User talk:Rukmaniahuja

Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Rukmaniahuja. This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

JorisEnter (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, you don't make a major edit without an explanation or discussion on the talk page. That usually indicates vandalism. If you are serious, take it there first. Arawn Emrys (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your link did not support your point. You linked to some folks bitching bout the page. To support your changes you would need to link to something showing them engaging in activism/promoting men's rights in some way other than bitching on the net as the older version of the article says. Arawn Emrys (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This place

What is with the people here? They don't seem to like talking to people how have different ideas about the world we all live in... 107.72.164.86 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)1đ4chanfãģ

It's not a place to have discussions. It's a place to make fun of people who do not believe the same stuff as you. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The idea that there is no discussion here is ridiculous. nobs is here since years and he has been able to discuss seriously with people many times (some people sometimes make fun of him sometimes, but he still gets to debate, to be heard). Maybe you are just using arguments that have been refuted a hundred times, or you are just shifting the burden of proof, and they don't want to debate. Diacelium (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No, for more than one mouth I am trying to tell that atleast some of the men who identify as MGTOW have really been hurt by women. I agree that all MGTOWs are fucking batshit crazy and irrational. I am just saying that atleast some of them have genuinely been hurt, manipulated and mistreated by women. No one here has been able to refute my point, it has been months, but yet, the page is locked and I am not allowed to edit. Even a single sentence which gives MGTOWs even the smallest bit of benefit of doubt or puts them even in the smallest bit of even neutral light is not allowed here. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Our article is not about individual MGTOWs, it's about the movement. All statements are made about the movement in general, so unless you disagree with them in that context, I don't see the issue. Arawn Emrys (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The statements are incorrect in that context as there is no proof for anything said. There's absolutely no proof that even one single MGTOW has joined the movement after listening to the MRAs. Similarly, for all statements present in the article. For few statements there are some anecdotal evidence available, but then if they are included, other anecdotal statements - which put them in positive light has to be made.

Okay, I agree with you. Now, can you edit the page to include: "We understand that there are few/many individual MGTOWs who have actually been hurt by women and who are not as portrayed in this article, but our point of view here is not about individual MGTOWs, it's about the movement".

I will be satisfied if this statement is added. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)