User talk:Adam4R4O
Welcome![edit]
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
April 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Historyday01. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bob Morley have been undone because they did not appear constructive, by muddling the "Personal life" section of his page to be not helpful to editors or anyone else using the paper. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, it is of my personal interest to know what is considered muddling to you. This isn't an experiment and every word written contributed to something important. The inclusion of Bob's knee surgery, a very important life event that he has gone through which lead to several other aspects such as his marriage (also a major event) and the inclusion of the story of how he and his wife have gotten together which provides a timeline of the relationship is neither experimenting nor muddling. Unless there is actual evidence of something that shouldn't be here and by evidence I mean wikipedia guidelines, the wikipedia page shouldn't be monopolized by one viewpoint, eradiating all others to prove some point. Wikipedia needs to be unbiased and present all sides. The inclusion of Mrs. Morley's statement is very important, the same way it's of your belief that the inclusion of Ms. Zech's statement is too. If one statement needs to go then so should the other, otherwise I would have to say the editors who refuse to let this happen are being biased, seeing as both cite same/similar sources. Adam4R4O (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the fact is that the source you've added are even WORSE than the existing sources. Not every source is reliable. Historyday01 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, whose judgement is it to say the sources are worse?? Is it wikipedia's?? can you provide actual evidence of why Hollywood Life owned by Bonnie Fuller who was an editor in chief YM, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, and Us Weekly and which provides actual content isn't a reputable source in comparison to Popculture. Why is it that a source of Taylor and Morley speaking about their relationship in Supanova considered awful sources whilst Zech speaking in the same place can be considered a good source? Arryn Zech#cite note-19 Why is [[eonline covering Morley's knee surgery removed? How are these sources (compelling argument please) different from the ones your provided? Adam4R4O (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh. Hollywood Life is a gossip magazine. Please stop with your disruptive edits on the page, as they help no one. I would LOVE this whole discussion to end, but your edits are impeding any possible consensus. If I have to guess, you are a fan of Morley and are adding content in an attempt to be "neutral", which is unethical if true. Historyday01 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The daily dot and pop culture are not any better. Being neutral is seen as unethical? I would understand that since I would have to guess you are a fan of Zech and I respect that. I would love for this discussion to end as well, however your attempts to remove content in an attempt to be "biased" is highly unethical. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Interesting you didn't deny being a fan of Morley (as appears to be the case from your edits). Not going to reply to your other comments, as you are trying to "prove" that I am biased. Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Excuse me, can we be professional here? And not resort to personal attempts on character. You have yet to provide compelling argument which is very interesting to me and shows where you stand. Thank you. Adam4R4O (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Professionalism? This isn't a workplace. Sigh. It does appear you are biased toward Morley, and against Zech, from the edits I've seen Morley's page, so I stand by my previous statement, and will not be retracting it. Adding bad sources, like the ones you added and with this edit (geekspin, tvshowsace.com, hollywoodnorthbuzz.com, ibtimes.com, hollywoodlife, eonline.com, and YouTube clips). There were some good sources in there (cbsnews and perhaps eonline as it is once said to be a "reasonably reliable source for celebrity/reality TV star news" and an "acceptable reliable source"), but they were buried in your edits, unfortunately. In fact, I would argue that your edits don't help in making a page more "balanced" or "neutral". In fact, they promote misinformation. Not sure how you can claim that your edits are helpful, because they clearly are NOT. Please do not contact me about this issue again, either on here, on my talk page, or anywhere else. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Excuse me, can we be professional here? And not resort to personal attempts on character. You have yet to provide compelling argument which is very interesting to me and shows where you stand. Thank you. Adam4R4O (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok. Interesting you didn't deny being a fan of Morley (as appears to be the case from your edits). Not going to reply to your other comments, as you are trying to "prove" that I am biased. Historyday01 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The daily dot and pop culture are not any better. Being neutral is seen as unethical? I would understand that since I would have to guess you are a fan of Zech and I respect that. I would love for this discussion to end as well, however your attempts to remove content in an attempt to be "biased" is highly unethical. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh. Hollywood Life is a gossip magazine. Please stop with your disruptive edits on the page, as they help no one. I would LOVE this whole discussion to end, but your edits are impeding any possible consensus. If I have to guess, you are a fan of Morley and are adding content in an attempt to be "neutral", which is unethical if true. Historyday01 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, whose judgement is it to say the sources are worse?? Is it wikipedia's?? can you provide actual evidence of why Hollywood Life owned by Bonnie Fuller who was an editor in chief YM, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, and Us Weekly and which provides actual content isn't a reputable source in comparison to Popculture. Why is it that a source of Taylor and Morley speaking about their relationship in Supanova considered awful sources whilst Zech speaking in the same place can be considered a good source? Arryn Zech#cite note-19 Why is [[eonline covering Morley's knee surgery removed? How are these sources (compelling argument please) different from the ones your provided? Adam4R4O (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the fact is that the source you've added are even WORSE than the existing sources. Not every source is reliable. Historyday01 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Bob and Eliza Morley wedding.jpeg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Bob and Eliza Morley wedding.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- No surprise, this image violates copyright. It should be removed immediately. Historyday01 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Help me![edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with... I have tried to add details to Bob Morley's wikipedia page, these details include a knee surgery which has altered multiple things for him in his professional and personal life, the story of him and his wife getting together, which provides another viewpoint of accusations of abuse he's been facing by his ex. His wife has made a statement to counter those accusations however any edits that happen to that page seem to be instantly deleted, citing reasons such as unreliable sources (the sources used are the same sources as the ones used in the current version of the page and which still remain on the page, as well as public appearances or interviews where these topics were addressed. The reasons for reverting (not more than 3- exactly 3) were not appearing constructive, muddling and unreliable resources. As it seems from the page only one view point is presented and there is refusal to present any others. Is there a way to ensure the representation of the full story without the page being constantly edited to stay the same with one point of view? I have attempted as well as several others content dispute yet it always seems to reach a dead end. These allegations contributed to racial offenses as well as threats against the subject of the article.
I should also add the refusal to add anything to the other party's wikipedia showing another viewpoint, whilst there are accusations from Arryn Zech there are videos of her making harmful statements, by removing those whilst keeping the accusations we wouldn't be showing the whole story.
Appreciate your help. Adam4R4O (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- As this is a content dispute, I recommend taking this to the talk page (Talk:Bob Morley). This is a dispute about reliable sources, and should be resolved by discussion with other editors. Please note WP:Reliable Sources (and our current standards for what sources can be used for) as well as WP:BLP (as this affects a living person, our standards for inclusion are higher) Soni (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- To add to Soni's response, this is already under discussion on the talk page at Talk:Bob Morley#Content dispute over accusations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance, the talk page has provided unfruitful as other parties refuse the edits for the same reasons their edits are added. Adam4R4O (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The sources you've added in are pretty awful to be honest, and are not helpful to anyone. Historyday01 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Awful and not helpful according to whom? I can definitely see it not being helpful in the context of painting Zech's viewpoint only, once again, popculture and the daily dot which you've added (and if I may add, the daily dot is directly names Taylor, something not even added in the statement) are as equal in reliability as Hollywood life which is an official magazine. You have not provided any proof of why these two news sources differ, you simply said it was awful, and you refused any attempt of people telling you that you have provided unreliable source. Furthermore, adding a link to Eliza Taylor speaking about their relationship in Conageddon (something that counters Zech's claims) should be taken as seriously as adding Zech's always open most recent episode of always open, otherwise that would also be considered muddling or not helpful to anyone. Please consider the importance of adding every single viewpoint without bias. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think you are editing in good faith, not at all, and I have to question your motives on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have to question your motives as well, you have removed anything unrelated to Zech in the page. You have refused to add other point of views, you have cited unreliable sources. The additions I have made were neither accusatory nor defamatory, whilst your insist on presenting one viewpoint whilst refusing to add anything else with similar sources as those you provided, I have to question your motives as well. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh boy. If there were reliable sources supporting your claims, I'd surely add them, but the sources you have added run afoul of existing policies on here in regards to verifiability. Historyday01 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The sources you have provided are unreliable as well and your argument was that the daily dot, den of greek and popculture are reliable sources (these are gossip sites and/or sites that provide no proof for authenticity. Your response to that was you don't expect NYT or Washington times to cover this topic, just because you haven't found a reputable source doesn't mean you dismiss sources exactly like yours. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That sort of logic makes no sense though. I would NEVER say that daily dot, den of greek and popculture are gossip sites. The National Enquirer and Daily Mail trade is gossip (and general awfulness), but daily dot, den of greek and popculture don't do that, from my experience of reading those sources. Washington Times isn't the best source either, and NYT is behind a paywall, so it can't be used all the time anyhow. Historyday01 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, it's not your experience that I am seeking, nor your viewpoint. Adam4R4O (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are seeking the removal of the content, something which helps no one, plain and simple. Unfortunately, in this case, I predict that bringing in a "third option" as you have have done, will not help end this discussion, since I don't want anything more to with this discussion or the other one on your talk page I have been involved in, during which you have been much more combative than me, by a long shot, which is sad to see. This discussion should be on the Bob Morley talk page (where you have already posted), not on here, where you have inappropriately continued it, to the detriment of both of us. Any further mentions of me on here (or on my talk page) will not be replied to. Please do not contact me about this matter again. Thanks.Historyday01 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, it's not your experience that I am seeking, nor your viewpoint. Adam4R4O (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- That sort of logic makes no sense though. I would NEVER say that daily dot, den of greek and popculture are gossip sites. The National Enquirer and Daily Mail trade is gossip (and general awfulness), but daily dot, den of greek and popculture don't do that, from my experience of reading those sources. Washington Times isn't the best source either, and NYT is behind a paywall, so it can't be used all the time anyhow. Historyday01 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The sources you have provided are unreliable as well and your argument was that the daily dot, den of greek and popculture are reliable sources (these are gossip sites and/or sites that provide no proof for authenticity. Your response to that was you don't expect NYT or Washington times to cover this topic, just because you haven't found a reputable source doesn't mean you dismiss sources exactly like yours. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh boy. If there were reliable sources supporting your claims, I'd surely add them, but the sources you have added run afoul of existing policies on here in regards to verifiability. Historyday01 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have to question your motives as well, you have removed anything unrelated to Zech in the page. You have refused to add other point of views, you have cited unreliable sources. The additions I have made were neither accusatory nor defamatory, whilst your insist on presenting one viewpoint whilst refusing to add anything else with similar sources as those you provided, I have to question your motives as well. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think you are editing in good faith, not at all, and I have to question your motives on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Awful and not helpful according to whom? I can definitely see it not being helpful in the context of painting Zech's viewpoint only, once again, popculture and the daily dot which you've added (and if I may add, the daily dot is directly names Taylor, something not even added in the statement) are as equal in reliability as Hollywood life which is an official magazine. You have not provided any proof of why these two news sources differ, you simply said it was awful, and you refused any attempt of people telling you that you have provided unreliable source. Furthermore, adding a link to Eliza Taylor speaking about their relationship in Conageddon (something that counters Zech's claims) should be taken as seriously as adding Zech's always open most recent episode of always open, otherwise that would also be considered muddling or not helpful to anyone. Please consider the importance of adding every single viewpoint without bias. Adam4R4O (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- The sources you've added in are pretty awful to be honest, and are not helpful to anyone. Historyday01 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance, the talk page has provided unfruitful as other parties refuse the edits for the same reasons their edits are added. Adam4R4O (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- To add to Soni's response, this is already under discussion on the talk page at Talk:Bob Morley#Content dispute over accusations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 06:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
About The Third Opinion Request: It has been reverted for a couple of reasons. First, it did not comply with the instructions at the Third Opinion page and, indeed, replaced existing listings which had not yet been answered, along with other problems. But, second, it did not qualify for a Third Opinion in the first place because there were more than two editors involved involved in the discussion at the article talk page and Third Opinions are only available for disputes involving exactly two editors. The fact that there were only two on this user talk page does not obviate that defect. If further dispute resolution is needed, consider the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but do not list there without carefully reading and following the instructions on that page. (And maybe not listing there until the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion plays completely out.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) (3O Volunteer) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. Correction: The pending discussion is at Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, not WP:RSN. Sorry about that. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bob and Eliza Morley wedding.jpeg[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:Bob and Eliza Morley wedding.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.instagram.com/p/CO1EVefBRhs/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, this image is from instagram from a public figure that has been tagged, if there is a way to tag this then I would love to do it, the instructions were sort of unclear, if it isn't then I would love to delete but I am unsure of the steps to be taken to delete, if you could help that would be great, thank you. Adam4R4O (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright[edit]
Hello Adam4R4O! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I do want to delete the image but looking at the page, I can't find a delete button, how do I delete it? Thank you
- {{Ping|Whpq}} Adam4R4O (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Why did you remove my list from the third opinion?[edit]
I saw that you removed my listing of a third opinion case. Why? [[1]] RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry I don't quite recall the case, but I was told the article itself (or the problem) wasn't eligible for a 3rd opinion but I don't recall removing anything. Adam4R4O (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Its okay i guess you removed it by mistake while adding your case. Ots okay. Cheers! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)