User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca

---

Please see Talk Fire Protection and Talk Active Fire Protection

I would like to discuss these issues with you on the talk pages prior to editing. Thanks, Fireproeng 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Refrain From Baseless Threats

You clearly have disregarded Wikipedia's guidelines by placing external links in areas that are inappropriate. Threatening me on my talk page is simply another attempt to mask your disregard for these guidelines. If you continue to violate these standards and place self serving and self promoting links, I will continue reverting them. Since you refused to gather a peer consensus as is the recommended method of resolving disputes and was suggested by myself and User:Torinir and since we are awaiting mediation, I strongly suggest you refrain from placing any further threats on my [talk:Calltech]. Calltech 02:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided my response on the appropriate pages. When you grow a backbone, Calltech, you will not be so frightened as to avoid direct discussions outside of the public forum. Achim 01:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Helpme

According to Wikipedia:Changing usernames, your contribution history can only be merged to an account that does not exist yet. I suggest just sticking to the non-email name, Achim, and continue editing! Teke 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

MikeDayoub

Hi Achim, I invite you to discuss the bounding article before I make major edits to it. MikeDayoub 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding your advice that I not edit until I become an expert on these topics, I completely agree. My intent is to provide a reader's viewpoint until I can find articles worthy and eligible for citation.

Do you think my questions to you on Active and Passive systems could help improve clarity in wiki definitions of those systems? The definitions seem to be oriented to large buildings and the classical implementation of those systems. I've seen statements from CPSC hearings and the Fire Safety Council that those systems are morphing because of smart homes and smart devices.

I think the article on bounding could be strengthened.

As someone who came to Wiki hoping to see a review of the regulatory landscape, I want to improve the definition of bounding to be more generic. While you've contributed a great deal of detail regarding firestops and fire safety, it seems to weight the bounding article at the expense of other industries where bounding applies. I predict ultimately the article will get refactored to get that balance. Would you agree?

Here's one example sentence which I think needs strengthening

Safety related products generally have to undergo product certification to enable their use by the public.

On improvement, I hope the reader gets a clear picture of what products are required by law to be certified. I realize how difficult that is for an article which attempts to discuss a legal term which is regulated differently in different countries. What a challenge. Safety related products is a fuzzy term too. I think we need a lawyer in the Wiki Fire Protection WikiProject.  :)

--MikeDayoub 07:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already responded to you in private e-mail and will leave it at that, except to say that absent bounding, I do not think you will be successful selling the product you have patented, which appears to be your aim here - not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. If I were you, I would focus on:

• 1. getting a standard written
• 2. getting it into applicable codes
• 3. seeking distribution.

Really, what you're after is to sell your patented idea and circumnavigating product certification. That is very difficult indeed and I think your time may be better spent in easier pursuits that make money. The construction industry is very conservative and its products are driven by Underwriters Laboratories labels - not exclusively, but for easiest acceptance and sales for you. Go to UL, young man, I say.--Achim 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello Ahering, I joined Wiki in order to ask you some questions regarding your fire safety articles. I have read the articles and many linked websites regarding fire safety, product certification and bounding. I have questions the articles don't answer so I'm asking here in hopes of building robustness in this topic. I am not sure this user talk page is the right place to ask you questions so please direct me if there's a better message vehicle in Wikipedia.

My questions are best asked in the form of a fictional example.

My son wrote a software program he wants to sell on Ebay. He has a microphone attached to his PC. His software recognizes the sound of a smoke detector. When the smoke detector sounds, the software sends a signal to an electrical latch on the doggie door so our dog can escape the smoke.

Here are my questions:

Active Protection Systems: If he sells the software without the doggie door, is this software an active protection system? He wants to sell the electrically controlled doggie door too. Does it now become an active protection system?

Fire suppression systems: The software also turns off the attic fan to limit oxygen to the fire. Is the software a fire suppression system?

Bounding: What laws prohibit him from selling this software and the electrically controlled door latch without certification? NFPA? UL? (Comment: The bounding article seems to be written more from a liability perspective, not a prohibition perspective. Small electrical device manufacturers may be willing to bear liability risk, but unwilling to break laws prohibiting the sale of uncertified products. I'm hoping for more understanding of how small manufacturers do business until they can bear the cost of product certification.)

Thanks for your contributions to Wiki on this topic. I hope my questions are received as I intended, to learn more and improve the articles.

--MikeDayoub 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response:

I will respond to you by e-mail, since we're both accessible that way within Wikipedia. You can gather the intellectual framework for what you're asking right on my website: http://www.geocities.com/astximw.--Achim 01:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Further Response:

I can see that you have a patent: http://www.freshpatents.com/Power-strip-with-smoke-detection-auto-shutoff-dt20050804ptan20050168901.php for a device and I conclude that you cannot afford the testing and certification, which is what makes it difficult for you to get to market. The need for bounding is just one of those buggaboos that you cannot get round. Many have tried and it is simply not worth the effort. It's sort of a pity, as good idea often go absolutely nowhere, but we're talking about safety, which gets into constitutional rights. So, as I outlined in my e-mail to you, you can find further information on http://www.geocities.atsximw as well as many other sites on the topic of fire protection, but that is the long and short of it. In a case like yours where quite possibly no standard exists to test your product and no code calls for it, you have to start with lots of money and right at the bottom. You need to get someone like UL to come up with a standard or accept your first draft, run a test and get a listing. With that in hand, you MAY have a chance along with other data, like you mentioned about barn fires in your country, and see about getting something written into a fire code or a building code. But all of this is a long and hard road and unfortunately, there are no shortcuts. Likewise, if you picked up a toaster at Walmart and your son got zapped and suffered ill health effects, you would also not be interested in any sob story from a manufacturer about how he could not afford the testing and product certification. You'd sue and win, guaranteed. That's why Walmart would not carry that product and that's why you're not getting anywhewre with your widget, novel and nifty though it may be. I too wish it were easier, but remember that I did not invent this status quo, I merely uploaded it. It is not hard to find independent verification of all that I have written here. So, before you start editing, I suggest you become an expert on the matter yourself.--Achim 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

---

<<unblock| OK, I need a generic solution here. I KEEP GETTING BLOCKED, because of this other person ACADEMENORTH, who has been banned. Apparently, there is some autoblocking happening. So, simply unblocking me does not work, quite apparently. I need something more permanent. As you can see below, there is something afoot that keeps autoblocking this person and then I keep getting blocked and unblocked - this fluctuates from one minute where I CAN EDIT, to the next, where I cannot do so any longer. One moment I'm blocked and the next moment I'm not. If we both have the same IP address, I need some sort of other permanent solution so I don't get affected by that person. Single unblocks have been done now by more than one administrator. That does not appear to do the trick. I request assistance. Next, I have pasted the latest block I have encountered: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by JzG for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Acadamenorth". The reason given for Acadamenorth's block is: "Vandalism, harrassment, general pointlessness.". Your IP address is 216.221.81.98. --Achim 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC) >>

• Autoblocks now lifted. I'm sorry that you were caught in the collateral damage of another user being blocked. This is because the MediaWiki software automatically blocks vandal's IP address - otherwise a blocked vandal would just log-out and resume vandalising. We have new versions of the software becoming available which allow us to selectively block an IP address without blocking logged-in users. But it will take time for these tools to come online and be picked up. Until then, there isn't a permanent solution, but please rest assured that there will be soon. Unblocking someone blocked in error isn't easy - privacy issues mean we can't see all the relevant facts and must do some unblocking by slow guesswork. It can often take hours. As I say, I'm sorry you've been caught up in this but your reputation on Wikipedia is fully intact and we honestly do value your contributions. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

unblock|Apparently, another user by the name of ACADEMENORTH, who was blocked for apparently good reasons, has the SAME IP ADDRESS as I do. So, as he was blocked, so was I. I am not that person. I don't know this person. His former page was written in another language that I don't speak. Please fix this for me!--Achim 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We need more info. Please post the entire block message. Sasquatch t|c 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the username you have given doesn't exist so cannot have been blocked, did you change the capitalisation or anything? --pgk^(talk) 09:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they removed the whole user account Academenorth. I could not find it anymore either. "sasquatch" though said he unblocked me....--Achim 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okiedokie: I copied and pasted this, after attempting to edit a random page just to bring this message up:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by JzG for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Acadamenorth". The reason given for Acadamenorth's block is: "Vandalism, harrassment, general pointlessness.". Your IP address is 216.221.81.98.

Also, just like yesterday, when I went over this same thing with administrator "friday" (whom I've e-mailed on the topic, as well as JzG), my block went off and on repeatedly. Same thing today. Even after this block, I was temporarily able to edit and now it's off again. Intermittent blocking....--Achim 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude: I do not sell anything on my pages. I have intentions of uploading more to your site but can't do everything at once. So, where I don't have time yet and I know that I have a definition on my site, I put in a link. No personality cult here.--Ahering@cogeco.ca 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC) *My Website

Welcome stuff

Welcome! Hello, Ahering@cogeco.ca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Melchoir 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I have blocked you for linkspamming. If you are willing to stop adding the link (at the top of this page) to pages, I will unblock you. NSLE _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 00:45 UTC (2006-04-11)

License tagging for Image:Rs90.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rs90.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I had forgotten the tag. I re-loaded the image and this time remembered to select the correct release...--Achim 05:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still untagged. Did you take this picture? If it is solely your work, please use {{GFDL}}. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:02 UTC (2006-04-15)

Username signature use in Wikipedia articles

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please, however, refrain from using your username signature in Wikipedia articles. Username signatures are used for talk (discussion) pages only. --Kurt 23:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Live and learn I suppose. I believe that I did that a while back, having misunderstood the policy.--Achim 03:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Internal links

When adding internal links ([[ ... ]]), please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). In particular, one should very rarely add the same link twice (eg. link fire at the top of article, but all following instances of "fire" should remain unlinked). Also, terms that the vast majority of readers will understand don't usually need to be linked to (eg. "carpet" may not need to be linked to in most contexts).

Anyway, I think most of the content you're contributing is pretty useful, so thank you very much. --Interiot 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

About Authority Having Jurisdiction

Please see the Authority Having Jurisdiction talk page. -- backburner001 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The re-direct for the first article (linked in the heading above) should work now. I'm going to hold off on the AHJ re-direct until I can find out whether those same letters are used to abbreviate for other phrases also (which would merit the creation of a disambiguation page). -- backburner001 03:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Endothermic

Ahering, you seem to be relatively new at this. Regarding your contribtution to the endothermic page, in which had to clean for you, a couple of rules to follow:

1. Link a word only one time in a section (e.g. you linked the word water 5 times in one paragraph).
2. Bold a word only one time per page (e.g. you bolded endothermic 4 times in one paragraph.
3. Don’t link header titles (note how the header "endothermic" above is not linked.
4. Break your paragraphs up into readable chunks (online tension eye-strain requires this).

We all have to follow the same agreed upon format here at WP. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 00:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Creating re-directs

Create re-directs by typing the following: #REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]]. Replace "PAGENAME" with the name of the article you want to re-direct to ([[Authroity Having Jurisdiction]], for example). Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anymore help. -- backburner001 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Large edits marked "minor"

On 10 May 2006, you added a 900 word section to Liquified petroleum gas and marked it as a minor edit. However, your edit was not a minor edit. As per Wikipedia policy, minor edits are restricted to truly trivial changes such as correcting mispelled words and capitalization. See: Help:Minor edit. —Ryanrs 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

I've rolled back a whole slew of your edits placing a whole bunch of topics under a few categories. Such placements like you did seem to defeat the purpose of having categories in the first place, as it makes our category system "flat". Please be careful which categories you place things in, and find the best category for each article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arbitrarily rolling it back, you may have enquired as to my reasons. As it is, the categories concerning items related to fire, fire prevention and fire protection do not make sense. Also, the links to the German Wikipedia go to the wrong place, fire prevention, when most of the good stuff on fire protection does not appear. For instance, since you remove the fire protection category from fire protection products, just exactly what reasoning is behind that??--Achim 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is because there are much more appropriate subcategories under the main "Fire Protection" category that these articles belong in. Listing them in both that category and their parent category defeats the purpose of categorizing. The idea is to find the most appropriate place - not just smear it all over the landscape. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I can't find the mention in policy, but I believe it's common practice to not list an article in both a category and its parent category at the same time. If an article covers fire generally, then put it in Category:Fire. If it covers one or two more specific topics, put it only in the more specific category, not in Category:Fire as well. --Interiot 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel fire

I'm conscious that I'm overdue to reply to points you've made twice on the talk page of Channel Tunnel fire. I'm tied up with a few projects at the moment, so I won't be able to do a detailed response until mid-August. Please be patient.Ecb 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just worried about the categorization

In regards to articles related to fire protection, at this point, I'm just worried about how they're being categorized. See Wikipedia:Categorization when you get a chance. Additionally, see Wikipedia:Manual of style when you get a chance. This will help cut down on little confrontations in the future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

MI cable properties

MI cable is approved by Canadian and other codes for use in explosion hazard areas. No, it's not "explosionproof" in the sense of remaining intact in any arbitrarily-large explosion, but wiring in MI cable will not trigger an explosion in a hazardous area. Similarly, "fireproof" is in the pragmatic sense that the MI wiring would survive typical building fire scenarios to keep essential services such as fire pumps or alarm systems working. The wiring need not survive longer than the structure it is in. True, when the Sun goes nova, everything burns...but the reasons for use of MI cable are for much better bounded conditions. I'm surprised someone who worked in the test and cerficiation business would delibrately confuse two senses of "explosionproof" like this. --Wtshymanski 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing deliberate. The difference is that there are products out there, typically marketed to hard target applications like military, which improve explosion resistance of assets. I was involved with this. "explosionproof" is a common misnomour for that unfortunately. Fireproof is just as wrong. It's particularly inapplicable to a product with fixed ratings like MI cable, which fails some of its tests and leaves junction boxes unprotected (not that this is the fault of the manufacturer, rather than a welcome oversight by the electrical engineers)...--Achim 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Ahering@cogeco.ca,

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Unfortunately, using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Wikipedia content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Wikipedia will have your username attached to it, and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers. We recommend that you change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username in order to prevent abuse.

If you need any help, simply contact me on my talk page, or go to Wikipedia:Help desk. Another option is to place {{helpme}} on your own talk page, and someone will come shortly to help. Remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Again, welcome!

Bigtop 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ahering

Hello, Ahering, may I be of assistance? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have two Wikipedia accounts? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not too bad to use it as your account name - after all, all our inboxes are going to be flooded with spam anyways! And, good fellow Wikipedians wouldn't spam. However, if in the future, you wish to become an admin or taking an even greater role, you can change it then. Don't worry about it now. Happy editing! –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Case: 2006-10-01 Call centre

Your Mediation Cabal case, 2006-10-01 Call centre has been opened, though as of this writing a mediator has not yet selected the case. If you wish to stop by the 2006-10-01 Call centre page and add more and specific information to assist the mediator in understanding the situation, please feel free to do so in the proper sections. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:07840drw4.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:07840drw4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

It seems you have answered your own question you left on my talk page. You are correct, the image I nominated is not used in any article. This was the reason for the nomination as an orphan image. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Structural steel gallery change

Moving those images to a gallery didn't improve the article. Look at the whitespace at the top now; that's not an improvement.

If you think you can clean it up, feel free, but I am inclined to revert back to the pre-gallery version if you aren't able to improve the gallery.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 19:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I use a slightly wider than "normal" browser window, but I haven't had the problem of the images there tailing off the end of the article. If that's what you're trying to fix, I'd say resizing the images and fixing the caption on that second one, to be more appropriate, would work better. Is that what you were getting at? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Liquified petroleum gas

Hey, I notice you were the one who originally added the mitigation section to the article a few months ago. It's not quite in the right tone for wikipedia (a little too advice-phrased and opinionated), but I figure you'd have the knowledge on the subject to rewrite it. I changed a couple of things in the intro of the article, and perhaps we could get the rest up to a higher standard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture caption in MI cable

Circuit integrity and other reasons for MI cable

I have seen your removal of text that indicates that an electrical circuit that must remain operable during accidental fires is required to be equipped with fireproofing along its whole length. That is very very very basic doctrine in Nuclear Power and any lapses in the past have led to reportable events, for obvious reasons. If you leave a junction box completely unprotected and this is exposed to ETK fires or worse, then you have an obvious weak spot. It is for this reason that all testing to Supplement 1 as per USNRC encompasses both raceways and boxes. If you think you know better than the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The National Building Code of Canada and every operating nuclear power plant on the planet that has to answer to a federal regulator or local building authority, or both, as is the case in Germany for instance, then I would invite you to state your reasons before simply removing such text. I would further invite you to state your personal experience in fire test design and execution to support such a claim.--Achim 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The application depicted has nothing to do with fire protection, the USNRC, nuclear reactors, Germany, etc., as I've tried to explain repeatedly. A long and peripheral discussion of fire protection methods is not appropriate in a photo caption. I make NO claims about fire test experience - but it's not relevant to the picture! The installation in the picture uses MI cable for purposes entirely unrelated to fire protection. --Wtshymanski 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The whole purpose of MI Cable is circuit integrity. There is no way on God's green earth that anyone would put up with the extra labour and expense of using MI cables, comparted to ordinary cables, if the goal weren't circuit integrity. If you think that fire protection is peripheral to circuit integrity cables, then just what do you consider to be pertinent? That's like saying that smoking is peripheral to ashtrays. So, for what purpose other than circuit integrity, which is a function of fire protection, do you suppose anyone anywhere installs MI cables then?Achim

See above. It turns out not to be the case that MI cable is installed only for circuit integrity during a fire. MI cable is used for purposes entirely unrelated to circuit integrity. The photo shows a 120 V panelboard at a spillway control structure - the circuits involved are ordinary lights and plugs, nothing to do with fire resistance at all. Not a nuclear reactor, not for a fire pump or fire alarm - just a rugged cable system where the extra labor cost is traded off for long cable life. Apparently in the UK they like to install MI cable because it is inconspicuous against stone work - not anything to do with fire protection. --Wtshymanski 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Take a look at this page, which is from the leading vendor of such wiring: http://www.tycothermal.com/usa/english/fire_performance_wiring/ . You will notice that all they talk about is fire safety. Certainly, this does not prevent anyone from using this product for ordinary wiring, or even to whip non-obedient farm animals. Perhaps there are Englishmen, who enjoy it for its great looks. I'm sure the manufacturer is really into it or anything that moves a lot of their product off the shelves and into buildings. But the fact remains, as is clearly self-evident to anyone who has ever seen the price list and labour factors, that the general purpose for which this product, as designed and advertised, is circuit integrity. Even the UK website for the same vendor clearly demonstrates the obvious: http://www.tycothermal.com/uk/english/fire_performance_wiring/products/pyro_mi/default.aspx . That is why it is called PYROtenax. Pyro means Fire. Still, there is no legislation that would prevent the use of this product for other purposes, like roping cattle, looking cool next to brick, towing cars or inflicting pain. So, I wont revert your text removal, even though I believe it to be harmful. I'm just tired of fighting over it. Using your argument, I could also argue that there must be someone out there who uses spray fireproofing as hairspray. Why limit the stuff to reducing heat transfer? Come to think of it, in the movie "White Chicks", one of the Wayan brothers informs his Co-Star that in his upcoming date with a large male ("Anaconda Man"), if he runs out of condoms, he can always use the shower curtain. So, you might want to rush over to the definition for shower curtain and remove any offensive statements that shower curtains are used merely to keep water spray in your bathtub right? Pyro is for circuit integrity. Any use outside of that is incidental and not the rule. Also, if you're concerned about looks, you conceal wiring. Otherwise you have to dust it, don't you? Enough said.--Achim 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firestop Pillow

I resent your claim that my edits were "vandalism... without qualification or specifics". I removed an uncited annecdote, removed the word "unfortunately" because it made a non-npov judgement of the situation it referenced, and added the unreferenced tag because not a single citation is made throughout the article. I advise you not to remove tags unless you are ready to make the repairs needed. Alvis 09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you using an email address as your username???? Han Amos 03:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the email address username violate WP:U? Han Amos 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same question? I do recall as of September 26, of 2006, usernames with an @ are not allowed, but I'll check on that.--U.S.A. cubed 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, because you have created your account before that (September of 06), then it doesan't apply.--U.S.A. cubed 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this with others before and see no need to repeat myself. --Achim 04:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Active fire protection

Fireproeng 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not vandalize my user page

Achim, do not vandalize my user page, as you did using the sock puppet User:216.167.225.56. It is against WP policy. I will proceed with the page merger from Bounding when I get a little time - but you are correct that we should get that done quickly. Fireproeng 21:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof of sock puppet: 0

Achim, the following is based on the possibility that you have not explored Wikipedia guidelines after your substantial time as an editor.

Idiotic slight

My intent is to relieve the tension between us based on my belief that your work surrounding Bounding is based on a neologism, as found during Meditation.

The mediation was not successful. You were no happy camper until you found the right tagteam partner and neither of you could answer substantive questions, which is why you removed the link to that page from places as well. Nothing was "found" in mediation. It was a disgrace that left unanswered questions, followed by closing of the case by your tagteam partner.

The objective discussion of  substantive issues - as opposed to as  you  continue to raise - were explored in detail during Mediation. 

That would be believable if you had answered properly, which you did not. You avoid the questions and you know it.

To address your comments -

• The comments and 'fact' tags on my User page obviously exhibit the same style, syntax, attitude, and viewpoints as those edits using your main user name. This is a sock puppet, and if continued, will be reported to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.

Who is stopping you? And of course, only one person would have my viewpoints, right? Is that why you won't identify yourself?

• The use of 'fact' tags on the pages involving ‘bounding‘ were supported by Mediation.

Again, that was tagteaming, not mediation. Even if you called it mediation, it obviously failed. Look up the term mediation and you will find out.

Your use of the tags regarding my User page are a form of vandalism, as they are made in bad faith.

My use of the tags? Where is your evidence? Have you checked the IP for a geographic location? Your accusation that I did that without evidence would be considered harrassment. Think carefully before making accusations.

• There is no requirement for any editor to identify themselves. See Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing.

Here is another example of your being grammatically challenged. This is another thing that makes your claim of formal education doubtful. The use of the word "them" implies PLURAL. That means MORE THAN ONE. "One" is SINGULAR. Here is also another bright and shining example of your use of disinformation and SPIN: THERE WAS NEVER A QUESTION ABOUT A NECESSITY FOR ALL EDITORS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. But the fact is, that professionals in the fire protection trade ordinarily don't find it necessary to hide to the extent you do. I submit that you may have no post-secondary education at all. You would certainly flunk the grammar test at Queen's University entry level MBA program, for instance. Grade school English teachers would use a red pen to comment upon your prose here. What we do have, once again, is an artful avoidance of a matter raised. Legitimate fire protection professionals with a respectable pedigree do not hide like you do. You are the only one. What are you so afraid of?

• It appears your desire to identify me centers on your desire to compare professional qualifications so that you can assert the right to defend your edits based on expert status. But this is NOT the quality of information that is acceptable on WP. The threshold of use is Wikipedia:Verifiability , via Wikipedia:Citing sources (which has all been discussed before).

Another charge and deflection. I have nothing to hide and can be found easily on the net. I can assure you that my passive fire protection pages have a lot of hits and I routinely converse with professionals in this field. I submit that your edits on here are so substantially flawed that you cannot have your real name associated with them, if you are anybody in fire protection, or, alternatively, you are a nobody spouting off for kicks. I am aware that expert status is not necessary to edit on Wikipedia. To suggest that is an insult to my intelligence. The fact that you are putting fact tags and original research tags for items that are fundamental knowledge in fire protection, indicate that either you have no clue what you are talking about or that you wish things in the real world were not as they are perhaps and that a pathetic status quo is threatened by certain realities. Lack of care about bounding in the field is an Achilles Heel to the flawed FPE trade. This is where your models fall apart. This is where your concepts come apart. This is a fundamental problem not addressed adequately by your trade apart from assumptions. So, if you are practicing in your trade, this is all very offensive to you and anything you write about it is window dressing, misinformation, spin and disinformation. That is the real reason why you cannot identify yourself. It would be too embarrassing. I have served as expert witness in court in fire protection cases. I would take you apart in minutes on the stand and leave you babbling - on merit.

• There are many different styles exhibited by editors, and all are welcome.

Style of writing, apart from your grammatical challenges, was never an issue. The fact that all you can do is mess with other people's work without anything to contribute of your own, no pictures, no new articles, nothing, THAT is pathetic.

I hope you will conform to WP guidelines in the future. Fireproeng 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of your style: quoting chapter and verse of regulations where it is convenient but avoiding the uncomfortable issues whilst attempting to give yourself the appearance of the upholder and defender of what is good. Have you thought of working in Washington, DC?.

I remain disgusted. --Achim 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bounding Merge tag revert

User:Ahering@cogeco.ca, if you revert the Merge tag on Bounding again, I will ask for an administrator to review and consider block based on 3-revert rule. Fireproeng 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi! I saw a comment of yours on Calltech's talk page. I have tangled with this individual before and won a mediation case. While I have been on here for some time, I am not the world's expert on Wikipedia. Lately, I have done more on Commons, than Wikipedia. I am seeing a pattern that certain editors, the aforementioned, and also Fireproeng tend to just delete and tag and question other people's work without contributing anything of substance, like pictures, new articles, etc. I tend to see such people as leaches, because even when given full proof, they still bellyache and carry on, quoting chapter and verse, whilst purposely avoiding direct questions and, of course maintaining strict anonymity. Protocol on here prohibits me from using more descriptive language about my disgust for these people and their abilities to garner support from others, who basically protect a right-wing status quo, as in "everything is fine, under all circumstances....". I can't imagine I'm the only one who has picked up on this sort of thing. Is there any sort of consensus about this phenomenon of that type of editor? Thanks in advance for your opinion. --Achim 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the case of Calltech, he had the right intentions, he was just getting a little too heated about it. The article in question was really being turned into a piece of marketing and Calltech was trying to prevent that. Sometimes it's easy to turn from a mindset of "improving the encyclopedia" to a more battle-oriented thought. For example, in theory, everyone wins a mediation case. :) There are places on Wikipedia for many different types of editors. Some people (myself included) are really not all that good at writing large amounts of content, but can do other tasks well. I don't think it's fair to criticize someone who tries to improve things if their methods aren't the same as yours. What is important is the intent of the actions. That said, it's important that someone who tags articles and question other people's work make sure that they're doing so in a way that is constructive, allowing other users to improve their contributions. Some articles need a clean-up, and a user tagging an article and explaining on a talk page what they think is wrong is better than a user doing nothing.

As far as a consensus about that type of editor? Not really. But I don't think it's easy to find a "consensus" for much of anything on Wikipedia these days. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Campus_fire_safety

Good tip. Next time, don't be shy, just wade right in and contribute. Be bold! Fireproeng 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Timberpen.jpg

fan coil unit

Thanks for uploading Image:Timberpen.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your anonymous vandal = my anonymous vandal

I was preparing an rfcu for a long-term vandal with many IP addresses and user accounts who has consistently ignored WP:V over at Fräulein, and realized that it's the same gadfly generating large amounts of talk-page ink over at Flammability. You know, the one that insists that "educated" people say something, no matter how much a lot of other folks disagree. I thought you might be interested: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Piononno. Darkspots 13:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like it worked! He's blocked. --Achim 21:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a block from July, unfortunately, but hopefully something will shake out from all this. The case in July where he got blocked made him leave me alone until now. Darkspots 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nasty little bugger, isn't he? --Achim 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A sure sign that insomnia leaves with too much time on my hands would be this edit: [1] Darkspots 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So, hey, I was right and we won: [2]. They're all socks of each other. The stale ones don't matter. I guess some blocks will get issued. I saw your edit to Talk:Fräulein. I'll respond there later, but basically we've got one individual who keeps trying to fuck up the article, if you pardon my plain speaking. And a lot of confused German speakers who look at the article, say "that's wrong, we don't use the term anymore", and then disappear. Because who cares, it's a totally minor point. It would be great if you could put it on your watchlist, another pair of eyes would be really useful. I'm going to watchlist Flammability because he's got a pattern of hitting both articles at the same time. Obviously I'll revert vandalism there, too. Cheers, Darkspots 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

==Image for Commons==

[[3]] Hello! Would you mind putting that nice picture up on Wikimedia Commons, or would you mind if I did? --Achim 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's PD, go ahead - I'd like the description to go with it. I'm not active on Commons. --Wtshymanski 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fire test

Sir, thanks for your question. I don't question the validity of the subject matter or your knowledge of it. Unfortunetly, Wikipedia can not serve as a repository for original research without containing inline citations showing, in fact proving, that the material has been presented on an outside website, journal, magazine, or newspaper first. You will notice that many articles contain inline citations, footnotes, end notes, and reference lists. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability before we continue this discussion. Regards, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw those pages and I raise you these two points:

• 1. If you read the article, you would find sources within it. Fire testing is hardly original research or unverifiable. If you don't believe that, check a fire door label in a large building. How do you think that got there? It's right in front of your face every day of your life. If you have walked on a concrete floor 3 storeys up, you have walked on a fire barrier whose existence was based upon a fire test. That is simply obvious and referenced within as well as outside of wiki.
• 2. I loathe the behaviour of people just tagging (criticising) instead of doing a little bit of work themselves to fix it. It is not hard. If you can wiki, you can google and find the missing back-up and put it where it belongs. I can do that on any topic. Anyone can do that. What prevents you from doing that, instead of just tagging? Just fix it. --Achim (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop posting to my talk page

Please stop posting trollish uncivil comments to my talk page, such as this and this. Your sarcasm is not appreciated. If you see a problem with an article, fix it yourself. Fireproeng (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

This is to notify you that I have filed an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Ahering@cogeco.ca. Fireproeng (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahering, please stop engaging in incivility. Personal attacks and other commentary that relates to other editors (as opposed to the content of articles) is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. Also, on an unrelated note, please review username policy, which informs us that usernames shouldn't contain phone numbers, street addresses, or email addresses. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)