Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:17, 15 July 2009

Yes, I'll remove things from this Talk page from time to time. It's not my intent to remove active discussions.

If you want to see old content, check the history.

Temporary copy of the FlipScript page

This is an a temporary copy of the FlipScript page, which was deleted in error. The text is here so I can restore it with some more evidence. (None of the people voting Delete saw this version of the page as it was deleted shortly after I did this edit)

FlipScript and Glyphusion are the first companies to provide computer-generated ambigrams. FlipScript is the consumer-facing company, while Glyphusion is the technology company. The companies have the same owners.

Technology

The Glyphusion generator is the second software system to generate ambigrams, but the first based on matching parts of letters, in the same way that people create ambigrams. According to FlipScript, the Glyphusion generator uses a database of over 200,000 strokes (as of January 2009) to create designs.

Currently, ambigrams can only be generated in a Blackletter style popular in tattoos, which are also the predominant style of Mark Palmer's work. The company has stated that they are working on additional styles.

Licensees

FlipScript is an online retailer that creates personalized Ambigram products (shirts, jewelry, household and office items, etc.). FlipScript is unique in that they are were the first company to provide custom artwork based on people's names or other text, and products can be ordered immediately. FlipScript introduced an iPhone application in 2008.

Other licensees include:

• WowTattoos (the tattoo company of Mark Palmer)
• Cascadia Design Studio (jewelry)
• Precision Artistry (laser engraving)

Company Information

Both FlipScript and Glyphusion were founded in 2007 by software developer Mark Hunter and ambigrammist and tattoo artist Mark Palmer.

See also

• Ambigram

Notes and references

{{reflist}}

External links

• FlipScript home
• Glyphusion
• Interview with Mark Hunter

{{website-stub}}

Category:Self-publishing online stores

Userfication

Note that when most people keep copys of deleted articles to make suitable for inclusion (which isn't uncommon here) they usually do so on a created subpage of their userpage, not on their talk page. This makes it easier for people to follow the discussions on your talk page. In your case the page would normally be called something like User:RoyLeban/FlipScript. Also note I replied to your comment on the D&H museum page. Themfromspace (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My What Notability is Not essay

I am glad you found the essay useful. I will not be moving it into project namespace as once it is there I lose any control over it, and it can be edited to mean the opposite of what I wish to say. It's a user essay, written by one user in the hope it proves useful. It should already be linked to from WP:N, I don;t see va;lue in adding it to WP:NOT as there is an efort made there to keep see also links to a minimum. If anyone wants to copy it to project namespace, with clear attribution per the GFDL, I have no objections. Hiding T 11:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambigram

You're welcome. :-) As for the WP:V matter, all material in Misplaced Pages articles must be supported by reliable, verifiable sources cited in the text. What one editor considers common knowledge is subjective, and therefore, would fall under WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If people introduced to his book think this, then you need to provide a source for that. Personal knowledge to that effect constitutes Original research, which is not permitted, as it cannot be verified as per WP:V. I'll look over the Talk Page, and see what I can do. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR because all material in articles must be supported by reliable, verifiable sources cited explicitly in the text so that WP:V can be verified. If it cannot be satisfied, and the editor is basing their inclusion of that material on their own personal experiences, then that editor is acting as the source, which is not permitted by WP:NOR. This is because Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, is a reference source: It refers to the sources that establish the material in question. By acting as the source yourself, you're creating original material, rather than referring to pre-existing material, which is what a reference source does. The whole point of WP:V is that it allows readers to look up those sources themselves to verify the material. But they can't do that with something that is either unsourced, or sourced to the personal experience of an anonymous editor whose identity isn't known, especially when a reader doesn't even have any way of knowing which editor added which material to an article, without slogging through the entire Edit History, can they? Thus, you need a source that he introduced it and didn't merely use an in-use term, that "some people still use that term", etc. If there are many sources that establish these things, then it would be great if you could add them when you get a chance. You cannot be the source for material you add to articles. Nightscream (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer a more egalitarian setup. If you don't like the back-and-forth of using both our Talk Pages, would it be okay if we continued this on the article's Talk Page? And btw, if you look at the WP:V policy description here, it pretty much says what I've described here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my statements came off as condescending, as that was not my intention. Your questions seemed to be answered directly and unambiguously by core WP policy, and a check of your edits showed you've only been editing since last month, so I didn't know what else to say other than to cite policy, which is clear.

There is no specific assertion that Kim referred to what we now call ambigrams as "inversions". The passage that states that he used the term "inversion" does not clearly specify that he was referring to ambigrams, and in any event, that passage is not sourced.

"Similarly, it is easy to find many sources that use the term "Inversion" today -- they're all over the Internet, for example. I don't think one needs to site any one of them in particular to consider the statement "some people..." to be sufficiently verified" Roy, it doesn't matter if there are sources "on the Internet". They have to be in the article. That's what WP:V refers to. It doesn't refer to the mere existence "somewhere" of a source, but its inclusion as an inline citation that explicitly supports the material as it's presented in the article. Nightscream (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"I'm saying the verifiable existence of something is sufficient proof to be able to say that the thing exists." No, that's not true. The verifiability of material is not predicated on the mere "existence" of sources. It's predicated on the article's ability to document them. You say the verifiable existence of something is sufficient proof to be able to say that the thing exists. Okay. So how you do know that something verifiably exists in the first place, if the article does not document it with those sources? How can something be "proof" if it's not presented to the reader or person researching or reviewing the article? The very efficacy of proof is predicated on its presentation to the person drawing a conclusion or seeking knowledge on the matter. It is for this reason that sources must be explicitly given in articles. That is why WP policy instructs us to do this. That is its intent, and that is why it is worded as such. Policy is not going to explicitly instruct us to provide sources if it's intent is something other than that. "Something more"? What does this mean? More than what? Can you give an example of this? There is no "something more" described in the WP:V policy that I know of. There is only material in the article. It must be supported by sources. Nightscream (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of WP:V is to provide readers with a source with which they can verify the material in question. If you want to use a web site as a source to support material, then yes, it is sufficient---provided that you cite it in the article. If you don't cite it in the passage, then how is a reader, or a peer reviewer, or researcher, supposed to use that site? If you don't direct that reader to that site explicitly, how does he/she know to go there? If he/she doesn't go there, how can he/she verify that material?

Mentioning a book has this effect, because by mentioning it in the text (even if it's not in ref tags), allows a reader to acquire/purchase/borrow a 1979 copy of the book, see the art on the cover, verify the artist by the credits in the book, and thus, verify the passage's assertion. It is for this reason that where the content of books, movies, TV episodes, etc. are concerned, they themselves function as their own source.

Thus, if you direct a reader to a source by mentioning that source, it's sufficient. If you don't, then it isn't. Nightscream (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone claims that a site or set of sites you cite are not reliable, that's one thing, but no one should automatically accuse you of COI, or of adding material just to promote the sites, unless they have some evidence or reasoning that excludes the perfectly innocent motive of just trying to improve the article, as this would violate WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:Attack. For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic to this--as there are indeed some churlish, antagonistic editors who will emphasize a given policy, but are quirk to throw CIV, AGF and ATTACK right out the nearest window. I've been falsely accused in this fashion on the Sicko Talk Page, and have been recently thus attacked by an editor I've blocked, and not for the first time. But if anyone attacks you thus, let me know, and I'll assist in the matter.

As for that old COI edit, it's not COI if it's noteworthy, and if the material is supported by the cited source. But if you want to edit it, you can do it by hand. You don't have to rely exclusively on the Undo button, after all. Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Roy, I'm stepping out of this Ambigram debate. I've decided I've spent enough time on it here, and looking at previous comments from previous wikipedians in previous months on this page regarding definitions, opinions, and original research, I realize I could have done so sooner and saved myself some time. Have a good one, see you around. Gushi (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus discussions

Yeah, I'm afraid so, that's pretty much how I did it. Interesting that you should ask about a more automated way to do this, because I've been wondering about that for some time, and I pretty much asked that question of another editor early this morning right here. Once you start the Ambigram discussion, let me know if you want me to comment. Nightscream (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Posted from AFD: "I haven't read the discussion until now since it doesn't matter when I post a comment because the AFD lasts for a week." My !vote was changed to keep. Iowateen (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And all I ever need to do when I think that something is non-notable is post a link to the appropriate guideline. Posting that says why it isn't notable. And I'm tired of inclusionists. Iowateen (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you couldn't post a link to the guideline whenever. For instance, the guideline doesn't back up your comments that you made on the AFD. Iowateen (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do know that. My comment showed that the article didn't match any part of it at the time. Guidelines are what most editors go by. You should know that. Iowateen (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I am done with this discussion because there is no reason for it when neither side is fact. They are opinions and there is no reason to say that one's opinion is wrong and that the other one is right. Every editor on here has different opinions. There is no right way and no wrong way. It all depends on how each editor interprets the rules. Iowateen (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I undertsand all the rules and how deletion works. I had an account before it that I was really active on. I even had two DYK articles and I did an excellent job in AFD with people actaully saying so (except when I got to mad in it or sounded mad). Iowateen (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Illuminati ambigram

Thanks for you reply!! Well...To be honest, I was a little bit apprehensive when put the image ... Because i not know for sure what kind of license would have on the image...but i put also the author who made the ambigram (John Langdon) and the source (his site). Really, i don´t know what happen... Could you help me in the type of license to use their,if I return to for the same image??

Thanks!!

Best regards. --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So sad... would be the first time that the wikipedia would have this image...Actually had...but a little...

But thanks a lot for your help and explanation... Sorry, but I´am new here in this "field" and did not know very well the rules of how this works...When I put the image, I put in the article of , but since the image was deleted, I have already modified the page as it was before. For my part, my apologize if i caused any inconvenience... I want you to know, you have my friendship and all you need, I'm here.

Thanks to spent your attention.

All the best.

--Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect "corrections" in Ambigram

The bot is changing links to pictures to inline pictures. In general, this seems like an incorrect change, but it's particularly bad here, as you'll see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ambigram&diff=297448541&oldid=297150440

And I would expect similar reason elsewhere for the two cases here.

1. A closeup of a portion of a page is shown in the article, and the image of the full page (which appears in no article) is provided as a link. Both have value, but the article has only
2. There are many referenced ambigrams which editors think are worth mentioning, but the article would be unreadable if they were all included inline. People objected to mentioned ambigrams that couldn't be seen. The solution was to link to where the ambigrams could be seen and, in one case, that means a link to an image which appears in no article.

I would recommend looking at whether changing a link like this to an inline image is ever a good idea. If you think it is, then please add Ambigram to the exclusion list (or I can add the robot exclusion tag). An alternative is to note such cases and add a note to the Talk page.

Also, a potential bot feature. If the bot makes a change and a person undoes it, the bot should not make the change again. This is the second time CmdrObot has made this change. Similarly, if you were to add a note to the Talk page, you should not do so repeatedly.

Thanks. RoyLeban (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Roy, my sincere apologies for that unwanted behaviour on my bot's part. Curiously, when I first implemented the wikipedia URL->wikilinks code, I knew that ] links expand to inline images, and special cased the code leave them alone. Much later, I was also aware of the mediawiki addition of File: as a synonym for Image:, but somehow I never connected the two.

Anyhow, long story short, I've fixed the bot, and it shouldn't make that mistake again. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Roy. To follow up on my previous comment, while looking at the bot code, I just recalled that it is in fact possible to make wikilinks out of Image/File URLs that have a label: you just have to use the same trick as is used with Category links, namely prefix them with a colon. So "See full page here" and "See full page here" both link to the correct image.

I've updated the bot to do the correct transformation. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Redmond, Washington page

Re your message: I removed the candidacy information because I felt that such information was excessive. Misplaced Pages is not meant to be a news service or replacement for the King County Elections office. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: Those are election results for a country, not a city. I know there are a lot of election results on Misplaced Pages, but I still believe that such detail is excessive for the article. You don't see such information for Seattle or Olympia for example, but since I was blindly reverted and the information has been restored, I will not be re-removing the section. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Whole series of reverts to Ambigram and talk pages

You can't just revert everything back to your version, especially when you have been identified as having multiple COI problems and doing so attempts to hide that. I restored the talk page to before you reverted it... if you want to discuss there, start your discussion from the proper place. Consensus can change -- not that you ever had a genuine consensus in the first place -- and consensus is not a vote, so dragging up a bunch of comments from anon IPs and throwaway/meatpuppet accounts from months back to pretend that nobody else but you can ever edit the article is simply unacceptable. You do not WP:OWN the article, and, in fact, based upon your COI you shouldn't be directly editing it at all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1. About FlipScript
2. http://www.ambigram.com