User talk:Ronald Baxter

Welcome!
Hello, Ronald Baxter, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Solitary confinement of women, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! JaventheAldericky (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

June 2019
Hello, I'm Jack90s15. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jack90s15 (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the content had absolutely nothing to do with the article topic! --Ronald Baxter (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Solitary confinement of women, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Men are not women. The content was irrelevant. Good enough of a reason. --Ronald Baxter (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever you might believe in the privacy of your own cerebellum, when you edit articles you should rely on reliable sources rather than personal feelz, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM
I've removed your commentary here. If there are specific changes you would like to see made to the article, please provide reliable sources for your proposed changes. Making comments like this is purely disruptive. I would suggest reading some of the articles we have on the topic of transgenderism before trying to push your point of view. – bradv 🍁  17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What about NPOV??? The article as currently written pushes the transgender dogma as objective truth. Most people in the world think men are men and women are women.--Ronald Baxter (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And what I'm suggesting is that you should educate yourself. The truth is much more complicated than you seem to believe. Either way, if you continue editing in this fashion you will likely find yourself blocked soon. – bradv 🍁  17:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Solitary confinement of women
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.