Talk:Madeline Sonik

The intentions of the author

I have twice reverted recent edits [1][2], so feel that my decisions require more comment than is allowed by the edit summary line.

The biographical information contained in the two versions is identical. Indeed, it is little more than a tweaking performed in the interests of bringing the piece into line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for biographies guidelines (WP:MOSBIO).

One sentence has been removed: "Her books explore both the dark and the lighter aspects of the human psyche, and are marked by evocative imagery and powerful language." I have argued that this amounts to a critical evaluation of Sonik's work, and as such runs counter to NPOV.

The most recent edit summary leads me to believe that there is some misunderstanding concerning ownership. While I recognize the great amount of work on the article, the user no more owns the article than does Madeline Sonik (see WP:OWN). On that note, this edit leads me to believe that Lonberllan and Ms Sonik are one in the same. If so, I recommend reading Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiography (WP:AUTO) and conflict of interest (WP:COI). Victoriagirl 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not Madeline Sonik, nor am I related to her, although I admire her work, and feel rather offended by the totally unsupported suspicion made publicly , which casts a shadow on the integrity of the original article and of myself. Nor do I claim ownership of the article. Victoriagirl is correct that the information in both is identical. My reversion to the original was motivated by the fact that her revision did not improve it-my original follows the scheme of the excellent though longer article on Margert Atwood, Canada's most celebrated author. "Her books explore both the dark and the lighter aspects of the human psyche, and are marked by evocative imagery and powerful language." To argue that this "amounts" to a critical evaluation seems a stretch. Certainly the first part clearly is NOT critical evaluation even at the most generous stretch (since I have published in scholarly journals on literary criticism I feel qualified to judge). Moreover Victoriagirl's revision was more than tweaking- it introduced a serious error in such a short article, the misspelling of the author's name, which seriously undercuts her case for making a revision. Her removal of what could be seen as advertising, the links of the books to the publishers' pages, I have accepted. It was not intended as commercial promotion, but I accept the principle. In view of the above I would request her to let my version stand, with a modest change. I'm sure that we both have better ways to spend our time. Lonberllan 19.54, 31 January 2007

I'm truly sorry that Lonberllan has been offended. As stated previously, my suspicion that the username might be Ms Sonik's was based on this edit, in which Lonberllan has identified his or herself as the creator of the image used in the article, and has provided an edit summary stating "I am the author". It was never my intention to question the integrity of the article; one to which I have contributed.

On that note, I would like to address the issue of my changes. Lonberllan is correct to point to the Margaret Atwood article - another to which I have contributed. I believe the Atwood article to be a fine example of a biographical entry in that it very much follows the guidelines laid out by Wikipedia's Manual of Style for biographies (WP:MOSBIO). Again, my editing of the Madeline Sonik article was undertaken in good faith in order to meet these guidelines, particularly that which is called for in the opening paragraph. Other edits, made by myself and Tkynerd, were performed in the interests of providing links (Wikifying, if you will) to other articles, and to address some discrepancies ("Detroit" is linked, but not "Michigan"; "Victoria", but not "British Columbia"). These, too, feature in the Manual of Style.

Concerning the sentence that I chose to delete. It would appear that we agree that the first part, presumably that coming before the comma, expresses no point of view. I propose we include the first part, replacing the comma with a period.

While I regret misspelling Ms Sonik's surname in the final sentence, I'm afraid that I cannot agree that the error in any way undercuts my "case for making a revision". We all make mistakes and typos from time to time. To be fair, many of Lonberllan's edits to this article were performed to correct his or her own errors. The communication above has undergone four revisions since it was posted (and still misspells Margaret Atwood's name). Please understand, this is not intended as a slight, rather a recognition that we are all human.

Finally, to address Lonberllan's request that I let his or her version stand. With all due respect, the request seems to reflect a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia works by building consensus (see WP:CON) - no single person has final judgement on an article. Victoriagirl 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lonberllan, please note that Wikipedia does have style and content guidelines that govern how things work around here. The author of an article is not entitled to have their original version privileged over any subsequent edits. Nobody's trying to offend you by cleaning up the language and style; you're relatively new here and may not be familiar with all of the ins and outs of what's considered good article form on Wikipedia. Please do understand that Victoriagirl isn't trying to get up your nose or anything — she really does know her stuff when it comes to writing about Canadian literature on Wikipedia. (And I'm an administrator on here, so I know what I'm talking about! :-) She's just trying to help, so please don't take it personally. Bearcat 05:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)