User talk:81.99.20.66

June 2017
Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Sofia the First episodes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff:  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Admin, re: this, and specifically your edit summary, "I know how to properly edits Wikis. I work on the Wikias, and I'm an Admin on three. Anyhow here is your reference. https://twitter.com/_CraigGerber/status/879082666896744449 and check july 13 http://www.disneyabcpress.com/disneyjunior/calendar/" Your work on other wikis is irrelevant. The only wiki I care about is Wikipedia, and the rules here require you to provide references when you edit, including when you restore disputed content. References don't go in edit summaries, they are to be included in the article body where a reader would be expected to find them. The Gerber tweet you note seems meaningless for the purpose of determining whether or not the movie should be included in the episode list. Perhaps it's a made-for-TV-movie, in which case it would be reasonable to include. I don't know, and I don't care. Regardless, your recourse is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page where people interested in the subject can participate, not attempt to hold the entire discussion via edit reversions and edit summaries. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking for trouble. I've worked on Wikias for five years and in that time I've learnt skills that if I wanted to could pass onto here. I always provide solid evidence, double check my findings, monitor the sites I use everyday. If I'm certain about something I take action and if I'm not I postpone until further notice. I do my homework. Zap2it maybe considered reliable, but if you ask me that site is getting somewhat sloppy with its accuracy. I've seen it before multiple times, especially when it listed Tangled's short "Hare Peace" as an episode while it was actually a short already released. I would apply references, but how do you do that when you delete materials? Leaving a summary is the only way I can show people what is right and wrong on here. I just came here to correct a mistake. The proof I've shown is all I have and I trust it, and if you don't that's fine. I understand you have certain obligations and so do I.--81.99.20.66 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Understood, and as a general note, using talk pages to discuss is far more productive when working with people who don't see things your way. I don't have any specific interest in that article, so I won't be reverting your edit, but if your edit does get reverted, please consider using the talk page to discuss. If it were me, I'd probably open a discussion now just to open the door and explain your perspective clearly. But that's just my opinion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Tangled: The Series. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Please read the message I sent you, and you'll find this is all a big misunderstanding. I maybe a Wikia editor, but that doesn't mean I put up nonsense. Everything I do is firm accuracy. I never intended to cause any trouble.--81.99.20.66 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable (secondary) sourcing here. Until that episode airs in January, we don't know if it'll be air as two-parts or as one. All we have to go on is the Zap2It guide right now. Also, it doesn't matter if it was "produced" as two episodes for the purposes of the guide, only if it airs as one or two episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Zap2it isn't as reliable as you think. It can sometimes be sloppy with its accuracy. There are other websites than just Zap2it. I am from the Wikia community. I do a lot of heavy research on these things, and always provide solid evidence to support my claims. If it was wrong, I wouldn't have undone anything. I get it you have a different way of doing things, and I respect that. I was just helping clear up an error. Sources:, --81.99.20.66 (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you people really need to rethink how you handle this site. Some people believe anything they read. Even before I asked, I too was under the impression that these two episodes were separate until looked more into it. I'm just saying. You run your community, I'll run mine.--81.99.20.66 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability not truth. This is the basis of Wikipedia – we can only go off what reliable sources say. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to help lighten the mood a touch, IP editor, yes, you are correct, Zap is often problematic, so you may very well come out on the "see-I-toldja" end of this issue. But as IJBall notes, our hands are somewhat tied on the sourcing issue, and it's very irritating when a so-called reliable source prints erroneous information. Since Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, it's often prudent to just wait it out, although that's not very satisfying emotionally. Regards and happy new year, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)