Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. 6 per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content. Traditionally, these templates should be removed only once the citation (valid reference) has been provided. 5 as you deleted important templates indicating the content is not properly sourced. 4] because you deleted essential external links that are Wikipedia sister projects ( Wiktionary, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons). And yes, this is an ambigram (not "miscategorized"). Wikipedia is not bound to follow the last fads. The fact that it is dated is not an argument to suppress it from the page. Quoting Hofstadter: "Sometimes the readings will say identical things, sometimes they will say different things". 3 since this picture illustrates an important point of the article. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. 2 per Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. 1 because the image you tried to publish on the page was not public domain (now deleted on Commons). Synethos ( talk) 16:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Yes, Synethos, your contributions have been reverted numerous times. Also do we really need a citation needed when stating that there are multiple possibilities to make an ambigram of the same word? I would personally throw that sentence away completely, but if one keeps it, I don't see how it should be cited.
But why would the French Davalan generator not be relevant while the ambimatic, TrulyScience or flipscript are? You really can't talk about that subject without mentioning the websites at least, especially if there are some up already.
"Ambigram, also known as." I guess that one can discuss about weather or not mentioning an existing font is relevant or not. Can you please explain how a Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton clinton 'ambigram' is relevant, especially when it is miscategroized? Any why we need a section on other names for ambigrams, where other articles put that in the introduction? e.g. More Basile Morin: Ok so clearly I have stepped on some toes since all my revisions are being reverted. Thanks - Basile Morin ( talk) 15:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC) However, please start by reading our policies and guidelines, and try to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia in general, first, before moving everything like a hurricane. I can make an attempt, but I wanted to post this first to make sure that I am not stepping on anyone's toes.- Synethos ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Certainly this article can be improved. History and popularity can be merged I think and I would also do something about the introduction. It has become a summation of facts with no clear story. I feel like this entire article needs a rewrite. Basile Morin ( talk) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Rewrite If the copyright is owned, then the picture of the shirt can be uploaded on Commons. Some consider this as a "Figure-ground" ambigram, however I don't think this is a successful one.
Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrique.garciasimon ( talk I found this example, but I do not know how include it
How to quote / copyrighted materials / examples without image 1 How to quote / copyrighted materials / examples without image.