User talk:209.193.47.239

Welcome!
Hello, 209.193.47.239, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- ☭ 🎆 🌎 🎼 🎺 🐦 01:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Right to keep and bear arms
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Right to keep and bear arms, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, my name is Jeff. Thank you for your kind invitation; I'll accept. (Am I doing this reply correctly so far?)


 * I'm deep in the middle of some hefty projects, so it's going to take me several days at least to get my research together properly. So let's leave it as is for now, as you suggest. Once I do gather my sources, though, may I ask you about editing/citing/link formatting and such? There's a lot to get one's head around with this and I want to make sure it's done right. Thanks. 209.193.47.239 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * _____

Hello, I'm Drewmutt. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Right to keep and bear arms, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drewmutt (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Drewmutt, my name is Jeff (I'll create an account at some point; just not right now.)


 * First, let's address the sentence itself. It's contradictory. It starts out "Today, the right is specifically protected by ..." and then goes on to state "... which grant a right ..." Whoever wrote that sentence is in error, in the second part. Then, no key words from that sentence are found in the footnoted reference. It's clear that we're looking at the UNSUPPORTED and mistaken OPINION of whoever originally wrote it. To make matters worse, he footnoted a reference that is irrelevant to the subject matter of the sentence.


 * So why am I being called out as the 'interruptor,' when I'm merely correcting the obvious flaws by the original author? I disagree with what seems to be shaping up to be the consensus view here. Just because eighteen people agree on a given matter, for example, doesn't mean they are correct. 209.193.47.239 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff, from what I see in the reference, there are comparisons of the current (at that time) federal government and a tyranny. The issue is that the statement begins with "Today, the right is specifically protected by the US Constitution and many state constitutions.." I don't see any mention of tyranny in the following quote of the second amendment, additionally, I see no mention of it in the section's Main Page. I'm more than happy to ask other editors their view on the topic. In the mean time, let's continue the conversation on the Talk page so we can get more feedback and keep the article as it is for now. Drewmutt (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Drewmutt, I've created an account (jb.welded). Will it be possible to link the three-year history of my anonymous edits to my new account? 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * _____

November 2019
I reverted your edit to Cross Creek (film) because it was counter to the advice for the possessives of singular nouns given at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. - Donald Albury 18:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Donald, thank you for your attention. However, the Wikipedia Style Manual is incorrect in this instance. We're dealing here with the possessive of a proper singular noun, which is expressed differently. Cite: https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-words-ending-in-s/. I'd like to reapply my edit, so hopefully I've been able to influence your conclusions.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Heath Ledger, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The place to suggest changes to the MOS is on the MOS's talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * David, I'm looking for a way to associate all of my past edits with a new account that I'll create. Do you know anything about this?