User talk:Wutschwlllm

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown ^e 21:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schönbrunn sculptures[edit]

Hi, on de:Diskussion:Schlosspark Schönbrunn Steinfiguren/Neufassung I propose a new layout for that gallery-like "not-very-much-of-an-article" article. If it seems a good solution (to me it does, of course;) it would be easy to translate it, but I would rather host the English version on Commons: It will, very probably, never be more than a gallery with some (little) comment. Please leave a note on your opinion on Talk:Sculptures in the Schönbrunn Garden. WeHaWoe (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Fincher[edit]

Good catch. I feel bad because this article is on my watchlist and I missed this. Even though he is my favorite director, comparing him to one of the originators of suspense is going too far. JuJube (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Kubrick Edit[edit]

Glad you had a source to back up your removal of the material on Anthony Burgess in the lede of the article on Stanley Kubrick. However, Anthony Burgess' own foreword to the published edition of his late 1980s stage adaptation of Clockwork Orange definitely expresses some dissatisfaction with the Kubrick film and would therefore have to trump whatever the Kubrick encyclopedia has to say.

I have restored the original lede but with the modification that Burgess' dissatisfaction grew over time (unlike Stephen King's feelings about The Shining), and clarified that AB's reworking was for stage.

I realize you have been on Wikipedia for a long time, so forgive me for offering advice- I don't mean to sound condescending. Since this is all discussed later in the body of (very long) article, my general advice would be that if you see something questionable in the lede section of an article, see how it's presented and what sources are cited in the subsequent body of the article before fixing the lede. Ideally, everything in the opening lede of the article should be discussed more fully in the body of the article, and in this case that is so. Burgess' own writing on the subject are indeed cited later in the article on Kubrick in this section Stanley_Kubrick#Alternative_adaptations. Cheers, --WickerGuy (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I must have missed the discussion in the body. I still believe that the choice of words "unhappy" (in the lede) and "annoyed" (in the section) are a bit harsh considering the fact that Burgess did press interviews after the release of Clockwork and was inspired by Kubrick to write "Napoleon Symphony" (which he apparently also dedicated to Kubrick). --Wutschwlllm (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Wutschwlllm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Wutschwlllm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Wutschwlllm Self portrait blue.jpg[edit]

The file File:Wutschwlllm Self portrait blue.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused userpage image, no value in transferring to Commons.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]