Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoyLeban (talk | contribs) at 06:54, 15 July 2009 (→Consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ambigram was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Consensus on items to include in this page

This is a permanent section of the talk page, intended to be a record of items discussed in the past, to prevent revisiting old discussions. For discussions on these items, see below or talk archives (for old items). When adding an item to this list, please use the same format and indicate the vote. For votes open less than two weeks, please also indicate how long the vote was held open. Note, of course, that these are not, strictly speaking, votes -- they are a means of finding consensus.

Examples of Ambigrams

Love/Hate	3 votes against, none in favor (original editor did not revisit)
Justin Thyme	3 in favor, none opposed
Trick/Treat cards	4 in favor, none opposed
dollop	2 opposed, 1 in favor
Honda Civic	3 opposed, none in favor
РИa logo for Novosti	2 opposed, 2 leans
Slackware (old logo)	4 opposed, none in favor
US Civil Defense (old logo)	2 opposed, none in favor (original editor did not revisit)

Other items

Monkeyshine movie	4 in favor, 1 opposed
Ambiscript	4 in favor, 1 opposed (minor mention, no image)
Example of an NPL ambigram	4 opposed, 1 in favor
Link to Ambigramania	3 in favor, 1 opposed
Link to Flickr pool	3 in favor, 1 opposed

Flickr ambigram group

Please visit the Flickr ambigram group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/ambigram/.

We're a burgeoning community of artists with a substantial and growing body of work for reference. There are some truly unique and creative designs to be found for the curious.

Thanks for your consideration!

scalpod

Removed ambigram: Mosuki

Removed: "Mosuki, the logo for the online calendar sharing site"

• No opinion don't know how long this link has been there or anything about the site.

ABBA Logo?

Somebody pointed out to me that the ABBA logo is not an ambigram. Neither is the one for Nine Inch Nails, so I removed them. Any objection?

• , the logo for the band ABBA.
• , the logo for the band Nine Inch Nails.

Should there be a small section on things like ABBA, NIN, and CIVIC (CIVID) -- pseudo-ambigrams, essentially? RoyLeban (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The word ambigram is not really defined in many reputable dictionaries, but one definition is: An ambigram is a word that can be read from different angles, like or MOW or NOON that can be turned through 180 degrees and still be read as the same words. According to this definition, ABBA certainly is not an ambigram, but the NIN logo fits this definition of Ambigram. It just seems like you are trying to narrow the definition here. I agree that readers will tend to want to add to the list because they suddenly recognize the concept, but we should all be able to agree that the band Nine Inch Nails were a bit ahead of their time with their image. So removing NIN because it doesn't fit a narrow definition of ambigram, seems like the wrong reason. Removing it for copyright violations is the right reason. And I agree that there could be way too many examples added, but NIN just seems like a terrific example. --Graydoncarter (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Let me add that I ultimately defer to you RoyLeban because this is your area of focus, I'm just a reader and puzzle solver. It also occurs to me that professional tattoo artists are very invested in this area, perhaps more than other graphic artists (because their media will often be inverted) so the definition will be apt to focus on a very specific concept, as will happen. --Graydoncarter (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the second N in NIN is backwards, like the first B in ABBA, so I think they're not ambigrams. I don't know what to call them other than interesting ambigram-like / ambigram-inspired logos (similarly, my game of WIM is ambigram-like / ambigram-inspired, but it is not an ambigram game). But, I lean toward including them in a section of their own because I think the existence of these logos helps popularize ambigrams. RoyLeban (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Retain - Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I added a new section for these ambigram-like logos and restored them. RoyLeban (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• • It is true that the backwards B / N in ABBA / NIN are significantly different in form from the canonical forms of the respective letters. However, the same can certainly be said of the letters in most ambigrams, which are far more distorted and less recognisable in isolation than are letters which are merely backwards. Therefore creating a separate category is original research. jnestorius 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

These are both examples of mirror-image ambigrams then, and saying they are NOT ambigrams while claiming that the DeLorean logo (with its undertext which is not ambigramatic at all) is, is simply confusing. I recommend either deleting this section, or at least moving the DeLorean logo down to it. Gushi (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. 1) The first B in ABBA is backwards. It was not distorted to make the word readable -- it was distorted to make it a mirror image. This is opposite of what an ambigram is about. 2) NIN, by itself, is a natural 180-degree ambigram. Flipping the N, like flipping the B in ABBA, makes it less readable, not more readable. I don't think this comes close to OR. They are not ambigrams but people keep thinking they are (e.g., look at the CD logo that was also added). Having a section which says that there are things that are similar to ambigrams which are not ambigrams is appropriate and helps the article.

DMC is not a natural ambigram. D's are not normally drawn without a vertical stroke on the left. The designer made the decision on shape to make it into an ambigram. It is the case that it is a trivial ambigram, but it is also a very well known one. Also, the text below the ambigram does not make the logo not be an ambigram. That said, I do agree that the text below the DMC logo is distracting and doesn't help. How about swapping the logo for a picture of the front end of an actual DeLorean showing the logo on a car?

RoyLeban (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you RoyLeban, in a sense. NIN is not a true 180, as it goes from the first letter being distorted to the last letter being distorted. Less readable, not more, as above, but no less readable than the original.

However, my argument was not to claim that these things ARE or ARE NOT ambigrams. It's to claim that we are calling one an ambigram and two not-an-ambigram, and that whatever they are, they should be in the same section. Is there some way that ABBA differs from DMC? If so, how is it clear to the reader? Both have modified letterforms (either a B being Backwards, or a backwards C being a "D") that make them less readable and make them either "pseudo ambigrams" or "mirror image ambigrams" (or simply "symmetric words"). Gushi (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be slightly clearer. NIN, those literal letters, is a natural 180-degree ambigram. Had Nine Inch Nails simply used those letters as their logo, they would have had an amibgram logo. The real Nine Inch Nails logo (N-I-backwards-N) is a mirror-image (not 180) logo, but it is not an ambigram. The Nine Inch Nails logo and the ABBA logo are thus similar. Rather than draw, reshape, or distort a letter to create a readable word, they have taken a readable word and distorted (reversed) a letter to create a graphical effect (the mirror image). That does not an ambigram make.

In contrast DMC is not a natural ambigram. If it were reversed, it would read non-letter,M,D. The designer modified the D so that it matched the reversed C, creating a mirror-image ambigram which reads DMC both ways.

I have made an attempt to modify the section to clarify this, but I would not be surprised if people consider it OR. Please feel free to reword if you think you can say it better.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So I understand this, what you are saying is that a backwards C counts as a letter D (even with no vertical stroke), and thus the DMC logo is an ambigram. But a backwards B does not count as a B (even if it matches no other letterform and is easily recognizable as such), thus ABBA is not, and that is why they are different? Gushi (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically. The point of ambigrams is to create things that are readable as the same thing in more than one way. The ABBA and NIN logos are not trying to do that, nor are they accomplishing it. BTW, not all C's look like D's backwards (for example, a cursive or black letter C wouldn't pass). The designer used letters in which it worked. Also, this is not a comment on whether the ABBA and NIN logos are good logos (I actually like both of them) -- just on whether or not they are ambigrams. RoyLeban (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Determinations about what the ABBA or DMC logos are "trying" or "succeeding" to do is original research, unless you've got some sort of evidence or quote from the original logo designer(s) Whether they are symmetric along the X-axis, however, is a matter of simple measurement, similar to determining if a word is a palindrome (NB: I am not implying all palindromes are ambigrams). Whether symmetry along the X-axis qualifies it as an ambigram, (i.e. a "mirror image ambigram") then please find an example of that definition and let's rate things consistently. Qualifying one as, and one not based on your above criteria constitute original research based on your own opinions. "Citation Needed." Gushi (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdenting for readaibility

I reverted the change that said the DMC logo is an ambigram-like logo. This is just wrong. It's a logo, it says DMC, it's readable both ways, it's a mirror-image. There's no question about it. We can argue about whether it's a good logo, a good ambigram, or even a good example, but not whether it's an ambigram. You could even argue that it is a natural ambigram (like MOM and MOW) which didn't take much design effort, but that doesn't mean that it's not an ambigram. The reason I think the DMC logo is worth being in the article (and I didn't originally put it there) is that it is one of the ambigrams that has been seen by the most people. I agreed with the point that the text below the logo was distracting (and made the whole image not a logo). I have uploaded a photo of the front grille of a DeLorean, which I think is a better image and doesn't have the extra text problem.

On the ABBA and NIN logos, I understand your argument about original research, but I disagree. If I go out to my garden and take a picture of a flower and then put it in the Flower article and say it's a flower, it's not OR. It's simple observation. Similarly, if I upload a picture of a bag of flour to the same article, it is easy to see that it is not a flower. Also not OR. Yes, the ABBA and NIN logos are symmetric. They are mirror-image logos. But any type of symmetry, whether mirror-image or rotational, does not make something an ambigram unless it meets the other parts of the definition, and these don't. A backwards B is not a B or an almost-B or something that could be read as a B, as you might see in an ambigram. It's a backwards B, no question about it. Similarly, a backwards N is not an N. None of this is OR. They're simply not ambigrams by the definition of an ambigram (which is not that broadly-defined). It's simple observation. The extra irony, as noted earlier, is that NIN, unchanged, is a natural ambigram.

I do see how my comments on "trying" and "succeeding" make it seem like OR. I was trying to explain the process and why it's easy for people who don't know much about ambigrams to think that they are ambigrams and why this section exists in the first place. In some sense, the section should be titled "Logos that people want in this article that aren't ambigrams". If anything is OR, it's the phrase "ambigram-like", but I think that is descriptive. Clearly, I don't think it is a matter of opinion as to whether the ABBA and NIN logos are ambigrams, so I removed the comment you made. When I made my earlier edit, I considered adding "Some people think these are ambigrams," but I knew that would be considered OR. Who are some people? Where is the article that said this? Etc.

I would actually have no problem removing the ambigram-like section entirely (the Flower article doesn't have a section on "Things that aren't flowers"), but I suspect that it won't be long before someone adds one of those logos back to the article. Thus, it's a useful section.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your defense of the DMC logo is "It's a logo, it says DMC, it's readable both ways, it's a mirror-image. There's no question about it."

Which of those is untrue for NIИ or ABBA? (Sadly there's no cyrillic font that lets me do the same thing for ABBA there). This is my point. You are applying simple definitions for what an ambigram is, and you are refuting other things on the same logic. Whatever is true of these things, it is the same thing. Your determinations of what is and what is not are the original research. What I think does not constitute original research is that, as you've stated, there is no really good defining criteria for what am ambigram is. There's no "Ambigram Standards Board" or keeper of a definitive list like the Scrabble Dictionary or whatnot to make a ruling on this, and putting in a section of what are "possible ambigrams" (depending on broadly defined criteria) and noting that there's no real standard is definitely good to mention in the main article (it's somewhat like defining "art", or for that matter "pornography" (and the overlap between)), but your arguments as to what are and what are not simply are not consistent.

You absolutely think ABBA is not an ambigram, and you absolutely do think DMC is, based on criteria that are not documented anywhere, except by you here. Please cite your sources. If the definition is strict, then state that (and cite where it's strict in the article), and apply the definition consistently across your examples. If it's subjective, then saying the definition is subjective does NOT count as original research.

Earlier in the history of this article, people pointed out ABBA and NIИ are not ambigrams, based on the more-specifically defined criteria of rotational ambigrams (which none of these are), which is what started this whole thing. I wonder how many other mirror-image ambigrams were defined in the article at that time.

(I would also feel it prudent to mention that NIN (no backwards N) *is* a true rotational ambigram in the main article as you've done here, as it adds clarity to what is and is not.) Gushi (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Every definition on Misplaced Pages, including the one in Flower, which I picked as a random example, is subjective. Let's take that one for fun: "A flower, sometimes known as a bloom or blossom, is the reproductive structure found in flowering plants...." What is "reproductive"? What is a "structure"? The petals of a flower do not have any reproductive purpose, so they are clearly not part of the flower by this definition. For the most part, the petals also aren't structure -- the petals don't hold a flower together, they just make it look pretty and more likely to be eaten (thus spreading the seeds over a wider area). This is shocking news!

What's OR? Practically everything on Misplaced Pages, if you want to rule out things we can observe. Don't get me started on that, there are huge articles that are almost all OR, but we're not talking about that here. Take this sentence that I added in the first graph: "Different ambigramists may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form." Is that OR? Well, you can look at the example ambigrams and it is blatently obvious to anybody. But, I didn't cite a source. A lot of Doug's book discusses the topic, of course, but I don't think a reference is needed for something that is so obvious. Can I prove that the picture of a DeLorean grille I uploaded really is a DeLorean? Where's my source on that? The Leaning Tower of Pisa is tilted (prove it!).

We are intelligent people. We can look at something and tell if it is a flower or ambigram. It's not rocket science and it's not original research. The definition of ambigram in the article, which is not in dispute, says "An ambigram, also sometimes known as an inversion, is a typographical design or artform that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction or orientation". You can argue that NIИ can be read as NIN, but that is only true if you accept the fact that the N is backwards. People read mispelled wrds and things that are just not w#rds all the time. That doesn't make them words. If you were to take a survey of 100 people and asked them what English letter И was, all 100 would say it was a backwards N, not an N. Simple observation tells you that. The prohibition on OR doesn't say we have to stop observing the obvious.

ABBA and NIИ don't follow the basic rules of ambigrams. They (the logos) are not attempting to be readable. They're attempting the reverse. This isn't subjective. What is subjective in ambigrams is quality, and you're free to argue that DMC is a bad ambigram. You could argue that the D in DMC is a bad D, but you can't argue that the И is a bad N. It's obviously a backwards N, not a bad N. Sorry if earlier editors rejected ABBA and NIИ on the basis of the (bogus) claim that ambigrams had to be rotational. I've been creating ambigrams for >30 years, so I certainly wouldn't have said that.

As I said, I'd be happy to nuke the section. I'm just afraid that the issue will come up again if we do. I did add a note on NIN being a natural ambigram. Good suggestion. I'm also happy to have more in the section, but I don't really feel like looking through one of the published books to find references for something which is a minor point (and which we're wasting time on!). Of course, I don't own the article -- just trying to keep it accurate.

P.S. Thanks for thinking of the cyrillic И. Makes it much clearer!

RoyLeban (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Gushi (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

United States Civil Defense logo

The United States Civil Defense "CD" logo was recently added to the ambigram-like logos section of the article. I do not think it is a good example and am proposing it be removed. Please vote below.

• Remove. I do not think it is well-known enough and it is no longer in use. Since it's only two letters long and a natural non-ambigram, it is not a good example of an ambigram-like logo. Unlike the ABBA and NIN logos, it's not clear if the designer had any intent to make it ambigram-like. And, not surprisingly, this particular letter combination can be found in many logos, drawn in a similar way. A quick search (for "CD logo") turned up: Crocket Design, Super Audio CD, Coredeluxe, Christian Doppler, etc. RoyLeban (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Remove I'm not certain its current usage is pertinent. However, it fails as a good example of a perhaps unintentional ambigram-like logo and only serves to make the article less clear. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this logo and am archiving it here. RoyLeban (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Civil defense.svg, the logo for the U.S. Civil Defense, no longer in use as of 2006.

Saint/Sinner

I removed the Saint/Sinner logo mention -- this is a brand new product with a logo which is nothing special -- it's a lot like many other logos. I do not think it is worthy of mention at this time.

"Saint/Sinner," the logo for Australian Gold's new bottle of indoor tanning lotion, designed by Mark Palmer

If you disagree, discuss it here. RoyLeban (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark Palmer mentions

I do not have proof, but it seems to me that these are COI edits and I have removed them. Mark Palmer is a tattoo artist known for ambigrams. I know nothing about tattoos, so I cannot judge if he is notable in that area. However, right now, there is no Misplaced Pages article on him and I do not see what differentiates him from the thousands of other people who create ambigrams and the many tattoo artists who do ambigram tattoos. If he is "the world's most tattooed ambigrammist," as has been asserted, and a reference for that can be found, I would have no problem adding it.

Also, I thought there should be an article on FlipScript, the maker of ambigram products (I still do and someday I will recreate it). Some of the information that has been put here (e.g., the mention of WowTattoos) belongs in that article, not this one.

That said, another possibility is an "Ambigrams in Tattoos" section. It seems that ambigrams are used more in tattoos than just about anywhere else and ambigram tattoos contribute significantly to public awareness of ambigrams, so such a section might be appropriate. If such a section existed, and if the assertion about Mark Palmer is verifiable, it would certainly be appropriate in that section. However, this is not a section that I could/would write.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambigramania and Ambigram.com

When I saw this edit (Swapped the inactive ambigrammia with the highly active ambigram.com) my first thought was to revert it. After all, this isn't a competition between sites. But, looking at as two independent edits, I reached a different conclusion.

1) Ambigramania.com - there are apparently no changes on this site in almost a year and there isn't that much content there in the first place. Unless the site becomes active again, I see no reason for it to be listed anymore.

2) Ambigram.com ("Ambigram Magazine"). Yes, it's commercial with advertising, but no more commercial than any other magazine. It does appear that the ads are all from FlipScript and related companies, so it looks like more of a sponsorship than straight advertising, but, still, they're ads and the magazine has useful content. So, I think it's worth listing. I did however replace this text "Ambigram Magazine filled with articles, news, tips and designs" with the less-promotional "Ambigram Magazine"

RoyLeban (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rotating ambigram?

I'm wondering what other people think of the rotating ambigram on the page. I recently added two additional examples of ambigrams of the word "ambigram" -- I think the variety helps people understand that it's an artform and the fact that the artwork uses different transformations is interesting.

I find the rotating ambigram really distracting, and it doesn't help that it is a less interesting/less elegant ambigram than either of the other two. Personally, I don't think the rotation contributes to the understanding. I would like to either switch it to be non-rotating or remove it. If it were non-rotating, we could make it roughly the same size as the other two and put them in a row rather than have them on the right side like they are now.

What do other people think? RoyLeban (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think pretty much the same and it should be made non-rotating. Also, the middle one isn't right -- it says "ambigam" with no R. 91.107.163.34 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I'll probably remove the rotation at some point. On the middle ambigram, the "r" is certainly there, but it is subtle. I'll admit I didn't even notice how subtle it was until you pointed it out, as I had absolutely no problem reading it. The reason that I went and found two additional "ambigram" ambigrams (and got the appropriate licenses) was precisely to let people see very different ways of making the same ambigram, including widely different letter forms. RoyLeban (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix Suns?

Is this worth mentioning?

The Phoenix Suns of the National Basketball Association used an ambigram for many years as their primary logo.

• No does not appear to be current logo. SUNS is a natural ambigram mentioned elsewhere in article. SUN Microsystems logo in article already and more interesting. RoyLeban (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Monkeyshine

I feel this reference should be removed. It does not have a reliable source. Moreover, the article on the film and its production company were both deleted as being non-notable and spamish. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cupsogue Pictures. Looking at the IMDB entry for the film it seems to be an entirely non-notable garage project with a total budget of only $13,000. - SimonP (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion (including the obnoxious part, to be complete):

• Restore (would be nice if we could see the ambigram)

why remove? It's topical and interesting and apparently the ambigram (by Langdon) is central to the movie. There are probably links to 10,000 movies on Misplaced Pages and most of them don't have Misplaced Pages pages, so that is not a reason to remove. Maybe there should be a page. Movie on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332027 -- RoyLeban (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Restore 206.188.51.92 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• If the movie is about ambigrams or an ambigram is central to the plot, it should be includded
• Quick nod to a new page being created, and linked to. If ambigram is in the title, is should be reproduced here (when available) Tech Lovr (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• It was a spam link added by an account whose only edits was to add spam to their own nonnotable projects. So nonnotable, in fact, that al WIkipdia aricles about the films, the company, and the people in it were deleted. Case closed on that one. DreamGuy (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but that alone doesn't disqualify it in this context. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And who the heck are you to say this? You're a nobody on Misplaced Pages. Our POLICIES say it can't be here. Follow our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm somebody who has been editing Misplaced Pages for 8 years and has never been blocked, not even close. Can you say that? I'm somebody who follows the policies and knows that I'm not the sole interpreter. Can you say that? You know as well as I do that these policies are not black and white. The movie may be not notable enough for its own page but notable in the context of ambigrams. That's obviously what other people felt. RoyLeban (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS: INCLUDE. 4 in favor, 1 opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First, on reliable sources. The movie is real. IMDB is reliable enough for that. You can see the the trailer and part of an interview with the director. They're not fabricated. I didn't see a reference to the budget, but I don't think that's relevant. I just watched the trailer (http://amazon.imdb.com/video/wab/vi197985049/) and it certainly doesn't look like a garage project.

As for notability, it is always contextual. There are many things on Misplaced Pages which aren't notable enough for their own articles, but are notable in the context of other articles. From what I can tell without having actually seen the movie, an ambigram is central to the film. It sounds like there is a treasure map that has the ambigram on it, but, since it would be a spoiler, they don't come out and say this in the trailer, or elsewhere. I would still vote to include. RoyLeban (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Until someone finds a valid, third party reference to this being an important example of an ambigram the fact has to be removed. - SimonP (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You state that as a fact, but it is your opinion. My opinion is different. That's why we have discussions. 10 seconds of Google searching yields:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/content/articles/2008/11/18/monkeyshine_feature.shtml
• The director is Gene Fallaize (funny that I found that through Google) - I edited that page to remove the links to Amazon, but it could use add'l cleanup
• Monkeyshine was nominated for a Star Award (in above article)
• Quote from John Langdon (from his web site): "Following a short theatrical run in England, Monkeyshine was recently released on DVD, exclusively on Amazon.com. A year and a half ago, I created an ambigram that plays, shall we say, a pivotal role in this film. The BBC has acclaimed Monkeyshine highly as "a little gem", "grounded and believable", and "expertly shot." (Similar text appears in Drexel's College of Media Arts and Design Newsletter, http://www.drexel.edu/westphal/pdf/newsletter/WestphalWeeklyNewsletter_20090331.pdf)

Hopefully, some other people will step up with opinions. RoyLeban (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The entry lacks independent reliable sources. It was placed in this article by an editor with a clear conflict of interest promoting his companies projects. The award is not an important award, Fallaize was not the director and that Fallaize article was another promotional entry being discussed for deletion. To quote RoyLeban "There are millions of ambigrams and probably thousands of logo ambigrams, so the question is why is this worth mentioning?" Its creator saying it is important does not make it worth mentioning. Voting is not consensus. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist.Tv Logo?

I believe the logo for Blacklist.tv is an ambigram: Should it be added to the list of ambigrams?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.9.178 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are millions of ambigrams and probably thousands of logo ambigrams, so the question is why is this worth mentioning? Particularly popular? A particularly good example? Three strikes against it: 1) Blacklist is a b2b company and it'll never be known very widely as a result, 2) The ambigram is in a common blackletter style, and 3) The ambigram doesn't appear to be used anywhere but the site's splash screen, not the site itself. I would vote No. RoyLeban (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the information and I will make sure that an ambigram lives up to the standards you mentioned before suggesting it here. Thanks for your time and a very well-written response.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.9.178 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Large sections of this article were deleted by DreamGuy on July 10th under a COI pretense. While individual portions of the edit may have been justified, the overall edit had the effect of seriously degrading the quality of the article. Historically, DreamGuy has tended to contribute little quality content to this article, and had tended to delete quite a bit of other people's quality content (see history). Even if his COI claim were correct (and it has not been adequately shown that it is), the goal of Misplaced Pages is to create and maintain an on-line encyclopedia, not destroy it.

The overarching mission goal supercedes individual editing rules, including COI (see ). The 7/10/2009 deletion has been reverted. Tech Lovr (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the COI tag is there to indicate that the article may need extra clean up because of the COI. COi is not the reason for the deletion of the material - unsourced, original research, trivia, etc. is.

I should also note that your contribution history is very suspect, as you have next to no edits other than related to this topic and some trivial edits elsewhere. As your primary purpose to being here has been to support Roy Leban, I think we can chalk your edits up to meatpuppetry, at best.

Quite frequently the main way to maintain an online encyclopedia (as compared to a fanlisting/blog/place for free advertisement that many people seem to want to use the site as) is deleting things that do not belong. To call that "destroying it" is completely absurd. As you do not seem to be editing with Misplaced Pages policies in mind (the sole justification you provide for our view is "ignore all rules," the last refuge of scoundrels here), you should not be surprised to find yourself reverted... and often, if you continue to make edits that do nothing but ignore our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, User:Tech Lovr apparently edited this page while signed out and then deleted it. From the anon IP's edit history, and no doubt from Tech Lovr's, you'll notice an attempt to add promotional content for the "Flipscript" website -- a website that RoyLeban has earlier admitted being a big fan of and friends with the owner. I rest my case on the COI and meatpuppetry problems. DreamGuy (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am currently on vacation so I do not have time to deal with this crap. It looks like some people just like deleting content. For example, saying a scanned image from a published book is unsourced is an example of ridiculous editing. We are also revisiting things that have been discussed. You can't tell this because DreamGuy -- against Misplaced Pages policy -- removed almost all the content from the Talk page. This is very inappropriate. With the exception of automatic archiving, which the page has, you are not supposed to remove talk content written by others. If an admin finds out you did this, you will probably get banned.

DreamGuy can make up whatever he wants, but that doesn't make it true. I don't know who Tech Lovr is. I don't know who the anonymous IP is. I am not a "big fan" of FlipScript, nor am I friends with the owner(s). I have stated that I have exchanged email with one of the owners, who contacted me solely because of my editing on Misplaced Pages In fact, he contacted me because I removed a mention of FlipScript. Yes, I know Doug Hofstadter, Scott Kim, and others. Yes, I know most of the prominent ambigramists. That does not make any edit I make COI. Rather it makes me a subject-matter expert. As a matter of fact, I have also been an ambigramist for about 30 years and I also independently invented ambigrams, but I have not made any mention of that fact. Although I am prominent in other fields (software, puzzles), I am not prominent in ambigrams. Unlike Kim, Langdon, Petrick, Hofstadter, and Polster I have not done anything to promote or advance the field. And, unlike Mishra and some others, my output is relatively small. There was one proposed addition to the page (a quote from Hofstadter concerning the origin of the name ambigram) which does include my name. I think this is interesting, but I will not add the quote and delete my own name, nor will I add the quote including my own name. It's up to others to decide if it is relevant.

Just because a bunch of unrelated people all disagree with you does not make them meatpuppets. There is no concerted effort. We all disagree with you because you're wrong. I do not appreciate these attacks and I am sure nobody else does.

If it hasn't been done by the time I return from vacation, I'll spend some time restoring this article and the talk page. I have better things to do, so it might be nice if unknowledgable people wouldn't destroy articles. How about spending your time adding to Misplaced Pages instead of removing things? RoyLeban (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Finding a consensus is not a head count. Keep because I Like It means little against remove because It Directly Violates This Rule. It also doesn't mean much against a reasoned decision based on guidelines. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All rules are subject to interpretation. I'll easily take votes of "keep" over a vote that says "all EL's get deleted" when we all know there are millions of EL's on Misplaced Pages. In admin discussions, people are chided for comments like "Delete per EL", "Delete per NOT", "Keep per ...". Citing a policy is meaningless without an explanation of how the policy applies and this is especially true when other people disagree on how the policy applies in a particular situation. RoyLeban (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"puzzle2/the end" image is inverted

As noted on the image's own talk page, I believe the "puzzle2/the end" image is only used by this article. It should have the author's intended first reading, so that the reader can follow the explanation in this article properly. As is, the reading presented to the reader is the second "hidden message" reading.--Rfsmit (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I got it upside down. I will fix it. RoyLeban (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Roy, I have made multiple changes. I would like to call for consensus before any of the changes I have made are reverted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. I've thought about this a lot in the last few days and I think the only proper thing is to go the other way. You deleted a significant amount of content without much knowledge of the subject. Between you and DreamGuy, you deleted about 20% of the article. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but I'm way past that with DreamGuy. He's a well-known edit warrior who has been repeatedly banned for a variety of reasons, including sockpuppeting. When people disagree, he accuses them of COI or of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. On this page, he deleted information that he knew to be true and verifiable. Rather than tagging it or even verifying it himself, he just deletes stuff. All of this hurts Misplaced Pages and editors like DreamGuy drive away other editors. However, as I said, I am assuming that you are not like that.

No, I don't think that I own the article, but, yes, I'm protective of it. I've spent a fair amount of time cleaning it up, digging up historical information, etc. And no, I don't want the article screwed up, whether it's by vandals or by people who aren't knowledgable. I think it's pretty clear that I've been looking for consensus. If you would like to help improve this article, then I welcome you. If you just want to delete things, then I'd rather you go elsewhere. I'm happy to discuss what's appropriate for this article, even including revisiting things that have previously been discussed, but no, I'm not particularly interested in explaining why John Langdon, Scott Kim, or Robert Petrick (and their web pages) are relevant.

So, if something you think is inappropriate and it's listed above, respond there. If not, start a new section. But, so you don't waste as much of my time as DreamGuy has, I'd appreciate it if you'd start with a bit of reading.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Improperly archived information restored

On 10 July 2009, User:DreamGuy removed almost all of the text on this talk page page, 33K(!) worth, and placed it in a manually-created archive page. This talk page is already set to auto-archive discussions which are inactive for more than 90 days, so manual archiving is not necessary (plus, it wasn't done correctly and it might have eventually messed up the auto archiving). I cannot say if the intent of this move was to suppress discussion with which he disagreed, but that was certainly a major effect. Deleting comments by others is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Accordingly, I have restored the discussion in the talk page, and, to prevent duplication, I am deleting the archive page.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)