Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:21, 18 May 2008

archive 1

Your images

I noticed some of your images have labels hardcoded in the image - do you have the originals without labels, so that they can be altered or translated? —Random832 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I discarded the originals. I discontinued the practice, mind you. I now just put the editable text underneath. --Achim (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TU Braunschweig & DIBt

Moin! I moved the article from Technical University at Brunswick to Technical University of Braunschweig in accordance with the naming conventions for universities recommended at WikiProject Germany. This is because these names are usually the common English names for the schools. For the Braunschweig school, it fits the "School of city" styling; arguably, it could even be moved from Technical University of Braunschweig to simply University of Braunschweig. The Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, however, would not meet the criteria recommended in the naming conventions. It is not definitively known by its association with Berlin, and it does not have a predominantly accepted English translation. Therefore, I agree it is best kept at its official title. Olessi (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. --Achim (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Joint (building)

For starters, there are far too many images relative to the amount of text, and the content is not supported by reliable third party publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Elkman

Hi Elkman! I will insert my answers in italics next to your questions.

• I noticed you had a question on Joint (building). I haven't had enough time to deal with my requests lately, but I took a quick look at the article. There are several external links noted. Did you use those links as sources for the article? If not, what did you use for sources?
• I have been in the firestop business since the early eighties and I know the subject matter without requiring outside sources to direct me. I located the outside sources to corroborate what I already knew and it matched.

• I imagine there are engineering texts and magazine article about building joints, and I'm sure you read them for your work.
• Yes. I wrote some of them. I have formulated products to seal joints. I have fire tested them successfully, licensed off some of this technology and the products are being actively traded in the marketplace right now. I have also made a living of contracting the work, as in having tendered, secured and executed this sub-contract work on construction sites in Europe and North America. I can tell you how much a lineal foot of joint sells for and what it costs to put it in. I have also had products specified by architects so that I could tender the work based on my products. I have also instructed installers on the proper installation techniques for this work. I have also worked on governmental specifications and regulations in this realm. So, I don't need others to tell me about this as I know it like the back of my hand. Still, since it's all about verifiability, I have sought, found and inserted appropriate references. I don't get what else could be cited where in this because if one actually takes the time to look at the referenced material to the point of comprehension, no questions remain. I looked through the text and could not find what else would need back-up without having it look ridiculous.
• Basically, I think the article would be more useful if the sources were cited inline. On the other hand, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs) is inserting tags and leaving vague messages about the disagreements he has about content, without providing any sound reasoning as to what could be improved. I don't think the {{cleanup}} tag belongs on there at all.--Elkman 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• That is why I put in for a medcab case, since I did not have a response from you and one other admin I asked about it. The article was reviewed by yourself as well as at least one other admin. The delete nominator is simply refusing to state what specifically he thinks requires further back-up. We have a parallel treatise from Underwriters Laboratories, we have no shortage of peer-reviewed Wiki-internal hyperlinks, we have links to manufacturers selling products that fit the bill and we have a subject-related certification listing issued by UL too. We also have a commons gallery that shows what this looks like and we have a report on a real fire, where they did not to this right and it caused a big problem. All these sources are bona fide, reliable, third-party information that I certainly did not invent. What else could you possibly add to the existing over-kill?? What is most troubling to me is the behaviour of the unsuccessful nominator here. There must be a pattern here. He not only wiped out the questions I asked but also those of someone else who took issue with his behaviour. There are more procedures on Wiki than you can shake a stick at and I find it confusing and tedious to make sense of it all. That is why I asked for help and I appreciate the time you took to look into the matter. Any further assistance would be appreciated. --Achim (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After discussion with the other user who was mediating, I've decided to open this case. I'm just letting you know that I've accepted it, and I am reviewing the arguments and articles related to this case. As with all the disputes I mediate, I just want to lay down a simple ground rule, as I won't mediate a case if they don't occur. Civility is a must. I can't tolerate incivility. It's just how I do things. I know this mediation has been rather civil so far, it's just something I say as standard.

Other than that, I hope to help mediate the discussion, so a consensus can be established between both of you. Kindest regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review)