Talk:Typewriter

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Is there documentation for the claim that Francesco Rampazetto invented a typewriter in 1575?

The only reference to Francesco Rampazetto's 1575 invention is a link to a website that makes an unsupported claim. If there is no documentary evidence of this claim, should this claim be deleted from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsmark75 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Francesco Rampazetto and the Scrittura Tattile] explicitly challenges the article as it stands, so unless someone produces a solid citation pdq, off with its head. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Typewriter

That article states that Life on the Mississippi by Mark Twain was the first typewritten manuscript submitted for publication in 1883. This is factually incorrect. The first book published from a typewritten manuscript (on a Sholes typewriter) was Oahspe by John Newbrough in 1882. 104.148.163.181 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IndianAdi (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Pterotype" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pterotype has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 6 § Pterotype until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal Computers

The article states:

Typewriters were a standard fixture in most offices up to the 1980s. After that, they began to be largely supplanted by personal computers running word processing software.

How did the PC replace the typewriter in the 1980's, when it was not invented until 20 years later??? 130.0.28.117 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The IBM PC was introduced in 1981, the Apple Macintosh in 1984. and they replaced earlier word processing products. --agr (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That is false. 130.0.28.144 (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll bite: What specifically is it that you're saying is false in the above? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

When reverting crosses over into vandalism

One should assume good faith, but like with any rebuttable presumption at court, there comes a time that's no longer reasonable. Like here, where the editor was eager to intercede but did not take the least bit of care, as is most evident from the Notes section placement and the killing of that URL. Even if you may have a point on some individual contributions where reasonable people can agree to disagree as to their merit: If you don't feel you can take the time to put the good ones in the pot and the bad ones in the crop, then you should not arrogate to yourself the right to just knock things back to some earlier point, consequences be darned. Yes, it's easier and less time-consuming to summarily revert, than to contest individual edits and justify yourself. It's much easier to shoot first and ask no questions later. "Oh, but I can't deal with that, that's too much trouble" should be reason to restrain yourself, not reason to hastily and shoddily try and restrain another. Anybody can quickly revert to any past version in the history and just say, "Oh now it's up to others to pick up the pieces behind me and redo what has been lost." Are you here to write an encyclopædia or to try and (over)police one? And that's exactly why this edit summary says rvv. Because that's the reasonable conclusion as to what that was. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're in my shoes, how do you expect me to reply to a paragraph as breathlessly melodramatic as this? You're not entitled to have your work go totally unchallenged, as you don't own the article. While appreciating your additions generally, I have substantial concerns about style and diction errors therein that I'd really prefer you stop making—instead of you further repeating, entrenching, and leaving them for others to clean up. That was where I tried to pick the diff, as to isolate instances of you going wrong without undoing anything of substance. You already considered the possibility that it wasn't vandalism and dismissed it, and I'm not going to grovel for you to reconsider that conclusion, given I have a spine. I won't waste my time trying to articulate those concerns to someone who's made explicit they are not listening to me. If you can get over yourself a bit and not immediately box me out of the discussion you are doing your best to prevent from happening, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'm not dealing with another paragraph written like this one and this quickly becomes a conduct issue, not a content one. Remsense ‥ 论 06:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@ReadOnlyAccount, to accuse a longstanding editor of vandalism is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. In it its absence, as in this case, it is failure to wp:assume good faith and arguably a WP:no personal attack violation. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that WP:Be bold comes with a recognition that a bold edit may be reverted. If the edit summary does not seem to you to explain adequately the reason for the reversion [and you would certainly have grounds for that conclusion in this case], then you should use the talk page to seek an explanation. Your diatribe above was counter-productive as well as uncivil. I suggest that you both self revert and start again. For further guidance, see WP:bold, revert, discuss. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

A "longstanding editor" should be much better at holding themselves to a high standard. Not worse, or more thin-skinned. The attitude that some sort of seasoned elite gets a pass on worse behaviour and everyone else just gets it is precisely the issue, and the other reply is right in that it is a conduct issue – and I am criticising conduct. If you don't want to devolve into behaving like, and consequently being called totalitarians, just act accordingly. Just don't do the thing. Cease and desist from bad behaviour and there'll be no blowback. Don't act like you're better than and hence can get away with more, or like you're here to police the rabble, because that is the totlitarian's mindset. Wikipedia is sustained by User-Generated Content that comes in in an egalitarian editor spirit. Wikipedia has succeeded thus far despite occasional totalitarian impulses – not because of them. Don't blow it. That would be my suggestion. And if there's anyone who really needs to check their compliance with the red tape you cite, well, maybe go start over. It can be a teachable moment if not experience to see what it's like editing absent accumulated privilege and erroneously attached entitled expectations. Because these aren't good. And I have to believe —and in good faith, assume— that you know this. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

PS: In response to this edit, it is definite vandal behaviour to repeatedly blanket revert and deliberately not address even the two most glaring specific issues I constructively pointed out above. Don't want to be called a vandal? Edit constructively, not non-constructively. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)