Talk:Certification listing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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:

	The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2007062310001048 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.

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

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)

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

	The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2007062310001048 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account.

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)