User talk:Halda

Have something new to say? So, talk...

Excalibur (film)

Please revert your last edit on Excalibur. It was your fourth reversion today, and the deletion of "widely" is in direct contradiction of the dozen or so reviews you deleted. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See where the paragraph nets out now. I believe it's much more neutral. "Widely" is tricky in that it necessitates a bunch of reviews, which is what we don't want in the lede. We can have it in the Reception section, but I think it's a bit overkill. The notion of who is an 'authority' among film critics is a bit vague, but I believe mentioning a few of the more popular, highly regarded ones like Ebert and Canby and Variety suffice. Halda (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last time, please revert the fourth edit. Thirteen reviews, including those by Canby, Ebert, and Variety, all comment of the film's visual beauty. NPOV doesn't mean we don't report wide praise when wide praise exists. And whatever your opinion you are in violation of wp-3rr. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overreacting. Take it up with an admin, if you want. My editing record speaks for itself. Halda (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will change the text to "with even Ebert and Canby praising it visually" (maybe you'll accept that) and formally warn you now not to revert. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what a WP:revert is? It's not the same thing as editing. I suggest you spend more time figuring out how WP works instead of overreacting. Halda (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No 3-revert violations here, since one of the two was my own, undoing an incorrect revert. Please read WP:3RR. Halda (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, was wondering where Pauline Kael was on this. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]