Talk:For Dummies

message: The photos are fuzzy but seemingly say "a reference for the rest of us" is a registered trademark? So when quoted in the article we should show that? I have no idea how. I guess we could begin with an "(R)" symbol and hope a more talented editor then volunteered to render that symbol more elegantly? -- Pelavarre 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A reference for the rest of us" is a registered trademark maybe 

message: "The Part of Tens" may be worth mentioning - the last part of every For Dummies book contains a number of short chapters, each being a list of ten things that the reader should know. --Palnatoke 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Part of Tens"

message: The link: "list of ...for dummies books redirects back to the article. weird. someone should fix it or remove it. User:Gohst 
I am deeply disappointed that the page with the list of the ... for Dummies books was deleted. The fact that Wikipedia is not a directory doesn`t explain why that list was deleted. I`m reading the discussion about it and can´t find a good reason. The ...for dummies books are a commercial success and, for example, if someone want to buy one of these, but since there is so many of them available how in earth is gonna make a good choice? In short, the exitence of the list doesn`t disagree with the definition of WP:NOT#DIR--ometzit<col> 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of ... for Dummies Books

message: Why does the title of this article utilize a series of three periods for an ellipsis instead of the … character (Unicode 2026)?
MacGuy(contact me) 22:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the books do, too. 86.164.188.106 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ellipsis in title 

message: I have reversed an anonymous edit made by a user identified only by IP address 68.187.1.132 . This anonymous user deleted an edit which I had made to this for dummies page.
The edit which I made to the page originally was nothing more than give some acknowledgement/credit to Ed Tittel, the auhtor whose book image, HTML for Dummies has been getting used for several years on wikipedia as the trophy for Dummies image.
The reversal made by the anonymous user stated "removing advertising for author's site", which I find to be an incredible statement. The author never "advertised" his site. I made the edits, not the author, Ed Tittel. I do not know Ed Tittel, nor have I ever met him. I live in the UK and as far as I know he lives in Austin, Texas, from what I can gather from his website, and I have never in my life been to USA far less Austin, Texas. 
I find it incredible that some anonymous user would suggest this is a cheap stunt for a free advert by the author, particularly when Andy Rathbone, Dan Gookin and John Levine have clear mentions, or should that be adverts? I have read several of Ed Tittels for Dummies HTML, XHTML and XML books to name just some of the over 200 books he has authored, in my time as a student of computing and internet languages. I hardly think he needs cheap adverts on wikipedia when his website has several backlinks from the IBM site (PR 10) about 100 from php.net (PR9), so please, whoever this anonymous user is, stop from inferring this was some cheap advertising stunt! Wikipedia has been using the man's book as their trophy for Dummies  image for years, so let's not start infering slurs about cheap advertising, please. 
Chrissyboi 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of Anonymous Edit. 

message: Hi, everybody! I haven't been here in a while. Anyhow, I think that the article is reasonably well written, but toward the end of the history section it starts to sound like an ad. I cite the overuse of exclamation marks as an example of this. I'll try to cleanup, and anyone who wants to help is free to join.
--Supernerd 10 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: I created a collapsed table on The_Complete_Idiot's_Guide_to... which had a long list of idiots guide books. This is maybe something that can be done here with the list of dummies books. Travb (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Created a collapsed table

message: Does this book series have any connection to or inspiration from Auto Repair for Dummies published in 1974?  IIRC, the same author that wrote that book, also wrote the modern text (in the Dummies style) by the same name.  If there is any connection, it might be worth some reference.  Thanks. 68.116.99.9 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know the answer to this question, but if there is some relation, that would be valuable to the "History" section.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs)  01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto Repair for Dummies (1974)? 

message: I'm a Taiwanese, and i certainly speak Chinese.
I've never heard anyone call this series "天才三班" or anything like that.
It is sometimes called a "傻瓜書" or literally "笨蛋也學得會的...", where "..." represents the main topic part.
shall it be fixed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.143 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  about alternate versions 

message: In the opening definition paragraph, the author of this article describes the series as being for the "retarded".  Seriously, in this day and age, it's just no longer acceptable for people to indicate the intellectually challenged that way.  If the author had intend to suggest that the series was for the "ignorant", then he/she should have said so.  You could also refer to them as "mentally handicapped", but using the word "retarded" is far too colloquial and does not attain Wikipedia's high standards, IMHO.
24.85.234.200 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retarded???? 

message: The For Dummies series has been spoofed in some movies, for example here, and I'm sure I've seen some other examples, but I don't remember exactly where.
If someone is able to find some more references, it would be nice to add a section to this article.
Pietro Toniolo (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoof ''For Dummies'' titles used in movies 

message: I believe the For Dummy books are supposed to be simplified versions of instruction manuals seeing how a for dummy books has short paragraphs unlike ones found in an instruction manual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.112.104 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Dummy series VS. Instruction manuals 

message: Sorry, but I'd just like to point out...when you edit this pae the top says, "Editing For Dummies", haha!
--Walex03'. talking, working, friending'. 18:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lol 

message: Does anyone else feel that the bit on bittorrents not really belong in the article? Especially the "According to TorrentFreak, Wiley is thus..." part.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuess (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually fairly notable, as it made history in regards property protection on the Internet.  drewmunn  talk  07:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BitTorrent section seems out of place 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on For Dummies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629022504/http://www.dummies.com/Section/The-For-Dummies-Success-Story.id-323929.html to http://www.dummies.com/Section/The-For-Dummies-Success-Story.id-323929.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For years I have seen these books "for dummies" amd ever time I see one I cringe.  I do not have a lot of self-esteem,  I don't like to talk a lot, but once in awhile I get tired of being a ping pong ball.  I used to be young and inexperienced- and a little insecure.  WHY IN THE HAME OF GOD WOULD I BUY A BOOK THAT CALLS ME OR OTHER BEGINNERS DUMMIES?  Are the elite that write these books just mean?  Do they think they are better than "the masses"?  What is their deal?
I know you geniuses are getting bored so the point is I never have and never will buy one of these STUPID books.  There are alternate titles out there with authors that have a bit of empathy for those they try to help, and they are the ones that will get my money.  You would have to be a real dummy not to figure this out.  Preemptively, your humor sucks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.6.186.43 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am sorry but I am offended