Talk:Ambigram/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia and most of them don't have Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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, 2 opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [Corrected 18 July 2009]

Including comments below, it's 4 in favor, 3 opposed. RoyLeban (talk) 18:46, 18 July 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 Wikipedia 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:[1] 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)

"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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Delete actioned. If there is auto-archiving, it will archive properly and in due course. Ian¹³/t 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. RoyLeban (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

chopin's signature

Stuart M (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (my crappy signature)

While that's not, strictly speaking, an ambigram, it's fascinating. Do you have verification for it? Also, I know there are musical pieces which are ambigrammatic -- when turned upside down, they are the same piece. Information on both of these would be a good addition to this page. RoyLeban (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally know of any verification, but it's been on the Chopin page from the 25th of March 2008, and there hasn't been any mention of it in that time. Stuart M (talk) 21:46, 15 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 Wikipedia is to create and maintain an on-line encyclopedia, not destroy it.

The overarching mission goal supercedes individual editing rules, including COI (see [all rules]). 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

You don't seem to get that you are not the one who gets to interpret rules, or votes for that matter, especially considering how dishonestly you do so. When people do cite the policy showing why you are wrong, you just ignore it, and then later claim it never happened. We also see (notes below) how you consistently miscount votes, dropping votes of valid editors who disagree with you and merrily accept shady anonymous IP votes when they agree with you. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

The COI tag must be readded to the article. We know from TechLovr and his anon IP accounts that he is the person behind Flipscript, which gets a lot of time in the article despite being completely nonnotable by all Wikipedia standards. I also note that Roy early on said he was a proud member of other sites he was merrily adding links to without getting consensus from anyone else (except more anon accounts). Roy just unilaterally removed it, which he knows he does not have consensus to do, as Duffbeerforme also says he has a COI. DreamGuy (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say "his anon IP accounts" you refer to one edit in the last 2 months, which was immediately reverted, presumably when he realised he was not logged in. I see no reason not to have a COI tag, and as I see it anyone with a self-declared COI should naturally not participate in a discussion about whether it should be included. Ian¹³/t 17:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the claim of COI, whether it is about me or Tech Lovr, is a specious argument.

• I have no idea who Tech Lovr is. I have no objection to a Check User to verify that we're not the same person.
• I am reasonably sure that Tech Lovr is unrelated to FlipScript, based on the next point.
• I have exchanged email with two of the people involved with FlipScript (Mark Hunter and Mark Palmer), who both previously made COI edits under anon IPs. I have helped them understand how Wikipedia works and those COI edits have stopped. I did not know either of them previously and they are not my friends. I convinced Mark Hunter to release the "ambigram" ambigram he created for ambigram.com under CC so it could be used on the page.
• I and others believe that FlipScript is worthy of inclusion. I also think it is worth an article of its own (just like CafePress, Zazzle, etc.). I created such an article but it did not survive -- not enough references.
• I have no idea what the statement Roy early on said he was a proud member of other sites he was merrily adding links to means. I made no such statement and I am not a member of any such site. In fact, I do not even know of a site that has anything to do with ambigrams that has members.
• I do know most of the prominent ambigrammists. I've been friends with Doug Hofstadter and Scott Kim for >20 years. Hofstadter was my graduate advisor. I've exchanged numerous emails with John Langdon and Robert Petrick (who I knew about for ~20 years before that). I'm friends with Greg Huber and David Moser. I've corresponded with or met many others, including Burkard Polster, who wrote Eye Twisters, and Punya Mishra (and, yes, I added a link to Punya's excellent library of ambigrams, and I also asked him to release his "ambigram" ambigram under CC so it could be used on the page). I created my first ambigram in the Fall of 1975 (a rotaglyph of "Judy"). None of this gives me a COI and I have no agenda to push.
• I use my real name to edit, so it's easy to verify who I am and that I have no COI.

RoyLeban (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent deletions

As discussed above, I have reverted the recent mass deletions. They comprise 20% of the article, and they removed sourced, verified, and relevant content. These deletions hurt this article. Clearly some other people disagree. If you are one of those people and you have an argument for why some of this content does not belong in the article, then please discuss it here. In many cases, there is already a section above about the material, so adding your argument above is appropriate. In some cases, there may have been a discussion more than 90 days ago, which would mean the discussion has been archived. In such a case, you should probably copy the previous discussion back to this page to reopen it. If neither of these apply, add a new section or subsection to this Talk page.

A note on discussion: As is the case everywhere on Wikipedia, personal attacks are not to be tolerated, nor are they to be considered in assessing consensus. Falsely accusing somebody of having a COI or of using meatpuppets or sockpuppets is not an acceptable form of discussion. Doing so repeatedly makes it a personal attack and may cause you to be banned. Citing a policy without explanation is a useless exercise. WP:EL does not say there are no external links. WP:NOT does not say you can't have a timeline or a list of things. WP:NOTABLE doesn't say that something isn't notable just because you say it is. If you cite a policy, you should say why you think the policy applies. Arguments for or against the inclusion of information should be polite, instructive, and concise.

RoyLeban (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You reerted all recent edits done by any account that wasn't you, including new changes where two people agreed to them and you were the ONLY person to object. That's not even an attempt at trying to follow consensus, that's just a clear WP:OWNership problem. DreamGuy (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: The consensus was established before the deletions, through a long and arduous process brought about by your mass deletions in January. At that time, I did not revert your changes and, instead, sought consensus. Your sole argument seems to be that you are right and I am wrong. For example, at one point, you stated flatly that Wikipedia doesn't have timelines when, in fact, it has thousands, if not tens of thousands of timelines.

You well know that I am not the only person to object. Tech Lovr also objected. And I know from history that there are many editors who disagree with you.

In my restoration, I only restored deleted text. I preserved recent unrelated edits (including one of yours), or at least that was my intent. If I missed a non-deletion edit, my apologies. RoyLeban (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

apologies accepted. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

NPL use of the word Ambigram again

If someone wants to write about another use of the word then they should consider starting a new article for it, such as at Ambigram (ambiguous anagram). This article is about the ambigrams that are "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". Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue with having an other meanings section - it probably wouldn't stand up as it's own article that well, but does clarify that there may be multiple interpretations of the terminology. -- unsigned comment by Ian13

For the record, I did not add this information. Originally, there was a large paragraph in the opening section, which I felt was inappropriate. I changed it to a short sentence and moved the rest of it further down in the article. Many articles on Wikipedia reference "other meanings" and the like. I think it is appropriate here in a non-prominent way, especially since the NPL meaning (an anagram that can read as either true or false) is related, though coincidentally. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's completely nonnotable trivia. It doesn't belong here and certainly not in a separate article. When NPL uses terms that the rest of the world doesn't recognize, we have no reason to report it here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Invention and popularity

Starting this section with a claim that ambigrams were invented in the 1970s and following this with a statement about a ambigram from 1893 is nonsensical. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It is confusing. I have some additional historical information written by Hofstadter and Langdon that I have not yet gone through. Peter Jones (in 1963) was the first person who recognized that any word can be made into an ambigram. Until then, with Newell and the Strand ambigrams, it was believed that it was an interesting property of particular words (See paragraph 3 of this section). I will update this section when I have time. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 17 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 Wikipedia 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)

I made seperate changes so each could be looked at individualy. You ignored that and undid them all at once. You ask for good faith but show none yourself. Not all of the changes I made were about something that has been discussed in the talk pages. Your suggestion of reading is a good one. Maybe it should start with reading wp:or. "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source." Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My edits were completely made in good faith. I gave a lot of consideration to what I should do. In the end, I decided the best thing to do was to revert everything and then have a discussion about everything. I'm still waiting for that discussion instead of this crazy discussion!! On WP:OR, I'm very familiar with it. I can't say that everything in the article is not OR (I haven't reviewed every line), but I can say that I haven't added any. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You have restored challenged material which has no reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And I support your changes. Looks like Roy doesn't want to work for a consensus, only what he wants to do... as he reverted the article, reverted the archive of the talk page, and so forth. He has a clear COI on the article, and we caught his main supporter as being the IP address who added spam links and information to the article. I have undone all his reverts per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS and would ask that if he wants to make changes that he establish a consensus in his favor instead of reposting checklists of old anon IPs and newbie accounts that were clear (and now proven) meatpuppet accounts and insisting that those mean he WP:OWNs the article and can do whatever he wants. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: As you well know, I do not have any COI. I'm a subject matter expert and, unlike you, I don't hide my real name. I do not have a "main supporter". Yes, one of the people who agrees with me added some spam links. Maybe you've noticed he hasn't done that recently. I reached out to the people at FlipScript and chastised them for doing so (and they stopped). I do not know them personally. When other spammers have stopped by to add links, I have removed the links and tried to educate people. I don't know any of the other editors on the page and all of them, except Duffbeerforme, disagree with you. I don't own the article -- I just want to improve it and protect it from your senseless attacks. As you have been told countless times, on countless other talk pages, you are not the only person who understands Wikipedia policy -- in fact, you seem to have much less of an understanding than most other editors.

Duffbeerforme: I'm assuming that you are not DreamGuy's meatpuppet. I'm assuming good faith about your edits. As I said, if you want to work to improve the article, not destroy it, I'm happy to work with you.

RoyLeban (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you simply call any edit you disagree with as an attempt to "destroy" the article... and, funny, "TechLovr" used the exact same language. On top of that, you claim I know you do not have any COI when I actually know the opposite, and frankly just declaring yourself a subject matter expert gives you no more rights than anyone else. IT certainly doesn;'t give you the right to be the gatekeeper on all edits to the article, or to insert huge chunks of unsourced texts based solely upon your personal thoughts. DreamGuy (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous edits that I disagreed with which were not attempts to destroy the article. I would call deleting 20% of the article with no discussion such an attempt. I think you know that you are making up a COI where none exists. I do not believe I am the gatekeeper of the article, but, yes, I am protective of it. I have not inserted unsourced information. If you look at the actual edits, you will see that -- for example, text added along with references. It's not my fault that you don't have access to the reference works that I do. RoyLeban (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Any claims to expertise or real-life identity are irrelevant, as we undertake no original research and try and cite all our claims. Please don't use this as a claim that your views are more important. It is the evidence, not the person, which is important. Ian¹³/t 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My claims of expertise are only in response to the specious claim by DreamGuy that my longstanding knowledge of ambigrams gives me a COI. It is an advantage, not a disadvantage. That said, I have been very careful to add only sourced material and my expertise means that I know where to find things. As I noted, it's not my fault that others don't have access to the reference works, including rare ones, that I do. If you want to drop by my house, I'd be happy to show them to you. RoyLeban (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why have you removed the unsourced-section tag from the milestones section without providing reliable sources that directly support the claim that each of the entries are milestones. This section had also been previously challenged but had still not been sourced. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the section is sourced to a referenced work and/or is factually observable (though they are not individually tagged). For example, "natural" is discussed in multiple sources, Hofstadter discusses rotaglyphs, and "mirror image" is both descriptive/observable/not a proper name, but also discussed in almost every source. The two items that are not so sourced are tagged individually. I'll find a ref for Symbiotogram at one point. I have to admit I'm skeptical about Ambigraf. I've never heard of it and could find no references. It may be a term one person made up (by SlantOne?) and I would have no problems removing it. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As Milestones? Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment above was about the ambigram types section (I misread your comment), not the Milestones section. But, I think you're reading to much into the word "Milestones". Just call it a timeline. DreamGuy's deletion of that section has removed valuable information from the article. RoyLeban (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that all the editors other than me disagree with DreamGuy is not true. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Historically, this was true -- DreamGuy was the lone dissent who felt he alone understood policy. I did list you as an exception. I would bet that, over time, you find yourself agreeing with DreamGuy less. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon P agreed with DreamGuy on the removal of the Monkeyshine spam. That's one other editor who agreed with DreamGuy just in the last month. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Okay. I have reverted the archiving of this page once more. When archiving, the whole section content, of all sections in chronological order, is moved. DreamGuy (talk · contribs)'s actions, whether deliberate or not, resulted in part or no archiving of some sections, and selective removal of peoples comments and sections [2], which is clearly highly misleading. Given there seems to be dispute over what sections to archive to, and when, I see no reason not to just let the objective auto-archiving take its course. The 'consensus' section should admittedly be in chronological section order, and signed by whoever formed that opinion, so if anyone knows feel free to do so. Please just discuss here before archiving, and leave it as it was before changing the page. Ian¹³/t 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian13. I set up auto-archiving on this page because it had gotten pretty crufty over the years. I set the threshhold to 90 days to ensure no discussions were cut off abruptly. Personally, I hate manual archiving because it can lead to abuse.

On the consensus section, I'll indicate the ones that I put there (it might be all of them, not sure). I should have done that initially. As you can see, most have no opposition, so they're not controversial.

And on all these deletions, my opinion is obvious: If there is disagreement, the place to disagree is the talk page.

RoyLeban (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your counts about consensus are highly deceptive, as is the claim that "most have no opposition". For example, you have "Justin Thyme 3 in favor, none opposed" when I know for a fact I opposed it (and in fact the only reason it ever came to a vote was I had removed it at that time), and it was removed in my recent edit so clearly I am against it, but you don't count it because it was me. Similarly, for "Monkeyshine movie 4 in favor, 1 opposed" the actual section above shows that the opposed votes were SimonP, me and Duffbeerforme. The in favor votes were you, the anonymous IP account 206.188.51.92 (a WP:SPA with only 3 edits ever, all supporting you and a link to FlipScript site), and Tech Lovr (who, as we saw from a recent edit to this talk page that he removed later, uses IP address accounts here and who is a SPA in favor of linking to the FlipScript site -- a site you yourself said you were friends with the owner of) -- that's 3 against, 3 in favor (and, realistically, the IP and TechLovr are almost certainly the same person, and a meatpuppet account)... how you got 4 to 1 is beyond me... wishful thinking and gaming the system, I guess, or simply not updating any of your counts when they go against you. DreamGuy (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did miscount. My apologies for that. It was 4 in favor, 2 opposed. Duffbeerforme's comment/vote was 4 months after I assessed consensus, so of course it wasn't counted at the time. RoyLeban (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I propose that:

• Sections 2-12 (inc.) on this page are archived (in whole) - they're not very current, and this page is busy enough as it is
• The consensus section is removed completely. It's not really appropriate to have a permanent section at the top for 'consensus'. Instead just have a chronological section listing Roy's current interpretation of what is appropriate, scrap the 'x in favor' (given its not a straw poll, 1 oppose with valid reasons would overrule 5 supports with no reasoning), and then people can discuss specific points from there.

Ian¹³/t 15:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the "consensus" section seems to make up vote counts out of thin air to meet whatever Roy wants to do. On the occasions when they are accurate it is only by counting a series of odd new anon IP accounts who show up just long enough to vote, and an account that rarely edits Wikipedia at all except to show up and use the exact same language to agree with Roy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a link to the page with the actual discussions used to justify "consensus". It goes to a start of a section with a bunch of "votes." Note that the only reason the vote comes up is that I removed things and Roy didn't want them removed, yet in every case he doesn't count my removal as a vote to remove and declares "Justin Thyme" "none opposed"; "Trick/Treat cards" "none opposed". This is just sheer dishonesty at work. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As is quite obvious, I went to a lot of work to create all those sections to get consensus. A month went by. Others commented and voted. DreamGuy did not, so I thought he'd lost interest. At the time, he looked like somebody who just went around to pages and deleted content. To be honest, he still looks like that to me. I did send email to a number of other ambigrammists, so some of the anons are those people (though there are far fewer anon votes than people I emailed). In no case did I tell anyone how to vote -- I just suggested they stop by to give their opinion. And you can see that not all of the voters agreed with me. RoyLeban (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall we not bring up the past. Consensus is ongoing, and please see WP:POLLS regarding just counting votes, so this section just outlines one user's interpretation. Aside from this, if we want to change something about the current article, can we just bring it up in a seperate section, and discuss. Regarding my proposal, do both of you think this is a suitable solution to the archiving dispute? Ian¹³/t 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, can I additionally propose that autoarchiving is set to remove discussions over 30 days old, as I think if people haven't added in a month, there's probably not much more that needs discussing, and the archives are always available also. Ian¹³/t 17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian, thanks for your help here. I will respond more later today, but I think your proposal is close to reasonable. I set the archiving to 90 days because (a) I wanted to make absolutely sure that nobody thought I was supressing debate by auto-archiving, and (b) I knew I had waited 30 days for the January/Feburary discussions and I wanted a much longer timespan to ensure that discussions didn't vanish while people were still interested in them. RoyLeban (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the proposal, here are my thoughts:

• I'm ok with archiving sections 2-6, 8-10, and 12, provided nobody else objects
• Any archived sections must be added to the bottom of Archive 2, not a new page, so as to not to interfere with auto archiving.
• On 7 (Mark Palmer mentions), it appears to be the case that 80-90% of all ambigram tattoos are Mark Palmer's designs. This is astounding and, if verified, deserves to be in the article. Unfortunately, I have found no reliable source for this (other than Mark Palmer himself) and nobody else has stepped up with information. I think we should leave this section in the hopes that somebody will find a reference.
• On 11 (Monkeyshine), this is still controversial so it should not be archived.
• I would be ok with changing auto-archiving to 60 days, but not 30 at this point.
• With regard to the "consensus" section and WP:POLLS, I created this section when I put the auto-archiving in place. The intent was to summarize information that was archived or about to be archived so that it would not be revisited again and again (as has happened in the past and is happening now). It's one thing to say you disagree with a decision that was made, but it is another thing to be unaware that a decision was ever made (and that's why I brought up the past). This section is NOT my interpretation and I strenuously object to any such declaration. Others are certainly free to assess consensus and it is inaccurate to say that I make up whatever I want or that it's my version of consensus. The standard way to close a discussion such as a Deletion Review or an RfA is with such a summary. How is this different? If I got something subtly wrong, I'm happy to change it to match closer what is done elsewhere on Wikipedia, or somebody else can do so. I don't own the section.
• Another reason I put the consensus section in place was to help resolve issues with a problem editor (DreamGuy) who seems to believe that he is the only person who can interpret Wikipedia policies. The consensus section was intended to document closed discussions, even those whose results I disagreed with (like the example of an NPL ambigram).
• Finally, consensus is ongoing, but notability is not temporary. Reopening a decision regarding appropriateness happens all the time, but it is not acceptable to pretend a previous discussion did not happen, especially with false accusations of COI and puppetry.

RoyLeban (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It's not 30 days since the discussion started, but 30 days since the last comment. Personally, if no objections or concerns have been raised within 14 days or so, no-one probably minds. Archives are there, and if someone raises something, discussions can be referenced very easily by just linking to the correct archive section. I think that 7 should be archived regardless, just because of the timespan, and this helps keep an archive in chronological order - it's still there, and if anyone ever does find a suitable reference for the fact, I'm fairly sure it would be forthcoming regardless of the discussion. Sadly, judgement of polls is always partially subjective - in AfD etc a conclusion has to be reached to decide which outcome to implement, but an article is much more low-key and variable, and if someone can raise additional points it may be valid regardless. It's not for any one editor to 'enforce' consensus in this way on an article, and if someone proposes a change to the current page with reasons, its the discussion and not a strawpoll which needs to be consulted. A discussion is not closed in this manner, it keeps going if evidence can be presented and a consensus can be reached. It's not for you or DreamGuy to decide how to interpret the discussion, its just gotta go on until most people generally agree for sensible reasons, and be subject to reexamination at a whim. There's no reason you can't ask someone to address the points raised in an archived discussion. Ian¹³/t 21:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting is fine. Pretending the previous discussion didn't happen is not fine. I would prefer that 7 not be archived, but I can live with it. DreamGuy might argue on the 30 days. If archving had been sent to 30 days in February, entire discussions would have been created and archived before he saw them. I would also prefer to wait a few days to see if anybody else besides the recent commenters has an opinion.

On assessing consensus in an article, eventually a decision has to be reached or discussions last forever. In all the discussions where I indicated a consensus, I felt that "most people agreed for sensible reasons". There were other discussions which I never closed (some of which got auto-archived, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ambigram/Archive_2#Other_names_section) where I did not think that happened. In the example I just cited, since my name is mentioned, I wouldn't have added it anyway. RoyLeban (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If people aren't raising further points within a couple of weeks, just be WP:BOLD and edit the article. They are still welcome to query the archived discussion, and have further talk to decide on keeping the addition or reverting. Ian¹³/t 10:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree. I waited longer back in January because DreamGuy had done a large number of deletions and he did not revisit. I wanted to give him time. RoyLeban (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with this as no strong objections were raised, and at 94kb this page was rather massive (and still is sadly). Do just reference sections when wishing to refer to their discussion, eg Talk:Ambigram/Archive_2#Rotating_ambigram.3F. Ian¹³/t 21:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Could editors with a conflict interest please identify those interests in this section, to prevent dispute over this. Feel free to add another editor as long as a page diff is added as evidence. Ian¹³/t 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:RoyLeban - WIM game (ambigram-like game and related puzzles) - RoyLeban (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please reconsider your answer considering your previous suggestions of a possible conflict of interest and your admitted personal involvement and direct connection to those directly involved. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My only desire is to have an accurate, complete article. An interest is not a conflict of interest.

I have added my ambigram-like game of WIM as a potential COI. Although, as I've said, I do think it is relevant to this article and notable as the only ambigram game (and the puzzles based on it are unique as well), I will not make any edits concerning it. Notice that I did not vote on whether it should be included in the article and it is not mentioned in the article.

I also think it's interesting here that nobody else has stepped up to declare anything. Why is DreamGuy so interested in removing content? What's his agenda? Duffbeerforme, why your sudden interest? Do you work for a competitor to FlipScript? Yes, I realize these questions sound ridiculous, but, if I'm going to be hounded for no reason, I expect everybody else to step up as well.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No I don't work for a competitor to FlipScript. Your claims of good faith don't last long. I work for no one with any connection with ambigrams. Why the interest. I was cleaning up after the latest spam contributions related to Cupsogue Pictures which included a related entry on this page. I looked at the history of it's inclusion here and saw a problem. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme, I still AGF about you. Sorry if it seemed otherwise, but DreamGuy is a well-known attacker and you seem to be piling on. I trust that you have no COI. I don't either. Let's discuss content. RoyLeban (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We know that TechLovr and the anon IPs he used was the guy behind the FlipScript site he kept spamming. Roy consistently wants to talk about himself (previous talk page discussions centered around wanting to link to his own website and to his own self=produced game that uses ambigram-like tiles for letters) as well as people he knows (also archived on talk is where he claims to have personally known many of the people mentioned in the article, and he include in the article his very own personal term for ambigrams. He's also well known for promoting the NPL and his friends in that group, voting to keep articles about them, mention them in unrelated articles, etc. I'm not sure how he can possibly claim not to have a conflict of interest. DreamGuy (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)