Danielstardigital

I have reverted the edits you made to Fellows Auctioneers as I felt it was overly promotional. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your work as a digital marketer

Hello Danielstardigital. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Fellows Auctioneers, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, 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:Danielstardigital. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Danielstardigital|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Curb Safe Charmer,

I am not receiving any financial compensation for my edits on Wikipedia. We do work with Fellows on other online marketing but not for making amendments on Wikipedia. I do think removing all my updates are not justified.

The Rolex was a record-breaking sale and very factual not promotional or any black SEO.

The same with the Birkin's bags, Fellows are one of the only auctions houses which sell these at record prices. I did not promote this simply stated a fact.

I appreciate my updates on the Fellows Auctioneers Page may have been a bit promotional, I then amended the content and removed the promotional side of this content and it was still removed. This has no benefit to Fellows, I simply want to state the facts on their own Wiki page.

Please let me know your thoughts and thanks for taking the time to look at this, I have lots more info I plan to share on Wikipedia as they have been involved with some very old historic pieces and limited edition items which would be suitable for this site. (they are all non promotional) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielstardigital (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As you have confirmed that you work for a company that has Fellows as a client, and provide online marketing services for them, then you have a clear conflict of interest and must comply with the disclosure requirements. Please also familiarise yourself with the process for making edit requests. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, I'm Curb Safe Charmer. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Birkin bag and Rolex Milgauss have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)