User talk:Visiting academic

December 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Glenn Diesen, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Presenting opinions as facts is clearly what is not constructive. Removing them is constructive.  There’s no evidence or demonstration that Mr Diesen supports or engages in propaganda  other than  his work is disagreeable to people with opposing political views.  Wikipedia needs to stick  to facts.  Visiting academic (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Visiting academic! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Glenn Diesen several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. ''The criticism of Diesen is well sourced in the article. Please read our guidelines on neutrality (WP:NPOV) and on fringe theories (WP:FRINGE). While everybody has a right to their own opinion, nobody has a right to their own facts.''. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The 'opinion' about Mr Diesen is contained in the section about who he is and used as character assassination. If you are claiming him to be a propagandist, you need to provide references which prove or substantiate that Mr Diesen engages in propaganda, otherwise referencing and resourcing opinion is still OPINION. If you have read the articles you will note the terminology used in respect of propaganda allegations is 'claim', 'accuse', 'criticise' - that is, nothing substantiated other than a difference of opinion. If you want to include his role or work on RT and opinions about that then it belongs as opinion in a section about his work, not about who he is. Visiting academic (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Start a discussion on the talk page of that article, but stop edit warring. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)