Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That's the standard welcome but I noticed you replied to a user who put a Conflict of Interest tag on the article you edited on the article talk page. Users also have a talk page and they will be notified if you write them a nice message and can more likely reply. Check the article history for the person who put in the tag and also read up on COI. Thanks and happy editing! Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Someone in SoCal Area. The person who posted a COI tag on both Elvina Beck and PodShare (pretty much simultaneously) did so without any accompanying explanation on the relevant Talk pages. I HAVE read up on COI, thanks, and know this to be true: the Wikipedia documentation of COI makes clear that: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article". This requirement was not met; and as the documentation continues: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." I'm not following up with the OP on the COI tag when the OP can't even be bothered to follow the rules. Cheers, Zedembee (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I saw that the user who tagged the articles you were working on has been, at least, mildly scolded by admins in the past for doing this. Also, I saw you reverted them doing it again. Even if you are in the right it could be considered harassment if you keep doing that which would get you in trouble. A good place to ask about what to do is the Teahouse which can help answer questions or concerns. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Yeah, I don't want to harass anybody, but isn't it harassment for this individual to keep posting warrantless COI tags? I feel like it's my civic duty to call out the pattern. I've done so now and will leave him or her to their conscience. I promise I have better things to do than poop-a-scoop after COI vandals :) But I would say, having experienced it myself, that unreasoned accusations of bias definitely create a hostile environment for Wikipedia writers, which is likely why the official Wikipedia documentation on COI is really unequivocal on this: no entry on Talk page, no COI tag. Thanks for writing again, good to hear your thoughts. Zedembee (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on Ashley Benson's I did put the hidden Wiki Markup to cover the source on Ashley Benson's rumored breakup but it was restored. I know I didn't make mistakes. I covered up the source and the user giving me a warning. Could you go to Ashley Benson's article and restore my edits. The revert was made by User:General Ization. This is an urgent message. Go to the article titled Ashley Benson to restore my edits and I know it was still a rumor. Next, go talk to User:General Ization to never revert other user's edits to cover the source because it was a rumor. I will be happy for your reply, thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:9943:208A:60D4:FC16 (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This user does not seem to be involved in that article. Please go to Talk:Ashley Benson and make your case if you think you are in the right. However, looking at what you did does not look proper. The entry has 3 sources so you'd have to argue why it should not be there, or hidden for that matter. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I edited Cara D's page last week after numerous other Wikipedians were asserting the breakup as fact. At the time of their writing, only 'People' had announced that the couple had spilt, without confirmation from the couple themselves and with other outlets simply regurgitating 'People' (with those outlets then cited as references, giving the false appearance of cross-verification). I've since taken my eye off it and don't know if there has been further reporting to confirm the breakup. Someone in SoCal Area is right in that I was not involved with Ashley Benson. All best.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't upload photos without a publicly viewable free license or WP:OTRS permission. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your tone could be friendlier and less patronizing. Second, I have both the permission of the actual subject of the photo and the photographer. I'm pretty sure I set that up correctly when I posted the photo. But I'll check the data and amend accordingly. Zedembee (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, I've set in motion the formal release of the photograph via email to Wikipedia. I've also suppressed any photo for now, because the colored photograph to which you reverted in the Infobox is of dubious provenance to the subject and arguably itself ought to be removed from Wikimedia. Please allow 7 days for the formal release to be processed by Wikipedia. Zedembee (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this sounds weird, but I honestly want to thank you. After thinking about it a few hours, the recent conversations made me see that my judgment is clouded in some areas. While I can't say I 100% agree with you, the way I've dealt with this is below my own standards. The Lauren Wolkstein article has a long troubled history and my fuse when dealing with it has gotten too short over the years. I should have known better. Sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zedembee. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. TAXIDICAE💰 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but there is no conflict of interest or I would have declared it by now. Zedembee (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of all doubt:

• I am not paid to create or edit content on Wikipedia in this or any other article;
• All my contributions to this page are made of my own free will, and based on my own research not privileged information;
• There is no external relationship that would influence my integrity as a content creator or editor.

Please... address the real problem here, which is the bizarre behavior of other editors. Zedembee (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the nature of your relationship with Lauren Wolkstein, which allowed you to make statements like Second, I have both the permission of the actual subject of the photo and the photographer. and yet have no connection? TAXIDICAE💰 19:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not required to make biographical declarations on Wikipedia. It is entirely possible to attain the permission of someone without having a relationship that would qualify as a Conflict of Interest. I maintain I have full integrity as a content creator and editor. Thank you and with best.Zedembee (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a conflict of interest and a tenuous relationship with the truth given your multiple uploads of copyright violations. So why should we trust what you say now when you've done nothing but edit in a promotional manner and make dubious copyright claims on works you don't own? TAXIDICAE💰 19:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There has been no copyright violation, let alone multiple violations. That is your perception of events, and you're entitled to it but you have no proof either way. I'm not here to be insulted, thank you, and won't engage with you again. All the best to you. Zedembee (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of many sources of proof. There is no permission and you uploaded a copyright violation as you 1.) didn't provide a source 2.) didn't provide a source which clearly identifies it as CC by SA 4.0 as you indicated on your upload and 3.) no such permission was ever sent. TAXIDICAE💰 19:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. I made those mistakes in error, which means in ignorance and misunderstanding. I've made thousands of contributions during my time here on Wikipedia, and a handful of missteps. The hostility in your tone is unwarranted. I will ignore you from this point on because you seem to be struggling with some bigger anger. All the best. Zedembee (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made thousands of contributions during my time here on Wikipedia, Interesting statement? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why? I have made thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. It may not be literally thousands but it sure feels like it with folks like you making it so unpleasant. See my Contributions page.Zedembee (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Turns out it's 706 contributions. But, sure, jump on two images and initiate a witch hunt.Zedembee (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not trying to badger you but you are required to answer certain questions and given your inability to be forthcoming and the fact that you doubled down after you were told that you uploaded copyright violations does not make me inclined to believe your statements. Accidents happen. Sure. We apologize, fix them and move on. However, you've insisted you got permission from the photographers, so you'll need to detail how you managed to do so as well as the actual permission. Copyright violations have legal implications for Wikipedia because our content is freely licensed and we require all content uploaded to be the same. While this conversation is unpleasant, you do have a duty to truthfully respond. Should you choose not to, I will open a request at WP:COIN to discuss this further. TAXIDICAE💰 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: no, I will not be making any biographical declaration. I am truthfully responding. I understand I am required to declare any Conflict of Interest, and, once again, I have not declared because there isn't any. Yes, you must go ahead and resolve this however you wish, to your satisfaction. I will not participate in further discussion with you because I do not trust that you are not motivated by animus and life is just too gosh-darned short. All the best and over and out.Zedembee (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to participate in the AfD for Lauren Wolkstein, but due to the disruption you're causing at the article itself (specifically, edit warring over the AfD templates) I have blocked you from editing the article for a week. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm still learning some things about Wikipedia. I wasn't quite sure what I was doing by removing the deletion tag, but presumed that actions taken in the sincere perception of vandalism were permissible. I posted to the Talk page giving my reasons for my actions at the time. This is such an incredible waste of everyone's energy and time. All caused by one editor with some self-confessed issues about this subject. Thank you. Zedembee (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. TAXIDICAE💰 20:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have responded and have nothing further to say. I will not engage in any further discussion. All the best to you. Zedembee (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on PodShare, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. scope_creep^Talk 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that I've moved PodShare to draft space. I think this will be in everyone's interest. There were rather a lot of primary and other unreliable sources; however, I'm not doubting the notability of the topic. We can now take a long hard look at it, and a successful review will give it more credibility when approved and transferred to article space. Deb (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zedembee. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:PodShare, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]