Talk:Product certification

message: This article was updated on 29 Mar 2012, as much of the information was outdated and did not reference the international certification and accreditation communities. References to the ISO Guides and Standards are listed without certain paginations, as depending on where the actual document is purchased (i.e. ANSI vs. ISO webstores), the pages may change. There is still some potentially outdated and incorrect information towards the end of the article, but major updates were made to clarify the typical process from start through surveillance of product certification in accordance with International Standards documents.
Additionally, two of the "See Also" links no longer work (go to an error 404 page), so they were removed to keep the article concise.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzsaw5 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: This is the next move in an unresolved tag-teaming attempt as chronicled right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01_Bounding
What one does to get and keep a product certified is separate and apart from bounding, which is installation and maintenance in accordance with a certification listing. Bounding is a very sore topic with two groups as outlined right here: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html. Those two groups both stand to gain:
*1. fire protection engineers (because they do the risk analysis and are typically not retained to ensure proper bounding on site + some naivete and the fact that it's so cool to do all those calculations and models for a price), and 
*2. building owners and developers (because this is intended to reduce the cost of buildings by neglecting passive fire protection and instead having volumes of paperwork from the FPE trade)
There are plenty of examples. For instance, the CHUNNEL fire was quite different from all the models that were produced during the design phase. The construction phase neglected spray fireproofing of the tunnel lining and purpose-designed fire doors for the lorries. Also, "risk-informed", or "objective-based" or "performance-based" approaches (paperwork and cutting PFP) are routinely used these days. That does not mean it's any good. I personally know of cases where major fuel sources were ignored in models for the express purpose of being able to reduce fire-resistance ratings in nuke plants because they have no 3 hour fix for Thermo-lag 330-1. So, you need a solution for the 1 hour systems that just don't cut the mustard... What do you do? Why, massage the RISK factor until it all fits of course. And guess what trade does this for you in your design team? And who stands to gain? The short term financial goals of the owners of course.
The topic of bounding is highly uncomfortable for these two parties. What we are witnessing here is the tagteaming attempt at maintaining the statuis quo as looking good. Of course, people who have given themselves this task are also characterised by two main things:
*1. Refusal to identify themselves.
*2. Contribution records on Wikipedia that consists mainly of criticising other people's work but not really contributing articles or pictures of their own.
And if what I wrote here is really nonsense, well, then:
*1. identify yourselves
*2. actually answer the tough questions you are avoiding within the links you keep erasing from here.
*3. actually contribute something rather than just question other people's work.
Of course, this takes some intestinal fortitude. Go ahead.--Achim 02:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 these comments here, as they were not placed as identified on the Bounding talk page per the Merge notice, per WP policy. Your above comments are, as usual, not to point on the results of the mediation, resulting in "bounding" being a neologism. Please refrain from personal attacks. Fireproeng 21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Bounding]]

message: As my name was used without my permission by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca in reverting the recent unreferenced tag, I want to set the record straight. I agree this article is not properly referenced. However, an "Unreferenced" tag is not appropriate, as there are some references provided. I have added the appropriate "improve references" tag. Fireproeng (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference tags