User talk:Christophe Krief

Regarding Renewable Resources
I agree with you that I erased few things which had the proper resources but we can not keep any thing on the Wikipedia article because it has resources. we have to make sure that the thing is important for the article and its not irrelevant. for example if I take the example from the same article some added" In 1962, within a report to the committee on natural resources which was forwarded to the President of the United States, Paul Weiss defined Renewable Resources as: "The total range of living organisms providing man with food, fibers, drugs, etc...".[1]" the article. Although it has proper resource but do you think its really going to help the reader to understand about the Renewable Resource. The second thing which you said that I have not given the references which I think is not right because if you see under the reference section I have provided all the references for the things I have added. I also want to give the in the text citations but at this point I was having trouble with that. If you can help me with I would be very thankful to you. Please help me to improve this article rather than just reverting the changes. If you need further explanation for any thing feel free to ask me. The third thing which you said was I have changed the template of the article. I did not changed the template of the article the only thing which I did is that I have removed the two tags from the article because one tag says "It is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup" and I have removed the things which were unnecessary and have provided the explanation of the topics which had insufficient details. The second tag says to provide more citation which I have already provided so I don't find any need to keep these tags. If you find any mistakes in the things which I have added please feel free to contact me. Please try to improve this article rather than just reverting the changes. I have also provided details on the Renewable Resource talk page. Thanks for your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONEEB-NJITWILL (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Autodidactism in Architecture
Hi Kintetsubuffalo,

I would be glad if you could tell me which part of my participation to the article "Autodidactism" does not have a reliable source?

You have deleted my list of self-taught architects on this page without any good reason. They are all referenced and known as self-taught or self-trained architects. I have republished this list; please give me a good reason before deleting it again.

I have reviewed my participation titled "Autodidactism in Architecture". I have included additional reliable sources.

When it is said: "Many successful and influent architects such as Mies Van Der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright or Violet-Le-Duc were self-taught.", the verifiable source is the reference to the architects who have a worldwide reputation for being self-taught. You cannot deny that this first phrase is verified.

When it is said:"There are very few countries allowing autodidactism in architecture today. The practice of architecture or the use of the title: “architect”, are now protected in most countries.", an internal reference to Professional requirements for architects is made. The article includes verifiable evidences on the fact that most countries have protected the title: "architect" and/or the practice of architecture. You cannot deny that this part is also verified.

When it is said:"Self-taught architects have generally studied and qualified in other fields such as engineering or Arts and crafts. Jean Prouvé was first a structural engineer. Tadao Ando started is career as a draftsman and Eileen Gray studied Fine Arts.", I used the 3 famous self-trained architects to source my declaration. This is a well known fact and it is verifiable in any biography of Jean Prouvé, Tadao Ando and Eileen Gray. Additional reliable references can be added, but I do not want to overload the article with references.

When it is said: "When a state starts to implement restrictions on the profession, there are issues related to the rights of established self-taught architects. In most countries the legislations include a grandfather clause, authorising established self-taught architects to continue practicing. In the UK, the "Architects (Registration) Act 1931", allowed self-trained architects with 2 years of experience to register. In France, the “Loi n° 77-2 du 3 janvier 1977 sur l'architecture” allowed self-trained architects with 5 years of experience to register. In Belgium, the “Loi du 20 fevrier 1939” allowed experienced self-trained architects in practice to register. In Italy, the “legge 24 june 1923 No. 1395” allowed self-trained architects with 10 years of experience to register.

''However, other states made the choice to omit such clause and many established and competent practitioners were stripped from their professional rights. In the Republic of Ireland, a group named “Architects’ Alliance of Ireland” is defending the interests of long-established self-trained architects who were recently deprived from their rights to practice as per Part 3 of the Building Control Act 2007."'', you will notice that I have added references to some legislations in different countries to confirm the includion of a grand-father clause for the registration of architects. The refered legislations can be accessed online, they represent a reliable source. "Architects' Alliance of Ireland" is an article that I created and it includes many reliable sources on the subject of self-trained architects in the Republic of Ireland.

When it is said: "Latest theoretical researches such as “Architecture of Change, sustainability and humanity in the built environment[2]” or older ones like “Vers une Architecture” from Le Corbusier describe the practice of architecture as an environment changing with new technologies, sciences and legislations. All architects must be autodidacts for keeping up to date with new standards, new regulations, or new methods.", I have included 2 reliable sources, one from a contemporary publication, the other one dated from 1923, considered as a pilar of modern theories in Architecture. If that is not a reliable source... Then what is?

The issue of self-trained architects AKA Autodidactism in Architecture exists worlwide. It is mostly the named self-trained architects which constitute my sources. Their works, biographies, theories, and all the articles written on them can verify many times the content of my participation in the Autodidactism article. However, legal references and other publications are included to complete my participation.

I you believe that my participation is biased, please give me more details. Architects are generaly involved with architetural subjects. I am just willing to inform the public on the subject of Autodidactism in architecture. If you believe that my participation is biased, then add information to balance the subject, but do not delete the content as I am doing my best to present it on a balanced perspective.

Thanks in Advance.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe your sincerity, I even believe that what you wrote is likely correct. The problem was that there was no external sourcing. Don't worry about overloading with sources, better to oversource than not to source.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:CK Space.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:CK Space.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Done

Architects' Alliance of Ireland
Some unsolicited suggestions!

I think this article will be undeleted but then it will be likely sent to Articles for deletion where it will be subject to a more stringent test. You should try and improve the article as soon as possible so that early voters will see something they can happily support. You will be able to change the article while is is being discussed but people who have voted delete at the start will likely not review later. So, I suggest you say more about AAoI itself (when founded, membership etc.) citing a reliable independent source.. Is there an independent source describing the Alliance generally?

For statements like "there is a concern about the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) having a monopoly on architecture in the Republic of Ireland" it is vital that you give reference to at least one reliable independent source, right at the end of this sentence, even if you use the reference again elsewhere. There are a number of like instances. At worst, validly quote AAoI saying this sort of thing, probably in "...". Some people do not approve of "external links" sections and may try removing these links. Anyway, you are not making best use of these sources. Use them as inline citations where already appropriate and paraphrase relevant material from these sources into the article itself. Don't use the word "problem" in the section title: say "situation", or something neutral. Just a few ideas, hope you don't mind. Good luck. Thincat (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Thincat, I do not mind at all, in the contrary. I will follow your advice... Thanks--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV lasts seven days. Don't worry about "double voting", it is an easy mistake to make. If you nominate someone to be an administrator you are allowed (even expected) to then go on and "support". There's no logic in these things. Thincat (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Architects' Alliance of Ireland for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Architects' Alliance of Ireland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Architects' Alliance of Ireland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Split - Autodidactism
Following your approval, I have proceeded with the article split for Autodidactism and created a new article, List of notable autodidacts. Thanks for your feedback!

I agree with the point you raised in the discussion; autodidactism is not necessarily a formal process but also an auxillary method of learning in addition to more formal methods, and sometimes the principal method of learning in certain contexts (e.g. acculturation, relationships, languages). It is as you say "extended in its non-professional nature." Unfortunately I cannot actually claim to know much more on the subject since my expertise lies in other areas but please do include this if you feel so inclined, especially if you can find research to support this. Whether are not you decide to do this, at least now, from an administrative perspective, the article has more "room" to improve and hopefully this will be included in future revisions.--User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists
The point is that is unnecessary duplicate categorization; an article is not supposed to be in that category at the same time as it's also in  or, since both of those are already subcategories of the more general category. An article consequently belongs only in one or both of the more specific categories, and not in all three of them at once; the general category only belongs directly on articles that don't have any more specific subcategories that they can be added to instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Architectural technology
Hello Christophe, I'm not going to start an edit war, as that is not how I work here on WP. Instead, I'm writing as a fellow architect to advise you on why I do not agree with the fundamental premises you promote in your edits.


 * AT is not a "new" profession so much as it is an ancient discipline. Quite frankly, one could argue it isn't a profession at all (in the sense that one does not "practice" AT, but I won't go there). As a profession (career), the relevant article is Architectural technologist.
 * I gather your experience is limited to Ireland, where perhaps things are slightly different. Speaking globally, AT is not a separate nor is it a new profession. Architectural technologists (also known as Building technologists in much of the world), offer services in support of the professions of architecture and engineering, and the construction industry in general, and have been in existence for many years (often under different titles and roles). Independently, they are capable of doing many things- from architecture (albiet restricted) to surveying to building science and much more- but they do not practice "architectural technology". Here is an example from Canada.
 * the article reads as a promotional piece. That is not the intent of an encyclopedia.
 * Architectural technology is as essential to the practice of architecture as is design. One could specialise in Building Science, but I dare you to explain how one "specialises" in AT? What does that even mean? I think the article needs to state and explain that it's a sub-discipline of architecture and building engineering before it delves into the narrow view it currently expounds for a separate profession.

Now that I've explained the intent of my edits, I welcome you to consider these points. Cheers, Homo architectus (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is never stated that it is a "new profession", but a "new discipline". All the information that I have accessed on this subject confirmed that it is a new discipline. Do you have any reference to confirm your claim about Architectural Technology being an ancient discipline?
 * My experience is limited to Ireland, England, Wales, France and Nova Scotia (Canada). I agree that the discipline is viewed differently from one state / country to the other. The present article on Architectural Technology already gives information on this issue, but it needs additional information, I will insert a tag for improvements. The link that you provided about architectural technologists confirms the information provided on the article Architectural technologist and I will use it as a reference for this article.
 * I do not agree that the article read as a promotional piece. Please give more details to support your claim.
 * I agree that one cannot only practice architectural technology on its own, but the article never made such a claim... I agree that AT, like the artistic content of a design cannot be considered independently in a building. Architectural technologists practice architecture, not only architectural technology. However, for large projects, in the UK and other countries, architects delegate the technical design to Architectural Technologists and engineers. In Germany they delegate the technical design to engineers and other specialists... If you read the agreement between CIAT and the RIBA to differentiate the 2 professions; you will find that Architects have a more philosophical approach of the profession while Technologists have a more scientific approach. Many universities offer courses and degrees in architectural technology; I hope this answer your question on how someone may specialise in AT--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice addition to the Renewable resource article
That section on resources endangered by industry was greatly needed, and is very well sourced. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I hope that others will make similar improvements.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Christophe Krief; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Deconstruction
--Amlz (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Taking reference from “Of Grammatology” French version, Derrida first used the term “Deconstruction” Page 25 (“Les Editions de Minuit”, 1967 ISBN 978-2-7073-0012-6).

In this page Derrida states that the occidental history of sign is essentially theological and that we must abandon these roots to shake our cultural inheritance. Derrida starts a metaphysical approach of semiology. He states that the concept of sign and deconstruction work are always exposed to misunderstanding. He uses the term "méconnaissance" probably in reference to Jacques Lacan who rejected the belief that reality can be captured in language. In the same page Derrida states that he will try to demonstrate that there is no linguistic sign without writing.

The "Deconstruction" in Derrida's "Of Grammatology" relates essentially to understanding the idea of logos and its influences on occidental philosophy. Derrida criticizes Rousseau (Etudes sur l'origine des langues" and Saussure for their belief that writing is only a recording of the speech. Derrida believes that writing has its own existence, he uses Researches from Peirce to make his point....[...] I have stopped page 70 of the 425 pages. This is my second reading of this research from Derrida. My first reading was in 1995. I am taking notes relevant to "Deconstruction" in order to help improving this article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no real understanding of deconstruction even after your second reading. The notion of onto-theology (not theology) is an idea from Heidegger (and before him Kant but the meaning change somewhat) and it is essentially synonymous with Western metaphysics (or at least its implicit assumptions) when Heidegger uses it.  In the context of Of Grammatology it refers to the metaphysics of presence, i.e. the notion of self-presence (or presence of consciousness) is the onto-theology of Western philosophy.  It is the project of decontruction to challenge this so-called onto-theology.  Specifically in relation to language this onto-theology implies that there is a transcendental signified i.e. that a concept can exist dissociated from from a system of signs.  The phrase transcendental signified is Derrida's coinage based on a (bastardised) Saussurian terminology and concepts. A transcendental signified is a concept (e.g. concept of chair) independent of a signifier (e.g. the word "chair"); that is to say a pure concept of chair independent of any language.  Derrida—in common with Saussure—contends that there is no such thing but Derrida accuses Saussure of allowing for the notion of a transcendental signifier in his system of linguistics.  There clearly are linguistic signs without writing, many cultures have no writing so it is unclear what Derrida is trying to say here but we can be fairly sure that he is not trying to "demonstrate that there is no linguistic sign without writing".  Phonemes are signs in Saussurean linguistics just as words are. Later Derrida introduces his concept of arche-writing which encompasses both speech and writing but at least two commentators that I know find the notion of arche-writing questionable and its contribution to Derrida's overall argument is unclear.  You are up to page 70 and you are already "off the track".  I suggest you get a commentary on Of Grammatology and read it in parallel with Derrida's text. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to enter this type of juvenile and arrogant arguments... My understanding of Deconstruction maybe different to yours, but it does not make it unreal as you pretend. I am now page 196 "Of Grammatology" second reading. Derrida speaks about theology not onto-theology when he first uses the term Deconstruction.

Of course I am aware of Heidegger's influence. What is your point? The atlernative introduction that I proposed for the article referred to Heidegger.

All you did so far on the Deconstruction talk page is to insult and criticize everyone... The arguments that you bring make no sense. The goal seems to be going in only one direction. You have a good understanding of Deconstruction and I have not. You insulted all European philosophers on the Deconstruction talk page. Why should I continue this conversation with you, when you stated a few weeks ago that you have no intention to assist in improving the article. You act like a troll...

It is not me but Derrida stating that he will try to demonstrate: "that there is no linguistic sign without writing". It seems that you did not properly read Derrida's work, otherwise you would know that I did not say it, but that he did... Of course his concept of arche-writing is questionable. You are are just stating the obvious. Which new or old concept is not?

You say: "There clearly are linguistic signs without writing, many cultures have no writing so it is unclear what Derrida is trying to say here...". Derrida explains that civilizations with spoken languages without writing, will first use a graphic to associate it to a phoneme. This is the base of his concept of "archi-ecriture" or "arche-writing". He gives the example of cave drawings which more likely gave birth to the first words. I don't know if Derrida is right or wrong on this subject, neither was he sure. I find your certitude of knowledge on this subject very pretentious.

There are plenty of your declarations which make me think that I am dealing with an impostor. The goals of philosophy are not to prove someone wrong. Philosophers try to understand and explain the world, as a result they may prove someone is mistaken, but this is never a goal. You should get involved in politics, it is probably more like you. You are using words and phrases which you appear not to fully understand. In the Deconstruction talk page you consider fascism has a philosophy. Obviously we do not share the same understanding.

My understanding of Deconstruction is based on Derrida's theories. you should read them more attentively, it will help you not to assume that I made a statement when in fact I was only quoting Derrida. I would be interested to continue this conversation if you have the guts to make yourself public instead of hiding cowardly behind another pseudo. I have already made this request. I do not expect you to suddenly become brave enough, as to assume your statements. So I will stop this conversation there, as I am not interested to be insulted and criticized by someone who has obviously no respect for either Wikipedia, its users and its editors. Someone who insults Western philosophy and every one else without having the guts to identify himself / herself. So show yourself if you are brave enough, otherwise goodbye Mr Coward --Christophe Krief (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Christophe. I would like to notify you that there has been going some sort of edit-warring on this article during the past two weeks. Your input in the relevant talk page will be welcome. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chartered (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback Renewable resource
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Hello Christophe. The complaint about your edits is at WP:AN3. You appear to have violated the WP:3RR policy at Renewable resources by repeatedly taking out a German-language source. You should consider responding at WP:AN3 and make a promise to wait for consensus on this matter. Since a 3RR has occurred, an admin could choose to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is your last chance to respond at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring before a decision is made about a block. You seem to have broken 3RR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)