User talk:Robertpetrick

Robert,

Thanks for the link to that neat ambigram. I've added several more links to other images on your website.

You might be wondering why User:Sluzzelin reverted your additions to Ambigram. The basic reason is that they weren't encyclopedic. If you came across this sentence in an encyclopedia:

In 1975 I began exploring possibilities in manipulating words and letterforms with the intention of using the result in a "functional" context, which was totally different than using the words of language and letters for simply communicating ideas.

Wouldn't you be surprised? The writing is from a first-person point of view, and is only backed up by your personal statements (no "hard" evidence), meaning it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. It's usually better not to write about yourself (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Autobiography).

That said, you've made some great ambigrams, and I'm glad to have more good examples for the Ambigram page.

All that said, welcome to Wikipedia! Here's an introduction to help you find your way around.

Dan Gilles (Λυδαcιτγ), 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After my initial enthusiastic addition of a couple more of your ambigrams, I realized that we're only using ambigrams that have actually been used on something in the examples section, so I took the links back out. The Angel one is still in there, though. Λυδαcιτγ 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I realized right away that what I initially wrote, even though true, was too personal and I understand. -Robert Petrick