Wikipedia talk:Tutorial (historical)/Archive 1

message: Is there any kind of a WYSIWYG program for editing wikipedia? Cfive 16:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering 

message: I updated the menu templat  to look like , but it needs a stylistically-related graphic instead of the FAQ graphic. Who/where to ask? Amgine 18:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menu template 

message: A more holistic discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. Interested editors may wish to add their opinions there. Niteowlneils 16:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia introductory pages

message: Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Tutorial v2 Niteowlneils 01:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tutorial reduction plan

message: Could there a link to this page be added to the actual document editing template?  99% of the time that's where I am when I need to refer to this document. --Irrevenant 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to this page from the Editing Template? 

message: I made an alternative header that spans all of the tutorial pages. It's located at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Header and looks something like this:
You can see a test of how it looks here.  What are your thoughts on making a switch? Rfrisbietalk 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like having them all on each page, but i prefer the style we've currently got -- It's a better match with Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Introduction. Can we use your template and text-sizing, but without the extra title-bar, and with a different seperator (eg · or • bullets)? (I pressume that's why you've underlined the initial letters? This can be confusing, because the program GUI convention is to underline the letter that gives access to the dropdown menus via the keyboard. eg Alt-V opens the view menu in Firefox. Also some people will have all links underlined via their preferences.) --Quiddity 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All those changes are fine with me. Rfrisbietalk 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just updated to simpler format. Rfrisbietalk 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: p.s. Now, this doesn't look as "fancy" to me. If you all prefer tabs, I could try squeezing them together in a smaller format. Rfrisbietalk 12:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note on Gareth Aus's talkpage, as he's the man behind our current look :) --Quiddity 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The current version is "workable" (it doesn't wrap) at 800 X 600. Rfrisbietalk 12:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections here and a basic okay on Garth Aus's talkpage, I'm going to start switching over to the full tab set layout. This also revises the border slightly to better match the Community Portal design. Rfrisbietalk 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like it :) --Quiddity 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative header 

message: I'm wondering if anyone can add :th:วิกิพีเดีย:สอนการใช้งาน. I cannot edit since the page's currently locked. Manop - 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Quiddity 17:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki to Thai WIkipedia 

message: This is the hardest thing I ever had to do, I can't believe how many hours I have been on this site trying to figure out how to create a paragraph and then post it to this site.  I feel so stupid and still can't post anything why isn't there a phone number and live person to talk too   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrakosi (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. It was just a standard editing test that noone had yet reverted. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial. —Markles 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: Using editnotices for tutorial sandboxes could help new users, with a sandbox-like introduction and more content hidden that users can show if wanted, based on the related tutorial. I have given editnotices that we could use at User:Cenarium/Sandbox/tutorial editnotice. Feedback and improvements would be appreciated, thanks. Cenarium (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Without taking a close look at the actual notices you've set up, I say go for it: I just plain like this idea.  We've just recently put up an editnotice at Editor Assistance/Requests and the results were immediately visible.  They are very helpful for new users.  Good idea, Cenarium!  :-] Fleetflame 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it this is done now? Looks good. Rd232 talk 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added ones for editing, formatting and Wikipedia links. They can be edited (by admins) at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox, etc. We can discuss them here for improvements. Cenarium (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great! L∴V 14:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editnotices for sandboxes 

message: Hi ya'll. Just want to mention, H:T goes to Help:Template, while WP:T goes here. Seems like it should be different is all. JoeSmack Talk 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  shortcut to tutorial 

message: On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages) It says: 
For your convenience, there is a button at the top of the edit box with a signature icon inserts "--~~~~" when pressed. 
I think it should read "clicked" rather than "pressed".
AmigoCgn (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clicked may be a better term - have changed, cheers! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the subject, there are some issues with that particular sentence ("For your convenience, there is a button at the top of the edit box with a signature icon inserts "--~~~~" when clicked.").  I feel it should read "For your convenience, there is a button at the top of the edit box with a signature icon which inserts "--~~~~" when clicked.  I don't think I myself am actually able/allowed to make that correction, though, so I leave the matter in your wiser and more capable hands. ;) - ReySquared (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - good spot. Just fixed it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Button on screen to be clicked rather than pressed 

message: Many Wikipedia pages are now protected and new users, who may be subject matter experts, will have difficulty understanding the complexity of different types of protection. This issue makes editing very difficult and discourages contributions to Wikipedia. WikiProject pages require special access to make edits. I would like to see a tab in the tutorial section called: Editing Protected Pages. Currently in Wikipedia there are links in different places leading to pages explaining protection. I have found that the format is not in a "learning style" and it is necessary to find and click on many links on different pages to gain a more complete understanding of how to edit protected articles. Figlinus (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Protected Pages

message: The normal academic and business standard is not folowed in the first para.  It reads, "Instead of a strict WYSIWYG approach ("What You See Is What You Get"),.. ".
This should be changed to "Instead of a strict "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) approach , ...".
The standard is that you write the full term first and then put the aronym or other common term in parenthesis.  Thereafter, you are free to use the acronym etc without explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards not followed 

message: Have boldly went and added a link to Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual for anyone wanting an extensive manual. See what you think of it, dave souza, talk 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I think many new users would appreciate having a more in depth tutorial. -- œ™ 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Bold

message: , isn´t it? --Hæggis (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, nope, I don't think so, but even so, redundancy is good when it comes to training newbies. -- œ™ 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the case may be. If you want to distinguish different types of newbies, it can be helpful. But different common (main)sites binds ressources for updating, (user) memory etc. and can confound newbies. --Hæggis (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This site is a little bit redundant to [[WP:Article wizard]] 

message: From the tutorial:
"These differing titles make piped links especially useful, as a link to Georgia (country) is far less readable than a piped link called Georgia."
As it stands, I disagree with it. A link to Georgia (country) is a lot more readable than a link to Georgia, for the simple reason that if you go to the Georgia disambiguation page you get a few dozen references to Georgia. I think what is meant is that Georgia alone is a lot more readable in proper context. For example, when naming European countries, it is obvious that a link to Georgia is referring to the country. Similarly, when naming US states, a link to Georgia will clearly be linking to the state. Outside of an appropriate context though, a link should include in brackets, what version of Georgia is being linked to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.7.40 (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that Wikipedia links almost always come with a context, as they are not just bare links but are part of a sentence and paragraph in the body of the text. So for example if I write "The Macintosh computer is made by Apple" I need to pipe the link. I could add the ", Inc." to the text but that's not what I want to write and is not the way the company is normally referred to, and it's clear from the context I mean the computer maker.
--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And when a link does not have a context such as in See also sections and Disambiguation pages, the brackets are normally included (ie unpiped). So everything is already as it should be. -- œ™ 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the pipe symbol 

message: In the "Wikipedia links" tab the video player runs about 1/2 way and then just ends mid sentence. at least on my computer. I tried it 3 times. Just letting you know RifeIdeas Talk  17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't reproduce the problem. It could be that it needs to buffer at that point on your computer. If your position in playing the video reaches the amount of video downloaded, the video player will stop while it downloads more of the video before continuing. --Bsherr (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I've had a few problems with content from the media server, i.e. uploads.wikimedia.org, so images have been missing on a few occasions for a short while in the last few days, so it could be you've had something similar. Apart from that Wikipedia's video support is unlike watching videos on the Web: almost everyone else uses Flash, the few that don't use QuickTime or WMV. See Help:Media for more information on the formats and what you need to do to play them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back and made sure I had the allow Apple add on from Wikipedia okayed  then went to Introduction and that video worked fine, then to Formatting and that video worked also, but when I got to the video in Wikipedia links that is where the video stopped about 1/2 way in fact the screen showed [[bold  and the message "playback ended" appeared at the bottom. There was never any need for buffering at the beginning of the video and I waited 15 minutes after the stop, doing absolutely nothing to my computer and no change. Just an update. RifeIdeas Talk  21:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to add that none of the videos are working for me in this tutorial. I have IE 9 and the Apple plug in, but when I press the "play" button a "X" appears immediatley. I only see the preview image on each video. I'm not sure of the format but I assume it's open source? But it would be great if all these videos were also posted on Youtube or in another popular format besides. Thegallery (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When you click the play button you should see a 'more' link which lets you select the format it uses. You only need to do this once for the whole of Wikipedia. None of the formats are as popular as Flash/Youtube but they all work, though they need either a modern web browser or a plugin other than Flash (Java or QuickTime).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks John, however it didn't work! I clicked on the first one, a java player, and now it shuts down the page and reopens it everytime I click on it. Any idea how I change the preference now? I'm guessing I should have clicked the 'quicktime' option instead! Thegallery (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't know how you solve that ! I suspect disabling Java would do it but that's pretty drastic and very OS dependent, and even that might not work. You might need to ask at one of the help pages for media or a more general one, which may be a better place to raise your concerns about the usability. This talk page is too poorly attended to be the best venue for either purpose.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video player malfunction 

message: Sometimes, while in sandbox, I realize that I have already forgotten some minor things that I just read, so I have to go back read it again, go to the sandbox again and edit. I have a suggestion to make: 
:*Open the sandbox in a new tab/window, when using the tutorial 
:OR
:*Make a page in the tutorial with the brief list of all commands, so that users can open that in a separate window. 
That way, if something minor forgotten (like number of (=)'s or (')'s, the user would only have to switch between tabs/windows instead of clicking their way back to and from the tutorial page. 
--RukhShona (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sandbox in a new tab/window

message: So I noticed that the talk pages section saysː
:"You can reply in either of two ways. One is to put a message on the user talk page of the person you are replying to. The other is to put your reply on your own talk page beneath the original message. Both are common on Wikipedia; however, be aware that replying on your own talk page runs the risk that your reply won't be seen, if the user does not look at your talk page again. If you intend to use this approach, it is a good idea to post a notice to that effect, at the top of your talk page, so people know they have to keep an eye on the page to see your response, rather than getting your response on their page."
As a newbie here, I was actually wondering if there was a trend to make one way or the other the standard. I was also wondering if using the first way (putting the message on the user talk page of the person you are replying to) is easier since the other user does not need to constantly watch your own user talk page, and then just adding/quoting the message you are replying to as a reminder.
Also, unrelated but I also wanted to know if using the IPA colon (either from Special characters or switching from the Insert down-arrow) is the proper way to add a colon? I'm kind of unsure of how to add symbols that Wikitext already uses, such as apostrophes and colons. With the programming languages I am familiar with, I would just use a backslash/escape character (\) to perform the function I want it to. Iamany (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no standard, but I personally think conversations should be kept in one place, if possible. As you may not know, when someone edits your talk page in any way you get the unmistakable orange bar announcing you have new messages (I've just left a welcome message at your talk page so you should have just gotten your first orange bar). So, many think if they don't respond at the outside talk page, the person won't get this alert, which is part of the motivation for that. One solution is to use  or , so the person get the orange bar but the conversation remains in one place. Regarding colons, I'm not sure what you're getting at but a regular old colon right from your keyboard works fine for everything. If you want to use a colon as text, in a place where the software would normally recognize it as code (e.g. at the beginning of a sentence as an indent level) you would place it in nowiki tags (:). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the welcome and for the very helpful information.  is exactly what I was looking for.--Iamany (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replying to talk pages 

message: It's about a second, I think. Any way of fixing it? Tony (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  first vid: sound behind vid 

message: Hi,
I notice that the image showing the Show preview button is a screenshot of a MediaWiki edit page, not a Wikipedia edit page. Can this image be replaced with a screenshot of a Wikipedia edit page showing the preview button? Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a WP screenshot to me: the only difference is the style of the text and buttons, which depend on user preferences, OS + browser version, and the licence text below which has probably changed since the screenshot. Wikipedia is a MediaWiki based site, so the screenshot is just of the software used, not of e.g. mediawiki.org (which is a lot more different).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show preview image 

message: Hi. I'm new on wikipedia, so I can't edit this semi-protected article, yet. But I've found this mistake on "Tutorial/Editing" page: "...enter a explanation...". It should be like this: "...enter an explanation...". I hope somebody will correct that.
Thanks. Uondre (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for catching that! DMacks (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found a mistake 

message: Could someone with permissions please change the start of the 4th para
"There are links to "sandbox" pages where you can practice" -- to practise.
Whether UK or US English, as a verb it's always 'practise'.
This is a minor edit, but here of all places, should be put right.
Notplayboy (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have that backward. Practice (learning method) notes that US always spells it "practice", with UK the one that ever uses "practise". That's also consistent with wikt:practice and wikt:practise. To confirm, I checked the OED entry for "practise|practice, v.": "The form practice has become increasingly prevalent in U.S. use since the later 19th cent., and is now the generally accepted standard spelling." DMacks (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Practise" as a verb 

message: On the Citing Sources tab, under footnotes, in the second last paragraph.  Idetification should be identification.  Thanks. Helenepollard (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye! Fixed. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo spotted 

message: Hi, I spotted this remark on Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration: Only registered users are allowed to become administrators (also known as sysops).
I must admit that I do not like this statement, for a number of reasons:
#Registering an account is (or should be) never done to become administrator.
#The phrase paints "admin" to be the ultimate goal of WP account registration, or WP editorship, like in an MMPORG.
#The phrase could be misunderstood as a sufficient (as opposed to: necessary) condition to attain adminship. Could it be that some of the WP:NOTNOW-cases at WP:RfA got their idea from the tutorial?
#Account registration is also required for most other advanced user rights. There is no need to single out one of them.
I suggest that the phrase either be removed, or replaced by something like Only registered users can gain further user rights like autopatrolled, filemover, sysop, or bureaucrat. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as that much of an issue: if readers are unclear what an administrator is they can follow the link. There's no implication that becoming an admin is the main goal of WP or something most people would desire. But again that can be discovered by following the link. As for other advanced user rights they are much more obscure, so much so that editors are often unaware of them and only find out about them when they need them.  This makes your proposed wording a lot less clear, especially with adminship also made a user right.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysop one day? 

message: Looking at :Category:Wikipedia tutorials to see what's useful for WP:Workshops and found all these incomplete old redesign pages of the tutorials.  Shouldn't they be gotten rid of to avoid future confusion? CarolMooreDC 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete tutorial redesign pages?

message: all this text - is there a way to add a video for those of us who prefer to learn through hearing or doing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesnord (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems one of them has it. Definitely something that WP:Videos project should work on, though I don't know how active they are. Will keep in mind since I'm trying to help fix up these pages, but so many projects, so little time! CarolMooreDC 19:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the videos to be extremely helpful, I wish there had been more. It helped clear up some confusion for me and made the entire process much easier. --Rlwomalley (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  learning preferences 

message: Wikipedia NOOB here. The citing sources section could be improved by giving examples of the formatted references immediately below the markup language examples provided. That way users could see the results prior to  attempting the markup themselves. I don't have the confidence to attempt this level of editing 203.114.167.88 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: Hi all, there is not much activity here, but I'll try it anyway: We currently have tremendous problems at Wikipedia:School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia. The course is too big, there are too many violations of WP:COMPETENCE. I was thinking if it would be possible to combine the tutorial with some sort of assessment, in order to check if the user successfully completed it.
For instance, Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing could be expanded to creating an own page in user space, Assessment 1, where then someone could check if the page exists, and if it had been created with a useful edit summary. Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting could end with asking the user to create Assessment 2 in user space, and someone could check whether it contains headlines, bold, italic text, and so on.
Depending on the required level, one could even have policy-based assignments like Assignment 12: Copy this page to your user space. Then remove as many policy violations from this text as you find, one by one, and link the relevant Wikipedia policy in the respective edit summary.
If everything was successfully completed, editors could get a badge of some sort, and could get listed as having taken the entry test of Wikipedia.
I see the following advantages:
#Students in Wikipedia projects could be asked by their lecturers to complete this entry test, instead of submitting content at a time when they are not ready to.
#Lecturers could award some marks for passing the test.
#Course coordinators could ask their tutors to pass the test before they get a contract supervising WP newbies.
#At a certain---higher---level, one could even base admission to places like NPP on such a test.
Happy about any feedback, Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Help_Project has been working on this sort of issue, for this set of documents and other related instructional materials.  I've worked a lot on WP:Workshop more for local wikipedia group trainings. If you go to that page you also will find some of the Wikimedia projects that might provide you with more help. CarolMooreDC 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's something highly relevant: Wikipedia:Education_Working_Group/RfC. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand to an assessed tutorial? 

message: Hi anyone there?  Of course you are.  I have a problem that needs to be answered.  I was working on a reference in the tutorial sandbox and when I was finished I previewed it and there was just a blue semi-small 1 there is that supposed to happen?  I mean I know it is but what about the words that I used when I referenced them.  This is causing confusion within my mental stability and I don't think I will be able to edit, make an article, or reference anything without knowing what the problem is.  Please respond.  Also I would like the person who responds to this respond on my talk page. Thank You.  
CFyre (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Wrong With My Reference? 

message: If a piece of information is considered to be "common knowledge" (ex. "Snowmen are made of snow."), does it need to be cited? Thank you. Henrib736 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#"Common Knowledge" Citations and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#"Common Knowledge" Citing. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Common Knowledge"

message: Govind09033 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate the changes you wish to implement.Moxy (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 18 July 2013 

message: Because the primary method here is to use VisualEditor, why does it say Done the edit summary? Previewed the page?? George8211 (talk | mail) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually discussion ongoing right now about whether VisualEditor should be enabled by default.  If it is decided that it should, this page and many others will need to be updated. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previewing 

message: While I accept that VE is the future, that it's easier for new editors and that it should be emphasized here, there are still many pages that need to be edited the old way - including the drafts at WP:Articles for creation, one of the first places many new editors (at least those who start by writing an article) will encounter. Thus I'd consider it rather counterproductive not to cover the wikisource in the tutorial any more, or to relegate it to a mere footnote. Huon (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow we need to keep both available. The current version is a very good explanation of how to use VE, but what's actually needed here is the old version. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  To VE or not to VE 

message: The example under subscripts and superscripts is incorrect chemically. The hydrogen ions should have a positive charge rather than a negative one as shown. Instead of:
H2SO4 → 2 H- + SO42-
we should have:
H2SO4 → 2 H+ + SO42-
L.Will (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Huon (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: 170.185.38.19 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014 

message: The Pokemon story is one of the worst tutorials on editing. I'm too new to roll back to an earlier version myself.  I found a February 2014 version to be better.
Coffeebug (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014 

message: →
Boopathi.r (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014 

message: <<extended content removed>>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.183.92 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a good place to submit content for the encyclopedia. Instead please see Wikipedia:Your first article. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Society in Decheance 

message: On the formatting page, the part about super- and subscripts says:
:This code is presented via buttons, just like the Bold and Italic buttons
What buttons does this refer to? The tutorial hasn't introduced us to the editing toolbar, if that's what's meant. And there is no reference to buttons in the Bold and Italic section. - Gorthian (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buttons? 

message: Helmylaw (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014 

message: Yo. I've a request.
Somebody teach people to use
Foo bar baz.
Foo foo foo.
Bar bar bar.
Baz baz baz.
in place of inline, unnamed references, which clutter the article prose when they include web citations. It makes source editing really hard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.167.30 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEY HEY RECENT CHANGES PATROLLERS, READ AND REPLY AND SPAM THIS AROUND!!! 

message: Sercank35 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014 

message: <my name is adil>
Shaikhadilmunaf (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014 

message: KENNETHR23 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this page no. New editors are prevented from editing this page because of problems in the past. You can edit this talk page but it is meant to be about the tutorial, not for general questions. If you want to try editing use your sandbox: the link is at the top of this and every page. If you want to edit an article just go ahead and do it. It would not be "the encyclopaedia that anyone could edit" otherwise.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015 

message: Should this page link to Wikipedia:Training or Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure? The pages cover similar matureial in different depths/formats but are relatively hard to find from each other. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Wikipedia tutorials 

message: HELLO, i would like to edit trisha paytas wiki on some rumors that are not true . im a huge fan of hers and i would just like to help her out .21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Talk:Trisha_Paytas, and leave a message there explaining what needs to be changed, what it needs to be changed to, and why.  For example "please change the line saying 'blah blah blah blah' to 'blahdy blah blahdy blah' because this cited source points out 'blah blahdy'". Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong page. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015 

message: '''
BOBY MISHRA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBYMISHRA74 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015 

message: Here is a source to confirm that UNC is the only team to beat the preseason top four teams since the AP began releasing the poll in 1961-1962.This is under the Roy Williams 2003- Present section.http://www.goheels.com/fls/3350/pdf/UNCBBnotes.pd
f
Bgent16 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page :Wikipedia:Tutorial. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015 

message: I would just like to point out that there is a typo in the tutorial. It is in the introduction of the how to edit tab. The word information is misspelled. — JustinePH (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks for reporting it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request on 17 May 2015 

message: I noticed that one paragraph on this page has been copied and pasted into 3 separate help pages on Wikipedia. Can each of these paragraphs be merged into one page? Jarble (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging duplicated paragraphs on this page 

message: Hello, the alexei berrionuevo page entry on wikipedia used to include information about accusations of plagiarism, including citations and links to sources such as Slate and The New York Times. Now, all of this negative information is gone. Can someone please put it back? I don't think it is fair that this person can clean up his wikipedia entry so it only mentions positive information, while other writers cannot do this.
Here is the page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Barrionuevo
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2008/03/more_plagiarism_same_times_reporter.html
Thank you.
194.2.154.34 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Tutorial.The reference to plagiarism was removed from the Alexei Barrionuevo article on 8 December 2013, and the article has only been edited twice since then.The page is not protected, so you can re-add this information yourself, but it must be written from a neutral point of view and cite reliable sources to back up your editsm without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2015 

message: I was working on Pulaski (tool). I wanted to re-use a reference that was already in the ref list, but the ref didn't have a name. I looked for a way to fix this. Couldn't find anything in the tutorials area. Solved my problem (I think) by using another ref that was already named (Egan), and following its syntax, so now Davis is a named reference. But this was rather tough, so I hereby request an improvement to a tutorial. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to turn an unnamed reference into a named reference? 

message: Being an admin shouldn't be considered a trophy - so in my view I think including this line just serves to bring a few more power-hungry people to the wiki. I mean, you're not really going to go from IP editor to admin very quickly, so it might be placing an expectation on new editors. I'm sure they would learn the culture after getting the experience needed for adminship of course if they did genuinely care about the project, but using this line as a way to encourage people to register might not be the best idea. Just an idea I'm proposing. ~ NottNott let's talk!  contrib 09:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only registered users are allowed to become administrators" - keep or delete? 

message: I was wondering if we could insert a link to the Teahouse or help desk in the first page. I was thinking that it could be done as follows:
::This is a basic tutorial, not an extensive manual, interactive learning environment, or a help desk. 
We could also phrase it this way:
::This is a basic tutorial, not an extensive manual, interactive learning environment, forum for questions about Wikipedia, or a help desk.
I think that it's important to have something that would direct people to these resources on the first page, as people are not always guaranteed to click through an entire presentation/website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teahouse mention? 

message: The image under section "Renaming articles"'s caption has a typo. About a line of text is missing. According to Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page, it should be
 
The move option in the Vector skin appears when you move your mouse cursor over the small drop-down menu, shown here.
instead of
The move Move your mouse cursor over the small drop-down menu, shown here.
--AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out! I'm amazed it went unnoticed for so long. I've fixed it now with a modified version of the wording that you suggested. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Renaming articles" image caption mistake 

message: There are two periods at the end of this sentence: "Its goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting.."
Wwhhllrr (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016 

message: Should commas and periods be apart of links to other articles or no? (Like should they be blue or not). Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question