Talk:M*A*S*H season 11

Episode notability
All the individual episode pages for Season One fail notability guidelines, inluding the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. Might I suggest these articles are improved with real-world information (ie. referencing with reliable sources) to assert notability, removing trivia (seeWP:TRIVIA) quotes, overly long plot summaries (a breach of copyright) or consider merging the information onto this season page. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or info, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. I haven't tagged Goodbye, Farewell and Amen, since it seems to have good sources, and might make a good article, but there's still a long way to go before it meets guidelines. Gwinva 19:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About Freshacconci's revert
Hello. 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) 19:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ( 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) 19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Response here.  freshacconci  (✉) 20:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)