Talk:MAS*H season 10

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

About Freshacconci's revert to my edit

Hello Freshacconci. Could you please explain your revert to my correction? You edit gave no explanation. Thanks in advance. (I'll leave a similar message to the other revert of mine.) __173.235.84.234 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

( This is what I would have written if he had followed Wikipedia’s policy and responded to my ping.)

In reviewing what you did, and trying to figure out what and why you did what you did I noticed a few things. In fact, it looks like you violated a number of Wikipedia's rules. Let's see:

You initially assumed a bad faith edit by another user for no reason. That's one.

You reverted a good faith edit without giving a valid reason (actually no reason). That's two.

You failed to discuss the issue using the Talk Page before reverting. That's three.

But what I can't figure out is WHY you reverted my edit. It can't be because you thought I was committing vandalism, as there was no indication of it. Vandals make reckless changes, whereas you should have seen that I made very precise changes only to certain items. What's more I provided a reason for what I did, (something you didn't in your revert) which is also something vandals don't do.

So if you didn't think it was vandalism, what was the reason for your revert? It COULDN'T have been because you knew what I did was incorrect. So you just did it because … ? What makes your error in judgement especially bad is that by mindlessly reverting me, you removed the correction and replaced it with the old erroneous version, thereby violating yet another Wikipedia policy. That's four.

Had this happened the other way around, and you had made this edit, and I thought I had reason to question it, I would have done this: I would have followed Wikipedia policy and left a message on the Talk Page asking to discuss the edit. I wouldn't have unilaterally reverted the change, because given that I would have had no knowledge of whether it's correct or not, it would be against policy to revert a correction to an older incorrect version.

The only reason you could have had for making that change is if you had personal knowledge it was wrong. But you didn't, so you did it for no reason! That's the really bizarre part of this – you had no idea if you were doing the right thing, so why did you do it? I really like to know your answer to that one. Thanks in advance. __173.235.84.234 (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at every other season for MASH and you will see their formatting for production codes, which you changed, "without giving a valid reason" and without discussing "the issue using the Talk Page". Since they were nonsensical edits (I checked your edits against what is used in every other season), I simply reverted it as a probable test edit. I suggest you read WP:BRD as it applies here: you made an edit, I changed it back. At that point, you should not revert it without discussing it here, and by discussing it, I mean explaining it, not writing some lengthy nonsense about me. Why did you change it to begin with, without a valid reason? Where's your source that those specific episodes in the 10th and 11th seasons have a different production code format than the rest of the series? And don't accuse other editors of editing in bad faith as I see a great deal of bad faith coming from you. freshacconci (✉) 19:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm under no obligation to respond to your ping; there is no "policy" that says this. I'm a volunteer and this is my own time. I'm not required to respond to any message, particularly according to some arbitrary time line. freshacconci (✉) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - - - - -

"Look at every other season for MASH and you will see their formatting for production codes, which you changed, 'without giving a valid reason1 and without discussing 'the issue using the Talk Page' ".

You're right about “every other season” but there's two points here: it presupposes that all of the other entries are correct, whereas they could be wrong also. What's more, just because “every other season” formats their codes a particular way does not automatically mean the ones in season 10 & 11 have to be formatted the same way (and in this case, they aren't).

As for “which you changed, "without giving a valid reason" and without discussing 'the issue using the Talk Page' “, the first one is wrong and the second one irrelevant. I did in fact put an explanation in the edit summary (which, I hasten to add, YOU DID NOT). Your second point about the Talk Page seems pointless since my change was a minor thing, not some major wholesale work. I doubt anybody would think it was necessary to have a Talk page entry for moving a hyphen over by one character.

“Since they were nonsensical edits (I checked your edits against what is used in every other season), I simply reverted it as a probable test edit.”

Nonsensical? That's your opinion, not fact. (But I guess you think your opinion is as good as fact, right? Or is an editor's opinion as good as facts? If that's the case, then Wikipedia is in big trouble.) And as I said above, how other seasons are formatted is not proof the others are the same way. As for your claim of a “test edit” well, I would never assume that someone would go to the trouble of moving one character in a couple of dozen entries over two separate pages a test edit. That's just ridiculous and i can't believe you actually thought that.

“I suggest you read WP:BRD ”

I read that may years ago. I suggest you re-read, and live by it. By the way, that “D” stands for “discuss”, something you apparently didn't realize, or believe it applies to you. You yourself may want to take a gander at WP:AGF.

“ … you made an edit, I changed it back. At that point, you should not revert it without discussing it here ... “.[Emphasis mine]

I must say, you have said a number of humorous things since I first encountered you, but this one had me rolling on the floor. I TRIED TO DISCUSS IT WITH YOU – BUT YOU REFUSED TO DO SO! You even stated that you had no intention to discuss it! Do you ever think about things before you type it out??

Let me recapitulate the series of events since you managed to get that so very wrong:

1. I notice a series of errors in the Prod. Codes column for Sn. 10 & 11. I made a Good Faith Edit to correct them, and put a simple explanation in the edit summary.

2. You, for a still unfathomable reason, reverted it. YOU GAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY YOU DID IT.

3. When I noticed what you had done, I VERY POLITELY asked you why did this. You never responded to it and after reading what you wrote here, it's clear that you never intended to respond or discuss it.

4. So after waiting a reasonable amount of time (NOT “some arbitrary time line” as you put it, whatever that means) I did the perfectly reasonable thing, which was to undo your ridiculous revert.

It is beyond ridiculous for you to now claim that I did not follow procedure, as it is perfectly clear it was you who didn't.

“Why did you change it to begin with, without a valid reason? Where's your source that those specific episodes in the 10th and 11th seasons have a different production code format than the rest of the series?”

Wow. You FINALLY asked the right question. (Well, better late than never.) You see, if this had been the other around, the very first thing I would have asked you is why you were making the change, But you were so sure you knew the reason (or just didn't care) it took you so long to ask the obvious question (you must be really good at ignoring 800 lb. gorillas.) A it turned out I had just watched those particular episodes in question and actually checked the production codes and I realized the ones on Wikipedia were in error. So I changed them to the correct form, never considering that some dunderhead would turn it into the biggest event since Pearl Harbor.

“And don't accuse other editors of editing in bad faith as I see a great deal of bad faith coming from you.”

Really? Where did you see that?

Bottom line is that you did a whole lot of supposing, and not any knowing, which needlessly, pointlessly wasted my time on your incompetent foolishness. There – do you understand NOW?

__173.235.84.234 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One last attempt...

Well Freshacconci, are you still intent on blocking my attempt to correct the mistakes on these two pages? I hope what I wrote above explains everything, but if you still have a question please let me know. __173.235.84.234 (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty clear that User:Freshacconci is not going to discuss this (which is not surprising since he stated flat out that he is above Wikipedia's policy and doesn't have to discuss anything). I'm trying to mind my P's and Q's, so I guess I'll have to request a Third Party Opinion, then probably Mediation and then finally ANI. I still can't believe this - will this go down as the most absurd incident in Wikipedia's history? __173.235.84.234 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To provide a summary for the 3rd Opinion

I can sum up this “dispute“ in one sentence: One editor (freshacconci) asserts that his guess – his GUESS!!- is good enough to block another's editor's correction that is based on verified fact. Now if there is anybody anywhere who explain why freshacconci's guess is right and my verified fact is wrong then please do so and I will go away quietly. __173.235.84.234 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to third opinion request, even though I probably shouldn't due to the lack of civility on this page. As a general reminder, assuming the motives of someone else's actions or assuming bad faith is a bad way to work out issues. I will assist in this issue as long as the conversation remains civil and content-based. That being said, 173.235.84.234 you are making claims that your edits are factually based, please provide that factual evidence here so we can evaluate it. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 23:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to help here – it is much appreciated. I happened to catch the specified episodes when they were being broadcast last month in August 2018. I’m one of those nerds who notices the nobody-else-notices-something-like-this kind of thing, and for whatever reason, I happened to notice that the Prod. Code shown on the last credit screen, where the copyright notice is placed, had the code in the slightly different format than the other episodes. It’s not something 99% of people would notice, but I did, which was why I made what I thought was an innocuous edit correction. Since I was using the very same source that the original person had done when the Codes were originally added, there no need to cite a different source of the information. I was simply correcting what was a typo.

I'd also like to point out that if someone were to check The Twilight Zone episode page here , they would find an instance where the Production Codes did NOT maintain the same rigid order across every season. (This is also true for the nine season run for Perry Mason, but it’s not verified here on Wikipedia.) I should think that about covers the issue here, but if there is any other info needed please let me know. __173.235.84.234 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, something you noticed on an episode doesn’t meet the standards of WP:RS. If you can provide a verifiable citation that proves your claims and complies with WP:RS, then changes can be made. Please familiarize yourself with the policy as it is an important pillar of Wikipedia. It can be a frustrating policy for new editors, but without it, anyone could add anything to Wikipedia and claim they saw its somewhere once so it must be true. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 21:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I missed where you said the citation was the episode itself. I’ll try to pull it up later and see what it actually says. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 21:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct. Feel free to make your edit. (I didn't just revert because additional edits have been made since). Here are links to screenshots I took of two season 10 episodes that are available on youtube:

^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 23:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]