CapnPhantasm

May 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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 noticeboards.
• 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Registered Agents Inc., you may be blocked from editing. Amigao (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is pretty rich. I have asked you repeatedly to discuss on the Talk page rather than knee-jerk reverting, and thus it is you that are conducting the disruptive behavior. I asked you to discuss on the article's Talk page repeatedly now, and you have not done so, but you are instructing me here to discuss on the article's Talk page? I suggest you follow your own advice. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:INAPPNOTE under "campaigning" as that sort of canvassing is considered disruptive behavior and may merit administrative review. - Amigao (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that multiple reversions, as you did, while I repeatedly requested discussion on the Talk page is disruptive. I suggest you review neutrality and bias yourself. CapnPhantasm (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Unintended archive

CapnPhantasm, my mouse froze up and I was working on the issue when it started working and archived your discussion "Does not appear to meet notability" at Talk:Registered_Agents_Inc.. It does not give me the option to self-revert so would you see if you can revert the edit and let me know. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello CapnPhantasm. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:CapnPhantasm. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=CapnPhantasm|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Previous declaration of paid Wikipedia editing for on behalf of clients for NUANCE Agency. Amigao (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(I'm cross-posting this response here, copied from my responses on the Registered Agents Inc. Talk page and the associated Afd discussion regarding that page as User:Amigao has suggested I'm conducting paid edits that I am not on those other pages as well.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism.