Talk:Listing and approval use and compliance

message: 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)
thread_title: Author's Rebuttal To [[User:MikeDayoub|MikeDayoub]]

message: 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)
thread_title: [[User:MikeDayoub|MikeDayoub]]'s Added Note

message: 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:  (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)
thread_title: [[User:MikeDayoub|MikeDayoub]]'s belief about the use of bounding for structural fire protection

message: 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)
thread_title: [[User:MikeDayoub|MikeDayoub]]'s question about attention on pfp for bounding

message: 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)
thread_title: [[User:MikeDayoub|MikeDayoub]]'s new questions after Author's replies above, 19. August 2006

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to [[User:MikeDayoub|MikeDayoub]]:

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge into Product Certification 

message: 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)
thread_title: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01_Bounding

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with Product Certification 

message: *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)
thread_title: Here we go again, avoiding uncomfortable questions, [[User:Fireproeng|Fireproeng]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article is a horrible mess 

message: ====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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Answers to [[User:Ipsign|Ipsign]]

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Not an expert on the subject?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: No single reference in the article?

message: 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)
thread_title: international certification differences