Talk:Oliver Typewriter Company

message: The Oliver was not the first "effective visible typewriter".  The source claimed to be from Beeching's book is incorrect.  I have Beeching's book (the physical actual book!!) and can email you scans of the cited pages if you want to provide an email or get in touch with me (markp442@gmail.com).  At the very least this sentence needs to be removed the article, and my reasoning for this besides it being incorrect is that the source is totally invalid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.18.155 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , could you please provide the evidence you have that this user is incorrect or at least let us know that you're working on finding a valid source? Especially since you won't even allow the article to have wording such as "one of the first", which is verifiable by the other sources. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Camera Librarian source died sometime before December 2018, after this article was written and after it went through the featured article process (March 3, 2008).  As referenced above in the "IP edits" section, the FA process included extensive critique on the sourcing, and the Daily Camera Librarian source  a) was alive at that time and b) included the cited content.  I thus have provided verifiable sourcing; per WP:KDL: "A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past".  That publication still exists.  Indeed, I have emailed them and a physical copy could be obtained if one desires. "Sometimes, finding an appropriate [replacement] source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of a subscription-based database." (WP:MDLI)  The IP, altneratively, has provided no sourcing (to the contrary: "The notion of verifiability (sic) over truth is highly disturbing to me") and, as I've explained, their information does not contradict the article; they're simply not reading critically.  I don't see you've cited a single policy for a) removing the link or b) why information supported by a now dead link should be removed. Эlcobbola talk 22:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond in somewhat reverse order, I did not remove any article content whatsoever; the IP edit that I restored was changing the wording from "first" to "among the first". I was not aware that it was policy to always keep dead links, and I have not removed it again since you linked that policy. Also, since the IP user had started a new talk section about this topic I did not realize that there had already been a discussion above. I understand their frustration, especially at the next-to-impossible task you've assigned them of providing a source that very specifically states it is not the "first effective visible print typewriter". I won't try to argue the point any further though, as I have no personal knowledge of this subject. Now, I could ask why you've templated an established user on my talk page with a completely false accusation that I removed content with no edit summary when anyone can easily see that's not true, but that would be a bit off-topic for this talk page. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed an entirely valid source , which is indeed "content" as referenced by the warning.  I would expect "an established user" a) to know that; b) to know that accusation of a "lie"--a deliberate untruth as opposed to an unintended untruth--is a failure of WP:AGF and c) to bother to inform themselves before opining.  What were you saying about templating the regulars? Эlcobbola talk 23:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you seemed to need the warning more than I did, since you had actually failed to include an edit summary when you reverted, while I did not. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Still Presents False Information AND a Bad Source 

message: What is the legacy of the company? MSN12102001 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: The Woodstock, Illinois article asserts that the company became or became a part of the Woodstock Typewriter company which produced typewriters at least through WWII.  This seems at odds with what is in this Oliver typewriter article. Kdammers (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  the end of the company? 

message: Hello
Do you purchase your product? 151.246.20.176 (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales