User talk:Tapper930

The Phantom
Considering that you reverted yourself and then went back and put it back again. Yeah, I had reason to be suspicious, always cite a source.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Original Ed Thorp Trophy.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Original Ed Thorp Trophy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Levdr1 lp /  talk  03:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons‎. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons. 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.  General Ization  Talk   17:55, 3 May 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.
 * Please see this discussion. At this point, you're going to need to offer pretty solid evidence to prove those two aren't Nick Original Series. Otherwise, they should stay in the list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jeff Bennett. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 1 August 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.

Discussion at Talk:Jeff Bennett
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jeff Bennett. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Jeff Bennett. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kermit the Frog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Vogel ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Kermit_the_Frog check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Kermit_the_Frog?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2018
Your recent editing history at National Football League lore shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Frank Anchor Talk 20:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

National Football League lore
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at National football league lore, you may be blocked from editing. Frank Anchor Talk 17:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

It should be noted that...
I got to ask, did you actually pay attention to what the change was that I made that you reverted? I have a hard time believing that you did, because the content that you were arguing should stay in your edit summaries was never removed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Youtube links
Hello, I noticed that you made an edit at Ed Thorp Memorial Trophy where you commented that Youtube links are not allowed. There is no specific prohibition of Youtube links as an editor needs to consider the originator of the content rather than the platform that hosts it. While there is a lot of user-generated content and copyright violation on Youtube it also has channels for legitimate news organizations such as the Associated Press. Official verified accounts can be considered content coming from those originators. Similarly, the Youtube channel of a museum or historical society can be considered content originating from that museum or institution. For more details please see WP:VIDEOREF. Blue Riband► 18:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)