User talk:Corinna.kirsch

Help in a subtask: Women Electronic Literature Writers?
Hi, Thank you for your additions of the House of Dust for Alison Knowles. We are starting a new project to edit women electronic literature projects. Would you like to join us? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_writers/Women_electronic_literature_writers LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ballet mécanique
Dear Mrs. or Miss Corinna: first of all, thank you for taking care of this matter. As someone who has been following in the footsteps of this audiovisual work and its history for more than 25 years and owns a collection of more than 60 books and essays (from 1923 to today) on this exciting and mysterious film, I thought that it would not interest the public youth and I have been pleasantly surprised to find otherwise. However, I would like to point out your corrections: 1) Assuming your goodwill, I think you confuse the concept of "first person" research a bit. When it comes to a doctoral thesis, as in this case, all the research is started by one person but it is supervised, monitored and judged in a court with 5 doctors who are experts in the field, and, if it is approved, as in this case, it is sustained and supported by the University that approves it in full. Therefore, it ceases to be a "first person" investigation, and is proposed by a broad group of experts. And even more so, when another piece of research from another expert in the field, from another country and from another university, is presented that goes in the same direction, and that you delete it, precisely "because it supports the proposed opinion", when it should have been just the opposite: which shows that it is an absolutely collective and increasingly accepted conclusion, and not a personal one. On the other hand, calling a "tangential" support for an absolutely masterful 600-page study carried out by one of the world's leading specialists on the subject seems a bit daring on his part, really. 2) However, with respect to the fact that the quotes in the last paragraph are incorrect according to the wiki language or that their expression is complicated and with certain idiomatic errors, it is very possible that you are right, since it seems that the way using reference citations is different depending on scientific nomenclatures and the wiki language, in which you are an expert, is different, as well as the fact that the English I speak has idioms that clash with classical English. From this point of view, just as you have synthesized and idiomatically corrected the second paragraph of previous contribution without deleting it (something for which I am very grateful), I ask you that if you see incorrectness or linguistic problems in the third paragraph, feel free to synthesize or correct it, but, please, do not delete, as if it were not important, the totality of a content that represents the result of 15-year investigations by a world specialist and that reveals many things that have been doubtful in this film since its origin, almost 100 years ago. I count on your help, I hope. Thanks in advance. Csmm (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that Wikipedia does not allow one to publish individual research. ChurroCat (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)