced in a subject to suggest improvements- That is a core belief in wikipedia. That aside, its your right to have another opinin which is what i have also suggested. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time i have appropriately tagged the article with what i percieve to be the page's concerns. Please address these, as otherwise i think Kilmar's edit does most of it anyway. Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that Ottawa4ever has asked for third-party opinion in order to better build consensus on this. But, I should address the inaccuracies that Achim has used in reverting my edits and in his comments above. First, Achim's edit summary for his reversion is, "You just decimated a lot of work for an unsubstantiated reason.", which is untrue. My edit summary was, "remove excess detail of fire stop testing, undue weight, wikify layout" - there's your reasons. Achim, what you should have done prior to reverting the edits is refute the claim of excess detail, undue weight to firestops in an article on a broader issue, and un-WP layout, in terms of both WP not being a how to a "how to" guide and not overwhelming an article with pictures. After the amount of time you had on the project, I assume you are familiar with these guidelines, but if you're not, click on the links, read them, and then hopefully you will revert the article back to as I have edited it when you see those reasons are valid. If you don't feel that's correct, please provide reasons to address the details per those guidelines re why you believe the article was correct before I made my edit.

Second, you have claimed that made my recent edits in response to not being successful with trying to get rid of these pictures in the past using a copyright challenge. This is also untrue. I did challenge the copyright validation of these images, and was correct when I made the challenge that sufficient information had not been provided at the time of the insertion of that material to demonstrate the copyright was not being infringed. Based on that challenge, you then obtained adequate information to demonstrate that the copyright was not being infringed, at which time the objection went away. That is how the project works.

Lastly, your comment regarding deletion of all of WP, and in use of grandiose superlatives such as decimation and oblivion: please try to stay on point. Settle down.

In conclusion, the edit I made is valid. I'm confident that third-party review will help build that consensus. In the interests of good faith, I am not going to re-revert what I am certain are valid edits made by myself. We'll see what others have to say. Kilmer-san (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment section for other users

Is this article written as a unreferenced technical design manual? Is there undue weight given to Fire Stops in the article? Should that topic be removed, shortened or merged to the article Firestop? Are there any alternative views in fixing the article if necessary? Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with minimal cerebral capacity can see, because it clearly says that, that this article illustrates a sample certification listing, namely CAJ 8073. Permissions have been obtained and confirmed to do this both by ULI and by 3M. That information is shown on the discussion page. Yet, Ottawa4ever calls this unreferenced. To pose a question what it is (A design manual perhaps or a poundcake recipe maybe?) means that the reader either has not read the entirely obvious text, or lacks the capacity for comprehension. Undue weight on firestops? That is patently absurd. If the sample listing were of a fire damper or a sprinkler head or any other listed item, then that sample would talk just about that item and the test that led to the listing, which would be just as good. It is also painfully obvious, that rather than to merely copy a dry listing, it is complemented by pictures from the test. This makes it come to life and enables the layman to see what is behind such listings. It is inconceivable to me how anyone could think that within this context, one would then veer suddenly within a sample certification listing to other products - within the same listing. --Achim (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill state briefly what i think the article needs, for editors not currently involved;

The article contains 7 different fire stop configurations presented like a design manual, I propose only one is necessary to get the point accross. The article is unduely weighted to fire stops and other examples of certification listings could also be supplied as well. The material trimmed from these sections could be merged into the respected Firestop article. That would seem a simple task to do- and perhaps the bulk of this request for comment.
So long as every single thing in the article is coming from one specific article and source- (Seems unduely weighted to me still), a proper refernce tag should be made for each section on where to find the materials. Anything not in those sections (or that cant be referenced) needs to be removed as original research.

That should cover my position pretty much. Im going to take a break from this and allow others to provide their opinion. Thanks for any feed back; Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not properly explain the purpose or significance of listing with a testing laboratory in the United States. I am not familiar with building regulations in other countries, or the regulations on what goods may be offered for sale in other countries, so I can't say if the article would seem even worse if read with a non-US point of view. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of fire stop test with fire door test

The latest edit by Achim eliminates the objections based on two of the previously cited guidelines, and therefore is a good faith edit in the direction this article needs. I'm assuming this is the reason this edit was made, but am not sure, as there was no discussion on this page prior to the edit. However, the replacement of the fire stop test info with the fire door test info still leaves room for improvement, in that excess detail in reference to the testing presented is still overly detailed in an article on a broader issue. Also, the layout is still oriented to being a "how to" guide. I suggest deletion of much of the details related to the test. Kilmer-san (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change because I gave up hope that you and the other guy would take my points seriously because I had to make them repeatedly to no avail. It does not matter to me what specific sort of product the example is about. So I chose a much shorter and easier listing because buddy can't look up the actual listing which is why he complains that there is no reference, which is buffalo bagels, and thinks that seven items can't be in one listing. Because he can't understand that he thinks that it's 7 firestops, which strikes him as undue weight, which is pidgeon pellets because it's seven penetrants in one hole and that's how combination firestop listings are written. This is what is so aggravating. Anybody in this field ought reasonably to know that. I provide the evidence and explanations and references and they just get ignored. I understand that Wikipedia is not a collection of "how-to" guides. I looked up both links you gave here. So if you look at all listings as "how-to" guides, then you can never explain the term at all. I think you agree it's a valid item too though, right? A firestop listing also covers all situations for that sort of opening. How-to guides would be an instruction for a specific firestop, say in Room 314 in such-and-such hospital in the West Wing. That hypothetical installation may only have 2 out of the seven possible penetrants and be much smaller than what was tested. That's "how-to". Installation instructions for a mortar or a caulking or a device - those are "how-to" guides. The listing is the interpretation of the test report plus data gathered that never makes it into the test report, which typically far outweighs what does go into the report, if the R&D guy is worth his salt. The approach here is to take a small listing as an example. 5 quick pix showing what is behind such a listing that by itself would be fairly dry. When you see this, you can understand that such a small listing may still cost you 50 grand to put together. Something significant actually happened to prove that the widget works. Now why would you possibly want to show a partial listing? You're not supposed to do that with listings or test reports. You show the whole thing or nothing. I even abbreviated the name of the manufacturer so that it is not viewed as advertising.--Achim (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to conform with the discussed policies. Kilmer-san (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to from a firestop to a fire door inside a fire separation

Maybe this will make you two happy. Now we're showing 2 things instead of one.

But I will respond to your comments:
I maintain that the comments directed at me are bunk. Let’s take them 1 at a time:

For Kilmer-san:

It is absolutely true that you decimated a lot of work. Have you authored an article that long? The concept here was to duplicate a listing and make it come to life rather than to just have dry text. It took a long time to put this article together and you just wrecked it and replaced it with a couple of pictures, completely losing the context in the process, which was the point of it all. What was left after you got through with it was about as useful as a dental prosthesis for a barn owl. Either you comprehend the concept of duplicating a listing or not. Your buddy Ottawa4ever also clearly does not understand what a listing is all about. When you show a listing or a test report, you show the whole thing or nothing. CAJ8073 was a big listing, granted, but it is ONE LISTING. The idea to get across is that a listing describes maximum and minimum tolerances and other crucial information that are to govern a field installation in order to meet code.

As far as Kilmer-san’s assertion that insufficient copyright information was given at first, that is also untrue. It is an obvious conclusion. Listings are public domain. Test reports aren't. The same thing goes for other certification organisations. If you work in fire protection and don't know this, then as far as I’m concerned, you have no business being in the business as that is bedrock knowledge for all practitioners of the craft. All you made me do was prove something completely obvious.

Addressing the first paragraph: Achim, I know you have a lot of knowledge to offer. I would be happy to discuss this article, if we can address the specific WP guideline issues I raised. Kilmer-san (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Ottawa4ever

You still don't get the concept. You can’t show a partial listing any more than you can show a partial test report to anyone. If you had troubled yourself to look up the actual listing, you would see that it shows 7 configurations. That’s how firestop listings work for combination holes.
What do you want to take a partial listing for and move it into the Firestop article? That would be pointless. You keep mentioning referencing but you don't look up the reference when you're given it or you don’t understand it. If you have a firestop listing with 7 configurations in ONE document, and you have the hyperlink for the actual listing then why would you want additional references for parts of that one document? If you had gone to the listing and understood it, you would come to the obvious and inescapable conclusion that the one reference to the document covers all parts. You did the same thing on the fire test article. I gave you the listing and the literature back-up. Plain as day and public domain. Anyone at all can look up a UL listing and the literature on the product for that matter. What more referencing do you want, when it does not matter to you when it is shown to you? --Achim (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the article's improvement and thank Mr Hering, but yes there is still more work to do. Per Achim's referencing queries; I would image using a proper formatted refernce tag to the top of the article is fine to cover refernces that are in that section(we should really aim for multiple secondary source referencing though); however anything in the article that is not in the reference would need an additional secondary ref. At anyrate I do recongnize Achim has advanced knowledge in perscriptive fire testing cases compared to most editors coming here, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can read and edit- and not a peer reviewed scientific journal, report database,ground for dissemination of extra test information not included in a reference, nor is it a walk-through, instruction manual or guide; these policies in sections above may seem excessive sometimes, but it keeps wiki's project goal alive that anyone can edit and anyone can read. Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]