User talk:MarcsMark

The typewriter debate
I've had no involvement with the Sholes and Glidden typewriter article beyond a single copyedit, and know nothing of the underlying literature, or whether you're right or El Cobbola is right. I happened to see that comment of yours, and I am leaving this message to suggest that the tone of the debate on that talk page is not likely to get this encyclopedia improved, which is the goal here. You and he disagree on some points; well, a key test for including something in Wikipedia is verifiability, which here means that it has to be found in a reliable source. What's a reliable source? This page gives the details. I am genuinely trying to help you when I say that your comments are most unlikely to improve the article -- what do you expect an opponent to do: roll over because you have insulted him? If indeed you are a mature and sensible person, as you say, who wants the article to represent the true state of affairs, I urge you to redact your comments and ask El Cobbola what sources can support his points. Then the two of you will be arguing over facts rather than invective. That would be far more useful, from the point of view of those of us that want to see the encyclopedia improve. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your note. I would like to defend my comments by saying

1.  When I detected that the article was erroneous, and I made relevant corrections… calm and quiet, lovely, no invective, no nothing.

2.  What were the corrections? The corrections were the addition of Adler’s two books in the bibliography on the subject. I could not believe that they had not been included in the first place.

3.  Within hours, my corrections had been reversed and the inclusion of Adler’s two books in the bibliography on the subject had been removed. I realized that the correct form was to add knowledge from the sources to add to the knowledge of Wikipedia and correct mistakes. Being humble I did not steam in and post my suggestions pel mel but invited comment in the notes with a view to a decent discussion followed by the inclusion of agreed text.

4.  Rather than a discussion I got a rubbishing of my sources with no acceptance that what was being proposed had any merit at all. statement relating to “Adler’s poor research and understanding” was not simply stupid and ignorant, it was a deliberate insult. It was bitchiness. The comment "Have a reliable source for that weasel word?" by Эlcobbola is particularly galling since there is no one in this field who does not know these books. The first of them, The Writing Machine, was published in 1973, and was considered valuable by many authorities in the field; Sotheby’s, Christie’s, Phillips, Bonhams etc. etc. all included catalogue notes after specific lots such as “Adler says…” or “According to Adler…”

5.  My reply to El Cobbola was specifically designed to correct the errors he was attempting to introduce to cover the fact that his article was in error. He was digging in his heels and refusing to fairly debate the relevant corrections, and doing this in an unworthy manner: the error about the correct name of the invention is an example, and I stick by my statement: there is no more reliable authority on the correct name of an invention than that which the inventor places upon it. Specifically, this revolved about the name: The Sholes and Glidden Type Writer, which appears on the machine itself. The article was in error, the author of the article rubbished the correction despite the facts, and all the subsequent twisting and turning was caused by the author refusing to correct his mistake.

I welcome useful debate on the subject and would be happy to post, or for you to post, these comments on the discussion pages. In the end all I want is to see the encyclopedia improve by the removal of inaccuracies and the inclusion of the facts.

Marc