Talk:Ambigram/Archive 4

Proposal to ban DreamGuy
I'm getting really tired of ad hominem attacks. I hereby propose that DreamGuy be banned from editing this page because of his persistent personal attacks and unwillingness to engage in a discussion on the content itself. Some of his attacks can be found in this Talk page. And here are some recent edit summaries:


 * Reverted to revision 301578211 by Martarius; revert person who think he WP:OWNs artilcle restoring original research/spam/coi content without consensus.
 * Undid revision 302244201 by RoyLeban (talk) the guy edit warring to push a POV/COI complains of edit warring, that's a laugh
 * removing items never had consensus to be here, original research, unsourced claims of notability, promotion of nonnotable websites added as spam, removing ELs that most obviously fail WP:EL
 * rv -- yeah, and if discussion ever goes your way you can add it back, your attempts to WP:OWN this article by falsifying consensus votes are over, you never had consensus to add this, so it goes
 * Consensus on items to include in this page: per mul;tiple people saying this section needs to be removede, especially cosnidered how Ropy was caught blatantly lying about votes to force his way

Over and over again, I have made it clear that I welcome the discussion of content on the page. And, over and over, DreamGuy has made it clear he's not interested in discussion. He makes the same baseless attacks repeatedly. It appears that he's not interested in anything except deleting content on this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be anything he's ever added to this page. When he does respond, he just blithely cites some rule, claims COI or says I'm a liar. Well, I want all those links back in per WP:EL! That carries as much weight as the arguments he's making.

He makes up arguments that I believe he knows to be false. I do not have a COI. I am not doing original research -- I've stated many times, it's not my fault he doesn't have the source material that I have. And, if you look at the edit history, you will find, at least for most the stuff I've added, that I added a source at the same time as an edit or made a note in the edit comment. Links are not spam just because he says they are. And nobody and no account is my puppet. No matter how many times he claims that this crap is true or that it's been "proven", it doesn't make it true.

First, he claimed that Tech Lovr and I were the same person or he/she was my meatpuppet. Now, he's claiming that Tech Lovr is a FlipScript person. I am positive that Tech Lovr is not either Mark Hunter or Mark Palmer, the two people at FlipScript/Glyphusion with whom I have exchanged email. A simple look at the anon edits that were them and Tech Lovr's edits makes that pretty clear. And a Check User could verify it. It is possible that Tech Lovr could be some other person associated with FlipScript, but I have seen no evidence that that is true. It is certainly not proven.

There is no rule anywhere that says we can't have a milestones section in an article. There is no reasonable defense for deleting that entire section of the article. There is no rule anywhere that says we can't have a consensus summary in a Talk page (and repeatedly deleting Talk page content authored by others is a no-no). There is no reasonable argument for deleting the entire section on automated creation of ambigrams. The earlier (awful) generator was discussed at length in Polster's book and Polster has said he'll cover FlipScript if he revises his book. There is no reasonable argument for deleting the entire Practical uses of ambigrams section.

I don't know Panama Oxridge or Justin Thyme, but I know that a number of people besides me thought it belonged. What justification is there to delete it? No doubt, DreamGuy would claim that it's my pseudonym and I have a COI!

With regard to the ambigram.com link, there are 6,000 links to newsweek.com. There are 16 links to techflash.com, a technology news site in Seattle. Hell, oprah.com has 3,460 links. All of them get ad revenue. How can you say that ambigram.com, a magazine which is exclusively about the subject of this page does not deserve a single link?

With regard to the mention of the word "twinonym" in a quote I added, it's not my "personal term" -- in fact, it's a term I didn't care for and I've never used. As a twin, the last thing I want to do is to say that my designs are somehow related to the fact that I'm a twin. Doug Hofstadter made up the term for me at the time he was thinking everybody should have their own name for ambigrams. He discusses this in Ambigrammi. I think Doug's proposal of many names is interesting and relevant to the invention of the word, but there is no mention of it in the article. I couldn't very well add the quote and take out the part of the quote that happened to have my name in it.

I do think my game of WIM (the only ambigram-based game) is appropriate to mention, but I have left that for others to decide. I'll be happy to list WIM as a COI, but it didn't occur to me.

This whole experience is exhausting. Maybe DreamGuy has hours to edit, but I have plenty of other things to do. I decided a while ago to work to improve this article and I think I have done so, but I can't spend as much time editing as DreamGuy can spend deleting. If DreamGuy is successful in driving me away, as I know he has driven away others, then Wikipedia suffers.

Regretfully, I think the only solution is to ban him from this page until and unless he changes his editing patterns. To be honest, if it were up to me, I would ban entirely editors who do nothing but delete content from Wikipedia. And, then, where there are disputes, let's have discussions about content -- what a novel idea!

RoyLeban (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, so the guy with the clear COI interest who has been spamming info about himself and his friends and who outright lied about vote counts to give a false idea of what the consensus here was to make sure he got what he wanted on the article is saying the person who caught him doing all that should be banned from the article? This guy is just too much. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop making baseless accusations. I find it hard to believe that you don't know they are false yet you persist in them. I did miscount on one consensus count (Monkeyshine). I have corrected that. The fact remains that the majority of your edits on this Talk page consist of attacking me. How about discussing the content itself without once attacking anyone, or claiming that everybody that disagrees with you is a puppet or an idiot? RoyLeban (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not "miscount" on "one consensus count" -- I have already pointed out above how virtually all of your counts did not include my vote even when you knew I opposed the inclusion of the material (for having removed it in the first place), and the only time you ever did include my votes is when you mysteriously had a rash of anon IP accounts and a clear SPA/COI account show up. For you to be insisting that the charges are baseless when they have been documented quite thoroughly is ridiculous. And it's a laugh for you to claim I say "everybody that disagrees with you is a puppet or an idiot" when you are the one declaring yourself an expert and that when people disagree with you it's because they don't know anything and then insinuating above that Duffbeerforme is a meatpuppet, etc. The people who disagree with you are editors with longstanding edit histories... the small number of account who agree with you, by contrast, are anon IPs with little to no edits, of which nearly all of them have been to promote FlipScript and other commerical sites. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I know you have your differences, but this isn't the way to go about settling them. Users are not blocked from editing articles (except in severe cases by order by the arbitrators), and instead users are blocked for breach of policy. It is wholely inappropriate to discuss such matters on an article talk page. Ian ¹³  /t  20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously Roy's attempts to get me banned just because he wants to get his way are futile, but our WP:COI strongly suggests that editors here for reasons of promotion instead of improving the encyclopedia should not edit articles. The anon IPs and TechLovr clearly are COI account for specific sites. Roy has a clear pro-NPL bias, and tried to get his own work promoted here. Those editors should not edit the article to insert anything related to their COIs. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline / Milestones section
I think it's worthy having. It presents a lot of good (sourced) information in a compact fashion and helps readers understand the history. Contrary to some statements, there is no prohibition on timelines or milestone listings and there are tens of thousands of other timelines on Wikipedia, including many entire pages that are nothing but timelines. If there is a question as to what a "Milestone" is, I have to problem calling it a "timeline" or "history" or anything else. It's the content that I think is relevant and I'd rather see it in a table than in prose paragraphs. RoyLeban (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all original research. If you want it there, then please provide reliable sources to support it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only "magazine publishes ambigrams" was referenced (and this probably isn't even notable), so a good reference for each point would be probably required, as the integrity of that section is dependant on the timing and development. I'm concerned about labelling something like this 'first known' unless it's been researched and stated by at least a couple of people. I know it's not an assertion that it's the first, but if someone won't put their name to it, it's probably because no-one's that sure. Listing in a timeline the dates of publication/creation of ambigrams seems odd to me, as if it is interesting enough the work itself would probably be mentioned, and thus the date could be recorded there. Ian ¹³  /t  16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Automated creation of ambigrams
There have been several attempts over the years. Kim tried to do some work on at some point, as did others. Polster spent two pages of his book discussing the first (bad) automatic generator. I think the two attempts (as well as future ones) are certainly worth mentioning. The fact that they are commercial is irrelevant -- I'm not suggesting they belong here because FlipScript is an ambigram business. That doesn't matter. And, Wikipedia has lots of discussions of commercial company and products. FlipScript's competes with, among others, Cafe Press and Zazzle, which have entire pages. RoyLeban (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, the mere fact that something exists is not a reason to list it here -- especially when we know it was being added by spam-only COI accounts. In order for these sites to be listed, some independent reliable published expert source must have published descriptions of them and explained why they are important... that means something other than the About page of the site in question telling everybody why they think they are important, and something other than Roy declaring himself an expert and telling us it should be on the article. This is not a personal blog where you get to put your own thoughts on the matter. Please take the time to read WP:NOR, WP:NOT and so forth. 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Practical uses of ambigrams
I haven't seen any argument against this section. It was just deleted. The information is useful. I think it should be restored. RoyLeban (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got any reliable sources for it? DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical ambigrams
Reading this reminded me of Mirror Canons and Table Canons (see also Canon (music)) which are like ambigrams which are played rather than read. I suggest that they're worth mentioning here somewhere. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Ambiscript could be with it in a section of non-textual ambigrams. RoyLeban (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not interested in what individual editors are reminded of/think up on this topic. Articles report and summarize what the published, independent reliable sources say is notable about the topic. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People have to decide what to find sources for somewhere - please WP:AGF. We can't all be expected to read all books in the hope something on ambigrams will pop up, instead we have to direct our efforts somewhere. I think, if we can find a source, there#s no reason not to be interested in it, and thank you for bringing it up Samuel. Ian ¹³  /t  17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about that is not AGF? Where did that even come from as a comment? He outright says it reminded him, so I am only going with exactly what he said. If multiple independent reliable sources can be found mentioning in a nontrivial way that such music is ambigram-like, great, but personal ideas are mere original research and cannot be included, per our policies. DreamGuy (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He suggested it be added, and was clearly trying to help and point you in a direction of research, rather than say adding it to the page and stopping any reverts. Stating "Wikipedia is not interested in what individual editors are reminded of/think up" doesn't assume that this editor is almost certainly just trying to help, and dismissing his ideas for the article in such a fashion is ultimately not constructive. If I strictly implemented source needed on the current page, I would be left with a couple of lines. Ian ¹³  /t  21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem fiercely determined to try to find fault with my pointing out policy to the other editor. Your opinion that it was not constructive runs counter to the fact that I was the one pointing out the only way to possibly move forward with the idea: reliable sources. And, frankly, your actions on this page have been far more nonconstructive, as you seem to just want to scold but without actually forming any solid reason to do so and to ignore/defend people who don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work and want to violate our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was intending to say no more, but I think I must squash this last mosquito before anyone thinks it has bitten me. I am grateful for Ian's defence of me, which was correct and successful. To describe me as "people who don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work and want to violate our rules" is wholly false and a clear breach of WP:AGF. I am amused at the implication of the wording "our rules". Having seen some of DreamGuy's contribution style I can't think of anyone less qualified to pose as custodian of those rules. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ambigraf
I've removed the following form the page:
 * Ambigraf : A style of ambigrams which abide by the conventions of ambigrams but are designed in the graffiti style in terms of line and shape- and context- written on walls as stencils. It is an artform developed by artist SlantOne.

I spent some time looking for references to Ambigraf and, except for Wikipedia mirrors, I could only find one, a rejected submission to the BU Theology Library archives, of all places. Here is that submission:


 * AmbiGraf: Ambigraf is a new artistic style or genre- developed by filmmaker and artist Michael LeMinh Nguyen. It combines two notable artistic styles- graffiti and the graphical figures of ambigrams. Ambigraf are designs or words which have inverse symmetry or duality and are designed in the Graffiti style in terms of line, and artistic convention. It has become recognised in Sydney and around the world in the underground street art scene. Graf words. Examples include words such as peace and war- with the word "peace" being written in one direction- then when turned upside down- or held to a mirror alternatively- read the word "War". The artistic style of Ambigraf is a subdivision of both Graffiti and Ambigrams and abides by both artistic conventions.

It appears that Michael LeMinh Nguyen is the same person as SlantOne. If you have an argument to keep this in the article, please speak up.

RoyLeban (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, and was surprised that my deletion of it was reverted. 64.222.100.68 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Images removed for having invalid permissions
File:Ambigramdotcom.jpg

This file was uploaded by RoyLeban. The source and author are listed as Ambigram.com. The image was uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. There are two possible explanations for this, and either way is troubling: 1) RoyLeban uploaded an image he does not have rights to and put a faulty license on it which he did not have authorization to do. 2) RoyLeban *does* have rights to it, being the anonymous person behind animgram.com, making it's inclusion here (and the links added to the site, and the campaigning for its inclusion) an even more blatant violation of COI.

File:Punya-mishra-ambigram.jpg

Again uploaded by RoyLeban. Says "I contacted the artist directly, who granted permission to the image on 05/12/2009. He has requested that attribution include both his name and URL, as I have used above." -- If so, that artist needs to properly fill out an authorization form to prove he allows its use here. We cannot simply take Roy's word at it, for legal reasons, as we have no reason to believe he legally speaks for the copyright owner.

It'd be nice if these were cleared up, as one or both of these images would be nice to use, being more visually appealing than the sole image currently at the top of the article. 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by dreamguy (talk • contribs)


 * It's not really right to delete the images from the page, but instead nominate the images for deletion themselves (else you aren't really solving anything). I've gone ahead and done this as there is no evidence of permission to release under a suitable licence (permission to use on wikipedia is insufficient). Please, however, don't remove a declared licence from a page as this is highly misleading as a licence was declared, instead one should add a note saying there is no evidence of permission supporting this claim. Roy, you have therefore been notified of the deletion request over at commons, and you have around 7 days to submit permission as listed at WP:CONSENT. Ian ¹³  /t  20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Images with known incorrect licenses are routinely removed from articles. If you don't think it's right, that's your opinion (and only your opinion), but the standard way it is handled is to remove false licenses and remove the images until they can be verified, which I did. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They do not have "known incorrect licenses". Both have valid licenses and one of them does not yet have sufficient documentation. RoyLeban (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is akin to calling me a liar and I do not appreciate it. It is the exact opposite of AGF and it makes the article worse. You know that images are uploaded to Wikipedia by people who are not their creators all of the time. This is fine, as long as the images are licensed properly. For the ambigram.com image, I've provided a link to the ambigram.com site, where the license is clearly stated. For the other logo, I've provided the email message sent to me by the artist. RoyLeban (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling you a liar, but the simple fact of the matter is you did not follow proper licensing procedures. If you fix that, then the images are usable. Until such time they are copyright violations and need to be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. They are not copyright violations. They were just missing documentation. To say otherwise is, in fact, to call me a liar. And, one of the two has been taken care of already. RoyLeban (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the licenses has been taken of -- but, lookee, it happens to be the logo of a website that has been spammed to this article. Injcluding it here seems to be commercially-motivated. I also find it funny that the anonymous editor of the site in question knew enoguh about Wikipedia rules to put up a license on the site specifically to allow uploading of the image without giving away his identity and then Roy conveniently coming along to upload their logo and put it at the top of this article. How disturbingly convenient and wholly inappropriate. I have removed that as spamming. The second image still has an invalid license -- claiming permission but showing no permission... and, seriously Roy, considering how many times you've been caught lying on this talk page (completely and apparently intentionally miscounting votes to support your side on pretty much every count you did, for example) it seems ludicrous for you now to be complaining that nobody should questioning the validity of your statements. Whether you are lying or not, the permissions are still invalid, making the image a copyright violation -- and do you seriously expect to still be able to feign outrage at the thought that you may be lying? DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop with the lying personal attacks. Ian ¹³  /t  16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Everytime you call me a liar, you are attacking me. Please stop.

There's no secret who ambigram.com is. But it is a magazine. Because the first "ambigram" ambigram in the article is so poor, I went looking for better examples. I looked at a bunch. The best I could find were ambigram.com's and Punya Mishra's and I picked two in different styles with different letter mappings. I sent email to both artists asking for permission. Mark Hunter of ambigram.com consennted and added the license on his page (to be honest, I really didn't expect him to). Punya Mishra responded by saying the images were already permitted (see text of email ). Yes, additional documentation is needed in the case of Punya Mishra, as you've pointed out, but it is not a copyright violation.

RoyLeban (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternate meaning
Yes, I'm a member of the NPL and it was a member of the NPL who coined the word "ambigram" to mean "ambiguous ambigram". DreamGuy claims he is also a member of the NPL. So, if my vote for it doesn't count, his vote against it doesn't count either. Or, both our opinions count.

I'll state the argument succinctly: ambigram is a coined word. It is interesting that the word was coined to mean two different things. The ambiguous ambigram meaning is not exclusive to the NPL, though it was initially. See, for example, http://www.fun-with-words.com/anag_explain.html, which cites O. V. Michaelsen in "Words At Play; Quips, Quirks & Oddities". RoyLeban (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That website is not a reliable source, and it's giving a bit of trivia that doesn't try to argue for overall notability. I don't have Michaelsen's book, but it might start to demonstrate potential notability for a brief mention (certainly not in the lead), assuming that it's covered in a non-trivial (more than just in passing) way. The book author itself can be considered a reliable source (someone could argue against it, but as a former puzzle columnist for Mensa he seems reasonable to me), but the point is not merely proving it exists but proving that it's notable enough to be mentioned. It's basically a neologism, and those would have to be documented thoroughly in multiple reliable sources. If that's all you have, then regardless of whether the book treats it trivially or more in depth it still isn't enough for a mention here... and it doesn't help that you have demonstrated a clear COI in favor of promoting the NPL and its members out of proportion with real world notability concerns. DreamGuy (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we drop the COI accusations please (especially in the edit summaries). Present evidence and discuss it in an objective way, but don't just use it to disqualify that editor's opinions. Ian ¹³  /t  15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Roy starts actually following our rules on WP:COI then I wouldn't need to mention it. The rules may not disqualify his opinion, but they certainly disqualify his edits on that specific area. IF someone without a COI in that area agrees with him then it's a more valid opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the 'rules at COI does he breach? He says he doesn't, so please evidence or stop. Ian ¹³  /t  17:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss to how you could even make such a statement when the evidence is already in this very section and clear as day. He's a member of NPL. His edits promote NPL's obscure definition of the term, and he has made plenty of other edits in the past to support members of NPL having articles and being mentioned in other articles without reliable sources showing real world notability. That's an open and shut case COI, and claiming otherwise is bizarre. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And so I believe are you. You clearly describe an interest, but what does he stand to gain such that there is a conflict? Will he make money? Will he promote his own site or book? Will he promote a client to his advantage? Does he have a close relationship with the people concerned such that they will benefit? An interest is only conflicting if it means he will edit to deliberately help someone else, rather than to solely improve the article. So, I ask again, what are your grounds for this rejected accusation you keep repeating? Ian ¹³  /t  21:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The completely blatant one is "other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates" -- he is clearly promoting NPL, of which he is a member (promoting himself) and so are his associates -- those are both private and aalso arguably commercial (as NPL costs money to join/has some books to sell). We also have the promotion of the FlipScript and Ambigram.com websites, which sell products, and which Roy has an association. We also have him trying to promote his own site and his own game. He has been adding info about various ambigram designers he admits personally being associates of, both to this article and in articles solely about them. Honestly, only someone who either doesn't understand WP:COI or wasn't paying attention to the talk page here -- or both -- could have missed such an overwhelming instance of COI. DreamGuy (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The NPL is a non-profit organization. It is open to anyone interested in puzzles. I pay to be a member (and so does DreamGuy, if his statement that he is a member is true). The NPL's mission is to promote puzzling. The NPL does not benefit from a trivial reference on this page, nor do I. Yes, the NPL has sold books. Some are sold at cost, others were published by commercial publishers and the NPL received a royalty, which was used to further its mission. The recent Cryptic Crossword book is now available for free on the NPL's web site, to help promote puzzling. I have no idea what DreamGuy means when he refers to my "associates" also being members. I have no "associates" editing this page or any other page on Wikipedia. The only other NPL member editing this page (that I'm aware of) is DreamGuy.
 * I have no association with FlipScript and Ambigram.com. I'm not even a customer.
 * I am not trying to promote my own site and game. Yes, I've mentioned my game on the talk page. This is the Talk page!
 * The fact that I know prominent ambigramists does not disqualify me nor does it present a COI. Read WP:COI again if you think it does.
 * This section is supposed to be about alternate meanings of the word, not another excuse for DreamGuy to attack me with baseless claims. Please, will you stop and discuss content?
 * RoyLeban (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stood, the alternative meaning had no independent sources showing it's use. It was sourced only by a primary source. It is also not about something that is the subject of this article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is one independent source. Just to remind everyone: Somebody (not me) added an entire paragraph at the top of the article. I removed that, replacing it with a short sentence and another sentence later in the article. I am not arguing for a huge digression. I think a short mention is appropriate. I don't care very much if it's at the top, but I left it there because I figured it was no worse than the typical "for other meanings..." line we see. RoyLeban (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The text I removed (which was about a different subject) had one source. It was NPL writing about NPL. NPL is not independent of NPL. No independent sources. (Is the "for other meanings..." you are mentioning a Hatnote? They are for finding other notable subjects that share the same, or similar, name. To find other wikipedia articles.) Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the same text. When I wrote "there is one independent source", I meant one exists (fun-with-words and O. V. Michaelsen, referenced above in this section). It was not in the text in the article when you removed it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If the text were restored, we should probably include the independent reference. On the hatnote, I never knew they had a name! Yes, that's why I thought the single line in the intro paragraph was ok. But, I'm without that. RoyLeban (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to ambigram.com
Ambigram.com is a magazine devoted exclusively to the subject of this page. It makes money on advertising. They don't seem to sell anything of their own, though I'll admit I haven't spent much time looking. It does appear that the only (or primary) advertiser is FlipScript, and there is an association between the two.

It has been stated that external links like this are not allowed. That is not true and it is easy to find many counter examples on Wikipedia. The questions to be answered in a case like this are: 1) Is it relevant? and 2) Is it notable? Since the relevance seems pretty obvious, I think the only real issue is notable. I think it is notable as the only (online) magazine devoted exclusively to the subject. The content is useful to readers of this article. RoyLeban (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amigram.com is not a magazine, it's just a blog that's heavily into marketing Flipscript and those ambigram rings. The owner/"editor" of the site is not even named, and thus has no independent confirmed expertise. Our WP:EL rules include both blogs and marketing sites as links to be avoided. And, again, these were only placed here in the first place out of a clear COI from a dedicated SPA/linkspammer. DreamGuy (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to Amigram.com is a link to a commercial site that is not the subject of this article. No matter how you look at it, it is a commercial site. A link to Amigram.com should be avoided on any page that is not about Amigram.com. To answer #2, No it is not notable (based on current evidence). see Amigram.com. No article, no suggestion of notability. Not that that matters. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is TechCrunch a blog or a magazine? The lines are blurred. The fact is ambigram.com has interviews and articles, not blog posts. The owner/editor is Mark Hunter (yes, same guy as FlipScript). I have no idea who put the first ambigram.com link on Wikipedia. It could have been Mark, but that's irrelevant at this point. And notice that he's not here arguing about it (now that would be clear COI). All that matters is whether it is appropriate for the article. Look at Ann Arbor, Michigan. It has several links to external news sites, including the Ann Arbor Chronicle, which has no article. The Chronicle is as much about Ann Arbor as ambigram.com is about ambigrams. The Chronicle was launched in 2008, so, like ambigram.com, it's less than a year old. And that's jut one of many examples. Why is this different? RoyLeban (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. Problems in another article is not a reason to have problems with this article. Is it approriate for the article? I have yet to see a good reason why it should not be avoided. Until a very good reason is given (being related to the subject is not a good reason) to include it is given It should be avoided. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying Other stuff exists. I was saying "Why is this different?" I think the fact that (a) it is about the subject, not related to it, and, more importantly, (b) it has significant content which is of interest to people who find this page. Current featured article is an interview with Scott Kim. There are also interviews with Toryn Green, John Langdon (typographer), and Mark Palmer, and lots of articles analyzing ambigrams or the creation of them. If it were a book, we would reference it, even it were loaded with ads. Browse through the articles rather than just looking at the home page. I will say that because it appears the site is built on one of the blogging platforms (as are many small magazines), a lot of the great content is not easy to find right now. You have to look at the monthly archives. RoyLeban (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not about ambigram.com so a link to that commercial site should be avoided. Lots of commercial sites are of interest to readers of articles but we still avoid commercial links. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You said that already. You're not answering my question. Why is the link to the Ann Arbor Chronicle OK while this link is not? The Ann Arbor article is not about the Chronicle. The Chronicle is every bit as much a commercial site as ambigram.com (actually, more so). How is this different? And, to be clear, the Chronicle link is hardly alone on Wikipedia. I see nothing in WP:EL that justifies your position. RoyLeban (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did answer that question. Other stuff exists. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GWR logo
User:AmosWolfe added this ambigram to the examples page. I have moved it here for discussion.

Arguments against: To prevent a huge list of examples, it has been consensus to only include the best and/or most significant. Short ambigrams like this aren't particularly interesting and I wonder if this actually is an ambigram -- is that really a G? And, if it were to be included, a tighter crop should be used -- you can't even see the letters at the current size.

Arguments for: This doesn't look particularly new. How old is it? And how long has this logo been in use? Does that make it historically significant?

RoyLeban (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone independent written anything about this logo being an ambigram? If no it should not be included. Same goes for any other example. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are allowed to use our eyes to recognize an ambigram. In this case, however, I'm not even sure it really is an ambigram. It's certainly not a good one. If, however, there was a source that gave both it's age and that it really is supposed to be "GWR", even if it wasn't an independent source, I might be swayed. After all, it's not like Newell's ambigrams were so great either -- they're interesting because of the historical significance. RoyLeban (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to return your attention to wp:or. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." It's not up to us to look at something and say that is/isn't an ambigram. It's about what reliable sources have written about ambigrams. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you interpret that too literally, every picture ever taken by a Wikipedian would have to be deleted (and most of the text as well). Recognizing that something exists or that something is what it is is not "original thought." But, we're in agreement on this one -- it's not clear that it actually is an ambigram or that it was intended to be an ambigram. It's not clear if it has historical significance. We could guess, but that would be OR. We need a source. RoyLeban (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True that we should not mindlessy interpret wp guidelines. You appear to have missed my point. It may or may not be a ambigram. Any example provided may or may not be a ambigram. The truth of the possibility is not that important, If you want to write about any example then that example should have been written about by a reliable source. Is it an ambigram? Me or you saying yes or no is irrelevent. What is written in reliable sources is what wikipedia is interested in. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss your point. I think you missed mine. First, we're allowed to use our eyes. Second, research is not the same thing as original research. Look at the Barack Obama page. I see at least three photographs of Obama on that page that were uploaded by the person who took them. Or maybe I should say "the person who claims they took them." How do we know they are real? How do we know that they're not photos of a look-alike? Or elaborate Photoshop fakes? There are no articles written about those photographs anywhere. The answer is that (a) we can see that they are Barack Obama, and (b) the person who uploaded them told us they are Barack Obama. Absent evidence to the contrary, we can trust the uploader. The same is true here and facts that are plainly obvious to everyone (e.g., the sun rises in the East; books have pages; flowers are plants; that is Barack Obama in the photo) do not need sources. Many, probably most, ambigrams are obviously ambigrams. That's their point in existing, after all. The difference in the GWR case is that it's not patently obvious to everyone that it's an ambigram. So, we need a source that says at least it was intended to be an ambigram. And, then, in my opinion, because it's not very good, it's still only interesting if it has historical significance because it is old. RoyLeban (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I too am interested in ambigrams. I think we need to sit down and talk about what a reliable source is for an ambigram. Is there an ambigram journal out there somewhere? Daniels Weeking (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Computerised generation
Computerised generation is clearly a notable part of ambigrams, as it represents rather a development. In my addition there are 2 WP:SELFPUBs, 1 independent reference, and none of this "a web retailer of personalized ambigram products"/"significantly better" talk. It seeks only to objectively discuss the technologies, so I hardly see the COI (!) or spam. (Even if you were to claim there are no citations, WP:NOCITE clearly shows that as its not blp/harmful, it should stay for a while, rather than just blindly remove.) Ian ¹³  /t  14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. You're doing well for a topic you know nothing about. But, Polster spends about 2 pages on the first generator. His book came out before the second one. Also, the two generators are unrelated and the text implies that they are. I believe ambigram.com provides the old generator (perhaps as part of the agreement to purchase the domain), but the original author provides it elsewhere. I'll add the ref and fix. RoyLeban (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys just don't seem to understand the basics of WP:RS and WP:COI or even objective coverage of a topic. Only the book there can count as a reliable source. The selfpublished sources there do not support the claims that they are making ("first" etc.) and are essentially just spam links for sites that, once again, we have a demonstrated history of intense COI/linkfarming on this page and thus cannot be linked to. Asserting something is notable w2ithout sources to back it up is original research. Considering you refused to see extremely obvious and undeniable instances of COI/spam above on this page, you refusing to acknowledge it yet again does not surprise me. A style guideline likeWP:NOCITE does not overrule WP:SPAM/WP:COI and WP:OR policy.And if we want to talk about people doing things "blindly" then you're moving into personal attack territory there, as the removals are not being done blind, they are being done to get the article in line with site policies.  DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they're not "blind" changes, but you are claiming they are spam they are not. You are claiming COI, when there is none. You are claiming linkfarming, when there isn't any. And you are misreading policy. If anything, it looks like you're the one with a COI -- some grudge against Glpyhusion/FlipScript and anyone you perceive to be associated with them. There is no solid reason for not including this information on the page or your deletion of massive amounts of material which you falsely claimed was not sourced. On Wikipedia, if we think something is not sourced, we mark it, we do not delete it. RoyLeban (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, if we think something is not sourced, we mark it OR we delete it. We look at the something and make a choice. Some things should be immediately deleted, no questions asked. Others fall inbetween. If true it can be put back in when sourced. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOCITE - this clearly isn't an instance where it should be "immediately deleted, no questions asked". Ian ¹³  /t  18:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. Roy consistently fails to understand the accepted standards here (at the same time giving lectures about policies he clearly does not understand) and seems to believe that the way Wikipedia works is conveniently whatever method at that very point in time could be argued to support whatever it is that Roy wants to do, regardless of objective merit, consensus on the talk page or longstanding methods of handling similar situations on the site. DreamGuy (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is supposed to be about computerized generation, not an excuse to attack other editors. Please.

Deleting a section does not improve it -- it just makes it go away. If everything with a problem got deleted, we'd have nothing left. If something is unsourced, poorly worded, contains a phrase you think isn't NPOV, etc., then improve it. Same goes for the entire milestone section, all of which was sourced at the time I put it in (look at the edit history). Yes, I'll probably go through the painful process of adding sources for every single line (and making it harder to read too), but, it would be much simpler if it had just been tagged instead of completely deleted. And I'll bet anything some future editor comes through and rips out all the line-by-line citations, saying we don't have to cite every line. RoyLeban (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dreamguy, you need to read WP:COI and tell me what on earth my conflict is before accusing me - like you did with Roy, it's just not there - I stand to gain nothing. Re me being an admin, this is totally irrelevant when dealing with content. In the case of 'first' - all sources say it was the first! Show me a source which shows otherwise. Re spam, it would be spam if we said these were important and gave no reason - it's part of a discussion on the topic of generators, and no generator has been excluded in favour of another. Spam would be saying "the best and most important generator is X link". Ian ¹³  /t  16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)