User talk:RobotDaneellives

Disputes
Standard practice is BRD, meaning be Bold in editing articles, but if Reverted, start a Discussion on the article's Talk page to see if a consensus can be reached among interested editors. For Joanne Pransky the number of views it gets per day is in single digits, the Talk page less, so unlikely to get satisfaction there. There are tens of thousands of articles in English Wikipedia that are deletion candidates. In my opinion, this one is not a candidate for Speedy deletion or Proposed deletion, so AfD would be the appropriate process. See Deletion policy. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Edit summaries are supposed to be SHORT descriptions of the changes made. Discourses on WHY the changes were made belong on the article's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Our group is trying to establish notability because the page is cited as being questionable. If this source adds to her notability how do we rewrite? Simply state for instance, she is a pioneer in sex robot development and add a source? Thank you on behalf of our group. We have five other pages as an assignment and this our last one and we are really struggling! The other ones were easy because the notability was clear.

Put down the stick
I strongly urge you to put down the stick. The article about Joanne Pransky is obscure. With the exception of your recent interest and posting at Teahouse, it gets fewer than five visits a day. Pransky had no part in creating it. It is not self-aggrandizement. I concur she is not a scientist by current criteria, i.e., formal academic education and degree(s), but trying to remove all mention of her across the Wikiverse verges on prosecution. Please move on to editing other articles. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Put down the stick? Lesson learned about truth ( or the lack therof!).
Valuable lessons learned about the meaning of expert, notability, and the political power of people who decide to protect, and promote, those who are neither experts nor notable. I just completed our uni class and by far this wiki editing experience was the most enlightening in understanding the lesson our professor was conveying to us about truth in the postmodern digital world. On the positive side, my failure to shed light on the truth in editing this page because of you earned an exemplar assessment from my professor and furthered my understanding of why professors at uni do not accept Wiki citations in reputable academic literature. Non-experts and political power decide the truth. Thank you for an authentic learning experince. It is a life lesson. I wish you well.

--RobotDaneellives (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am very interested in hearing what your professor has to say. Will you please tell your professor that you are going to get blocked if you continue with what is very clearly an effort to erase the subject of that article from other articles. Pinging, . Drmies (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with the block threat from Drmies (an Administrator with far more experience than me). In my opinion, your edits have been in good faith, i.e., not vandalism. You went to the Talk pages of articles to ask for consensus if there was disagreement. My "Put down the stick" was a standard caution to editors who appear to be hyperfocused on one issue. The sticking point appeared to be whether Joanne could be described as an expert. As I made clear, my opinion is that one can not have academic training on a topic (I agreed she is not a 'scientist'), but still be an expert. I stand by that. David notMD (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cullen's take at the Teahouse: their editing is a two week campaign to belittle and chip away at the reputation of Joanne Pransky. The editor would be advised to try editing any other article.  I haven't looked at their most recent edits but what I'm familiar with doesn't justify a block, though. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting down the stick
My professor warned us that we would be threatened if we upset editors who protect pages. I feel threatened and her lesson rings true. I have made positive edits to a few pages and it is only this page that I have run into being threatened with being blocked for no reason than seeking the truth. My other edits were not questioned. My short but positive edit record speaks for itself. Rather than be defensive, I have added an official website I discovered that is an official site for this individual. Ending on a positive contributory note. I will not be editing this page you value so highly anymore. You win. Putting down the stick as I feel threatened by another editor to not question the validity or notability of this obscure page anymore.

(RobotDaneellives (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC))
 * You came here attempting to publicly destroy a person's reputation, and pretending that you are the one being oppressed is not going to work. I did question your other edits, but pardon me if I don't care whether you add a comma somewhere or not: you are clearly not here to improve the project, and this whole uni class/professor thing, even if I believed it it would be irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I thought helping improve page grammer was of help
As a new editor, it is disappointing to be hit with hostility and on a page that averages less than 5 views a day. Reputation? I do not understand. I will continue to only make grammar edits even though you don't value it. I am an aspiring editor and this is a way I will contribute and improve my practice. Our professor asked us to improve grammar on three pages and to contribute notably to another. Obviously, I picked the wrong page to question the truth. I am putting down the stick and running from this page. Scary stuff. (RobotDaneellives (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC))
 * When I started editing I was often reverted, as I did not understand the special definition of reliable sources as pertains to medical/health topics. Also threatened with being indefinitely blocked on suspicion of being an undeclared paid editor (see my Talk page for disclaimer). Please persevere with editing content, not just grammar. English Wikipedia has literally millions of articles that need improvement, from the obscure to the highly visible. Robotics gets 1,000 visits a day and has entire sections without references. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was deeply dismayed when the other editor threatened and mocked my efforts as a novice editor. You provided me valuable feedback which I followed. Perhaps, I need to grow a thicker skin. Best of fortune to you. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to send a supportive and thoughtful message.

--RobotDaneellives (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "us" and "we" but accounts on Wikipedia are intended for individuals, not groups of people. You can't edit collectively with one account.
 * I'm sorry that you believe you are being treated with hostility but you are a very new editor and there are lots of rules and customs for editing on Wikipedia. You are not expected to know them all. But it's important that you are aware that any edit you make can be challenged and possibly reverted. It doesn't matter whether you have been editing for 2 weeks or 18 years. It's the way of collaborative editing and it's a mistake to take it personally. It's impossible to edit on Wikipedia for any length of time without running into editors who disagree with you. I hope you can still find a way to learn how to navigate the culture here and make a contribution. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hi RobotDaneellives! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at List of futurologists that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 02:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive feedback!
I appreciate the time and effort to offer me critical assessment and advice. Expectantly, my next edits will be more successful in helping the Wiki project!

(RobotDaneellives (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC))

Block warning
In my opinion, your passive-aggressive attacks on other editors here and here deserve a block in themselves. Please review our policies Civility and No personal attacks. The next time you attack one or more users you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC).
 * P.S. I saw the last two sentences here, too. It was a good idea to remove them after my warning. Still, obviously the rest of that post remains sarcastic. Please try to write straightforwardly, without wisecracks and snark. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC).
 * And if the user created the fake site at https://joannepransky.com/ that they mentioned on the talk page, then clearly WP:NOTHERE applies. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What is going on here is insane. There exists a page that is JoannePransky.com and I add it to the page for reference and now I am falsely accused of a conspiracy theory of creating a webpage. This is outlandish. Joanne Pransky obviously would have her own name protected as a celebrity in the field. This harassment of me is going beyond any reasonable bounds. I am done with the page as I stated. The truth on this page is impossible to clarify. My university assignment to dabble in Wiki editing is over and so is my interest in Wiki.

(RobotDaneellives (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Please explain how and when you came across the joannepransky.com page. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the opportunity to answer this question. Simply typed in JoannePransky.com. Made sense a celebrity would have her own dot com page. The result is the page I shared. I was made aware the page listed as the official site was a robot.md and this did not make logical sense to me as an official site for a person with no medical degree. Logically, robot.md for a personal site did not appear sensical. As I do with any research on the web I type in the name of a company or person I am attempting to learn more about and check if the company or person has a dot com page. Usually, reputable business entities and celebrities have their own dot com addresses. When I find for instance a business soliciting me for something does not have a dot com or dot org site I most often dismiss the business as questionable in legitimacy.

RobotDaneellives (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When was this? You say you were "made aware" but then on 18, 19 and 20 September you referred to the subject's website [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joanne_Pransky&diff=979017337&oldid=946851481] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joanne_Pransky&diff=prev&oldid=979251234] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joanne_Pransky&diff=prev&oldid=979463176]. I assume you noticed the website domain at the time. Which website was this? Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am blocked and am very upset. This is a university group project where I am responsible for the editing and my group does the research. One of my female colleagues looked up the dot com source and I thought wow, I always do this as I said before. My group was unanimous that this was a self-promoting page. We are in a California university course and obviously online during the pandemic. I have been using Wiki as a source of knowledge since high school. I told my professor this seems unfair I am being punished for simply doing as an assignment. We found other materials such as the following we didn't include which Ms. Pransky states she earned a Dr. from Tufts {https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/ai-in-business/public-opinion-around-2MtU_o0DBW4/?fbclid=IwAR10tI-2WvFnXTHDoussQ_jLP2JzBlNyD_l4m7yj5DSwZVrwz8mXQNXYhqY}. We left it out because it seemed inflammatory to editors to be questioning her education. The website discovery seemed a great resource. How were we to know how old the page is? I would like to know how to search for this information if you will share it. How do you search for the age of a website? This will help in my political science class! Please help me not be blocked further. Whatever other information you need, I am willing to answer.

RobotDaneellives (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not very interested in the other stuff, please focus on the website. I understand you're upset, but your latest explanation is even more confusing. Was it you or your "female colleague" who first look at the joannepransky.com source? And again when did this happen? What website were you using on 18-20 September which you referred to multiple times (there are more than those 3)? BTW, if you are editing Wikipedia as part of an assignment, you should ask your professor to speak to the team at Education program. They could start with Education noticeboard. Courses with Wikipedia editing where the educator does not have such communication tend to be a disaster. Notably, any course with such a component needs to ensure that they have a way to deal with work that cannot be accepted or where the student cannot directly contribute. Students being blocked to protect Wikipedia (not to punish anyone) is a common outcome, less so when the educator knows what they're doing because of training etc, but still it can happen and indeed it's less likely if the students do not get desperate since they understand they're not going to be penalised for being blocked or because their content was rejected, and can still submit their work in some fashion and it will still be evaluated. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You're new to Wikipedia, RobotDaneellives, and so it is excusable that you don't understand a subject's own website is not much of a resource; it's a primary source, and therefore can only be used as a source for the subject's own opinion. For facts such as her degrees, her reputation, etc, you need independent secondary sources. Well, in this case, a fake website obviously can't be used even for her opinion, and what I'm not willing to excuse is your presentation of joannepransky.com on Talk:Joanne Pransky. And I can't believe your statement above that "the website discovery seemed a great resource", and your statement on article talk that "Comparing the two sites, Robot.MD and Joanne Pransky they both appear valid". How a great resource, and how valid? Before joannepransky.com was created, you were already referring to her actual website, robot.md, which is a proper website, with lots of information, a blog column, copyright claimed by Joanne Pransky, etc etc. Joannepransky.com is pathetically meagre with attacks ("not a real doctor", "self-proclaimed expert", etc) which she's apparently supposed to be making on herself (?), its three links lead practically nowhere (the "contact" link literally nowhere). It looks like it took half an hour to create. And the copyright notice claims copyright for an anonymous entity called "2020 Robot Comedian & Robot Therapist". They both appear valid? No, they don't, that's ridiculous. A one-minute look shows there's nothing valid about joannepransky.com and it's not in the slightest a resource. I simply don't believe what you say, sorry. Well, I believe that you didn't know people can tell how old a website is. That part rings true. As far as I'm concerned, you need to stay blocked. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC).

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Joanne Pransky. The discussion is about the topic Joanne Pransky. Thank you.

October 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC) {{unblock reviewed | 1=I have made numerous positive edits, I worked through talk pages and faithfully followed the advice and directions of an editor (User:DavidNotMD} who helped me correct errors. I was assigned to edit pages for university assignments and improved the Star Trek: Picard page and Data page with critical information. I am being falsely accused of trying to ruin the reputation of a person neither know nor wish to ever encounter. Simply doing my best to assess the validity and reliability of the page | decline = You don't address the reason for your block, other than to say that it was unnecessary - this is not sufficient. If you can't address the reason for your block, and convince us that there will be no further problems, you will not be unblocked. Girth Summit  (blether)  21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)}} ​RobotDaneellives (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RobotDaneellives (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC) --RobotDaneellives (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest you add to your appeal that you realize that hyperfocusing on removing mention of Joanne Pransky from several lists, you were going beyond normal editing behavior. And promise to never edit the Pransky article again. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * On a separate note, an editor removed the content I added giving as reason it being original research: "She does not hold any advanced degrees even though she identifies herself as the "World's First Robotic Psychiatrist" and "Dr. Joanne Pransky," and her website address is "robot.md"." Given this reason, I will let the deletion stand. Why is it original research?  Because of the words "even though." Her self-identification as psychiatrist, Dr., and by implication MD. is factual. The lack of advanced degrees is also factual (although not referenced). Connecting the two, and by doing so implying criticism of her actions, is not. Only if someone had published a criticism of her action could that be used in the article. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * David notMD Thank you for the advice which I accepted, and the explanation for the edits. I hope I will be shown mercy and unblocked.

--RobotDaneellives (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)