User talk:Mytechtoday

So far, I gotta say, my experience on RW is not great.

Apparently, you're banned if someone disagrees with you, as seen below.

08:01, 28 February 2021 Kevlarstar (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Mytechtoday (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Suspected sock. Prove us wrong)

21:35, 25 February 2021 Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) blocked Mytechtoday (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Shilling, likely ban evasion.) ^{— Unsigned, by: Mytechtoday / talk / contribs}

Meh. You signing up for a RationalWiki account doesn't really move us one way or the other, Mytechtoday. This is probably because of your poor, obvious attempts at trolling or displays of unwelcome behavior. Maybe you should try to examine our articles and mission statement first, or take a walk outside. We realize that it's possible that you may be here in good faith, so we'll do our best to tolerate it. But don't expect us to get too excited. Our Newcomers' Guide may help clarify things for you.

—cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Advice

I'm going to assume that you are editing in good faith and give you some advice. Firstly, looking at some of your citations, you need to do a better job evaluating the statements made in your sources. So far your sources appear to include an error page, an article that explicitly states that dark matter accounts for the vast majority of matter in the universe, which you claim makes the opposite point, and a recent but obscure report from a Brazilian physicist which, while it does nominally support your point, is far from sufficient to counter a large scientific consensus, does not account for several other major pieces of evidence in support of the existence of dark matter, and has apparently failed to generate any interest despite its surficially major implications. All of which factors suggest that it does not make its point particularly well. This also calls into question your other sources, some of which appear to be paywalled, and hence cannot easily be evaluated. Second, if your edits are reverted, you should go to the talk page to make your case, rather than engage in edit warring. Third, if a new account appears and makes exactly the same claims as you, on exactly the same article as you, citing exactly the same sources as you, it is extremely good evidence that it is, in fact, you. While sockpuppeting is not technically forbidden, doing so to evade a block or ban is another thing. Fourth, if you are genuinely here in good faith, as I am assuming you are, and you genuinely do not understand the reason for your reception, I encourage you to engage in a less passive-aggressive manner, just as a pragmatic matter. Finally, the community standards here are not always exactly taken to the letter, and ongoing issues with long-term trolls may lead to a lukewarm reception if you do not demonstrate an interest in engaging the existing community, particularly on talk pages, again as a purely pragmatic matter. 68.56.144.8 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)