Talk:Firestop pillow

I removed some excessive hyperlinks as well as the clean-up text box, which was based on the excessive linking, I believe.--Achim 01:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV comment is highly subjective. As the author of the original article, I can offer proof that I do not stand to gain from the sale of the product described, nor from the sale of anything that competes against it. These products are available from at least a dozen sources in the US alone, and many more worldwide. The generic lessons, however, do not change. I have no stake in it either way and would welcome a debate on merit from someone who actually knows the subject matter. I invite the party who made the comment, Fsiler, to indicate where the facts I stated are wrong. If you have opinions about this, I would like to hear whether or not you have designed, manufactured, fire-tested or installed any firestop pillows to base your opinion on.--Achim 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of language

I'm not sure tha language in this article is appropriate - use of words suchs as 'nifty' in an encyclopedia article ? I think it requires a clean-up.

ahpook 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahering

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)

Look, I can't see that you have any PFP pedigree. The article is linked six ways to breakfast to other Wiki articles concerned with the category. There are also photos that substantiate the technical statements to those who look at them and have a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter. I object to this sort of nitpicking especially by the uninitiated. You could seek out written proof that the Pope is catholic too and I'm not sure what it would add to things. If you thought anything were demonstrably wrong, that would be a better place for you to start. Meanwhile, suffice it to say that I have developed such products, fire tested them, installed them, sold them, sat in on committees about firestop test procedures in Europe and in North America. Where does your expertise come from? Achim

This is a very dangerous attitude you have. Wiki does not restrict edits to self-appointed "experts". All factual enteries are expected to be cited. Most of the time, that doesn't happen, but if someone removes your entry because it wasn't cited, you need to provide that cite before you place it back in the article. See Wikipedia:Attribution. Linking to other wiki articles isn't a citation - it's circular logic. Alvis 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not been specific about what specifically you think needs a citation. If you question my expertise, ask around the industry. Nobody's ever heard of you I trust. Now, there's a lot of text, the pix are self explanatory and the individual aspects of the technology are linked to subject related pages. Examples: intumescent, Mortar (firestop), cable, endothermic. I recommend you quit the adolescent attacks and indicate what it is specifically that requires further citation. Achim 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of anything specific in the content of the article: it certainly seems to be written very professionally. What initially caught my eye is that most articles giving this level of operational detail contain many external reference links (see Noise regulation). The level this article is written at, your providing over half the edits single-handedly, and the lack of external citations make it seem like original research, first published here on Wikipedia. I'm sure that your knowledge of the subject comes from many industry publications, as well as on-the-books fire codes, any of which would make meaningful citations that would back up your edits. That's all I'm looking for (and your resisting the urge to call legitimate edits vandalism). Alvis 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the articles you provided using "self explanatory" pictures, the first two articles are written by you, don't cite external sources, the pictures were uploaded by you, authored by you (per their copyright tags), and annotated by you. That's exactly what wiki's attribution policy wants to avoid: using these kind of articles to reference each other as proof of their verifiability. The third lacks verifiability as written, while the fourth is much better. Do you understand why this has nothing to do with your nor my authority or expertise, but is just a fundamental wiki policy? Alvis 07:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okiedokie, now that we're civil, and I'm not saying this to brag, but my knowledge on the subject matter is not book knowledge, it is hands-on. I have developed products, licensed some of them off, some made for vendors while an employee. I have designed and conducted more fire tests than some people have had warm lunch. This is not the type of thing you can pick out of books typically as the knowledge is generally considered proprietary. That's why the pix back it up. The fire tests are older now so they're not likely to endanger the competitive position of the folks who are still trading the products. The pix from construction sites were taken by me on sites where I sold the contracts or attempted to. It's all the real deal. If you google me, you will find that I have been published in a variety of magazines, including Chemical Innovation from American Chemical Society, Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and the Canadian Construction Specifier. I have also co-authored test standards for PFP products, which are now in use for qualifying those products in the first place. I was also a member on a nuclear fire safety standard. My experience encompasses nuclear, military, industrial, petrochemical and maritime applications. That is why I use the pix, because to anyone who knows the topic in the slightest, the pix are self-explanatory. I can assure you they are the real deal, not staged. My word is my bond. That does not mean I am infallible by any means but if I write it down, you can take it to the bank because I can back it up. It may look like circular logic to you but if you examine any piece of it, you will find I am correct. In terms of references, if I'm not referencing a test standard (beaucoup bucks to buy usually - not free), I'm referencing real experience and the pix to back it up in reality, not some fancy stuff a professor wrote in a book. That is why it's tough to put citations for a lot of this stuff. I suppose I could cite articles I have written, but is that any less circular? In the case of my definition of intumescent, they looked up one of my articles on the topic and approved my permission to use the information. But still, how is this any less "circular"? I know where you're coming from on that topic, but this is not something you can readily find in a curriculum. The people teaching the courses that would be appropriate for this don't know this stuff for the most part. That is actually a scary thing... Achim 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This just isn't something up for debate. "Hands on" knowledge simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I'll quote directly from Wikipedia:Attribution: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Alvis 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, probably right. Wherever I can, I typically reference outside sources, even if it's articles I have written, if I can't find anything else.Achim 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

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, and the unreferenced tag is appropriate. Fireproeng (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of references, but typically on manufacturers' websites. If we put in links to those, then the article is referenced but people will want to delete it because it is deemed as pushing a product, right? --Achim (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have articles on these things generically. Example: http://www.geocities.com/astximw/pillows.html . But if I put that in, then I am violating rules. So if you want to put it in, go ahead. I can't put in my own and I know links to manufacturers are typically deleted. A link to google on any of this stuff should do the trick actually. --Achim (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)