User talk:Bigrich73

What is the problem with examples of DAM software on the DAM page? And what is your concern here... are you involved with proprietary DAM software? --Dan Huby (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion page, there are too many examples of DAM system available to favour one on this page without it becoming a spam ridden free for all (as was when lists of vendors were permitted). I don't understand the relevance of whether I'm involved proprietary software or not to the edit decisions (and the answer is no). Are you suggesting that I'm not impartial or favour commercial vs open source software? Bigrich73 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much DAM spam; I thank you, Rich, for your ongoing struggle to keep it off the articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as DAM books go, the market is very niche. Excluding one because it is sponsored by a vendor is unfair. You should also remove David Diamond's first book in that case, which was sponsored by a vendor (I totally disagree that you should do this, but at least be consistent if you're going to decide for the entire internet that DAM vendors don't know what they are talking about because they sell a product.) There is a nice list at DAM Directory, and DAMNews of books that could be included on this page. As one of the top results in Google for digital asset management, the DAM wikipedia page should be a robust article with lots of resources and information--connecting people with information, not opinions.

Maintaining a neutral perspective includes recognizing and discussing information from many different perspectives--the DAM vendor perspective is one of them. Everyone is selling something, even "vendor neutral" consultants. What we share is the desire for DAM education resources to be accessible to the general public. 46.44.134.60 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Diamond only works for a vendor, his book is not sponsored by one and is published under his own imprint. That's the difference, your book is sponsored by Bynder who are paying for its publication and requiring their logo is shown on the cover, i.e. it's non-neutral. Your case would be more legitimate had you not made multiple attempts to spam the Digital Asset Management page under different accounts, IP addresses, using links etc and the fact you have only chosen to include one book (your own) despite the fact there are several.

You've been caught unsuccessfully spamming Wikipedia multiple times, that's the bottom line. Bigrich73 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]