User talk:137.22.170.42

January 2018

Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to Cyberwoman seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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. Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please either make the changes you suggest in the text if you are certain they are correct or put your comment on the talk page. Comments should not be placed in the text of articles. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Words to watch, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there is a project concerning these subjects, you may also ask for help there. Another place to make comments or seek help is Wikipedia:Teahouse. If you are contradicting or changing the current text, please cite a reliable, verifiable source for your edit. If there are two points of view, add yours with a citation but do not delete the other one. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I am striking the original message because your note to me shows your edit was in good faith. I think your edit was not correctly made since it did not conform to the guideline I mention in the second message above. (In addition, it interrupted a sentence.) It adds confusion to the article to make a point which does not undermine the basis for the analysis. Nonetheless, you have pointed out something that appears to be contradictory and should be considered. I think confusion results, however, from the way the paragraphs are written because they are trying to make at least two points and are not as clear as they might be. I also think the point you make is in fact covered.

For what it's worth, I saw all three of the episodes when they were aired. I do not make these comments based on any recollection I have of them because the confusion arises from later essays and not directly from the episodes.

The following paragraph explains the problem in both timing and continuity which results in the placement of a character out of order in a later episode. I think the key point in the opening paragraph of the section, however, is that Cyberwoman in Torchwood is supposed to be the same character as appeared, at least generally, in the earlier episodes of Dr. Who. So by "first", the writer meant the first cyberwoman, not necessarily the first appearance of that character when the two series, Dr. Who and Torchwood, are considered. His further analysis about the problems of technology is more general and not really based on when the first character appeared.

Another thing to consider here is that your edit is unnecessary for another reason. It is not only not necessary for the analysis in the first paragraph, but the point you make is covered by the continuity point in the second paragraph, citing the same episodes you mention in your comment. For that matter, the point is in fact introduced in the opening paragraphs of the article. This makes a further interruption of the "analysis" superfluous.

My revert was mostly due to the form of your edit. The substance may be correct in a general way, but it is neither entirely accurate (the analysis is not really based on the timing of the appearance of the character) nor has it been omitted. It is included in the cited reference.

The sorts of reversions of edits that I make almost never involved such complicated interpretations. Though I think my reversion of your edit was correct, from your point of view I can see that this would not be obvious.

Please do not give up editing or writing for Wikipedia because of this. It is unusual. Also, we all make mistakes. The best result is to get those clarified or corrected as soon as possible, not to give up. Donner60 (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There must be a way to note in the article that Lincoln Geraghty's quote misstates the facts. To run down a few quick points - Lisa is far from the first female Cyber character shown on screen. In the Doctor Who episode "Army of Ghosts," Adeola Oshodi is partially converted into a Cyberman before her death. In the subsequent episode "Doomsday," Yvonne Hartman is also converted into a Cyberman. Like Lisa in "Cyberwoman," Hartman is able to resist her Cyber programming to a certain extent. Arguably, Sally Phelan in the Doctor Who episode "The Age of Steel" should also count as a female Cyber character, though she was only shown briefly and did not have a speaking part. Either way, Geraghty's quote is clearly incorrect in stating that Lisa is the first female Cyber character seen on screen, as all three of those Doctor Who episodes aired before "Cyberwoman," which marks Lisa's first appearance - her character was in fact never shown in Doctor Who.

Would it be reasonable to pare down Geraghty's quote, eliminating the incorrect first clause, and instead have the beginning of that passage simply read: "In an essay on evolving symbolism with the Cybermen, Lincoln Geraghty of the University of Portsmouth argues that in "Cyberwoman", "unable to control her programming [Lisa] attempts to assimilate her ex-boyfriend and his teammates. ..." ?

---