User talk:Sofiia Popovych

Welcome!
Hi Sofiia Popovych! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! NoonIcarus (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Inna Sovsun Article
Hello, I appreciate the contributions you have made to the article. However, all the information you have added, while it appears to be factual, is unsourced. You also removed all references that I put in and deleted information that you feel is a "disagraceful rumour" despite it having been reported. How would you know whether or not it's true? The parties involved, Kvit, and Sovsun, have never publicly commented on the rumours. Please remember that the standard for material added to Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisanthusjohn (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi - I'm her official assistant, so I have a job to do. Write here the truth and check if information is correct. i'm not sure that writing rumors is the best idea - you already connected a link, where Inna commented that it's not true. Using of tabloids - isn't an evidence. Otherwise it just means that anyone can right dirt on anyone without any proof and then it would be used to “verify” any dirt for other references.
 * Also, 1 - in NaUKMA there are a lot of lecturers who work without a degree; 2 - we have ministers, who get the position in 29 years - what is the point of writing about it? 3 - all the sources he cites - these are drain tanks that do not provide any evidence of any relationship.
 * So please, delete everything you write. Sofiia Popovych (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also refer to Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view: Neutral point of view and not including original research: No original research
 * I appreciate that you are in a delicate position, but editors of Wikipedia are expected to follow these policies. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sofia, I appreciate that you have a job to do, but please bear in mind that no one "owns" the content on Wikipedia, especially not the subject of the article. Please refer to the Wikipedia policy on ownership of content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content As for the rumour about an inappropriate relationship, this was something that was reported on in verifiable sources, so it meets the criteria for inclusion in a wiki article. Note that the relevant criterion here is if a reliable source has reported on the existence of the rumour, not whether or not the rumour is true nor whether the rumour itself was reported on by reputable sources. It is normal for such gossip pieces to be reported as part of the wiki pages of politicians. You can find tabloid sources in the wiki pages of John Edwards and Donald Trump for partially-substantiated rumours in their personal life section. In the wiki page of Chrystia Freeland, you can find partially substantiated rumours of a family connection with Nazis in the "Family and personal life section." Please also refer to the wiki page of Ilhan Omar, where partially substantiated rumours of financial misconduct involving her husband are reported. Chrisanthusjohn (talk 22:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for your extensive response, but I can't agree with your position, taking into account the following.
 * You say that "As for the rumour about an inappropriate relationship, this was something that was reported on in verifiable sources". However, the source provided by you is neither verifiable nor a reliable source. First, DSNews is not a reliable media. As evidenced by company register and media, DSNews is owned by russian oil business "Lukoil" through offshore company Intershelp LTD. Given the russian money in this media, DSNews cannot be regarded as reliable, reputable and honest, especially with regard to politicians with strong anti-russia stances. Second, the source provided is not verifiable. The article in DSNews merely states that "this choice surprised the public and scientific community", with no reference to the "public" or "scientific community". There were no evidence of any romantic relationship provided in the article, apart of mere claims. Notwithstanding the reputation of the media itself, the information regarding relationship between Ms Sovsun and Mr Kvit provided in the article does not meet any journalistic standards and cannot be regarded as a verified and reliable source.
 * In the article about biographies of living persons, Wikipedia instructs to "be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources". The cited part about alleged romantic relationship contradicts to the Wikipedia rules.
 * In addition, the examples from other wiki pages may have partially substantiated rumours, whilst the gossip provided by you is completely unsubstantiated and has zero evidence thereto.
 * On a separate note, the inclusion of this part not only violates the standards of Wikipedia, but is also discriminatory and attempts to undermine human's dignity. The cited part portrays that Ms Sovsun has been appointed as a senior lecturer and as a deputy minister not because of the merits, but due to connections with Mr Kvit, as it wxplicitly states that "The career of Sovsun has been closely linked with Serhiy Kvit". It is disgraceful, sexist and undermines the achievements of a woman in politics. Moreover, the indication that Ms Sovsun was appointed as a deputy minister at the age of 29 and subsequent reference to the lack of experience and skills is also an example of ageism, which has no place neither on Wiki pages, nor in our society.
 * I deleted this part again and strongly encourage not to return it again. Otherwise, I will be forced to address this issue to the Wikipedia admins with the call to review your other edits on the matter of spreading rumours, sexism and ageism. Sofiia Popovych (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sofia, Please see Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest: Conflict of interest
 * I have added a conflict of interest notice to the article's talk page and below on your user talk page. I will also be manually reverting your latest deletion. Please refrain from unilaterally removing verifiable information in the future. Thank you. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's resolve the differences, civilly. No need for anger or threats. It may not go as you wish. Please bear in mind that editing while having a conflict of interest is in most cases considered highly inappropriate. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular, take a look at this section of the "conflict of interest page" Conflict of interest Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any possible COI here, the section on rumors dealing with two BLPs is not WP:DUE for an encyclopedia. It's not significant coverage, it's a single source, and the source clearly states that it's a rumor, rather than fact. We don't include rumors on BLPs, especially not without a large amount of significant coverage in multiple sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There was significant coverage from multiple sources. It was a well-known rumour that was reported on in mainstream media. I had explicitly included the rumour with additional sources in a previous version but I removed it because of the concern of undue weightage and because there was no hard evidence. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sofiia Popovych. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisanthusjohn (talk • contribs)