Talk:Ambigram

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ambigram article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]