User talk:Runjonrun

NGOWatch

Please can you stop editing this again and again without explaining yourself. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to explain. It was riddled with factual errors. The prior posters had confused NGOWatch with another NGO Monitor, and put lots of links that had to do with the later. There is no affiliation with the two organizations. It was just sloppy editing. I've added only factual information. The criticisms of NGO Watch refer to a defunct organization. I helped found a new website using the old name. Its goal is to be ideologically neutral, with an edge. It does shine a very bright light on ALL NGOs, left, right and center, particularly ones that advocate clearly political/ideological positions. For example, in the past few weeks, it sharply criticized the conservative US Chamber of Commerce for its Luddite public statements denying global warming. NGO seeks to be an equal opportunity critique of organizations that traditionally have gotten a "free ride" in the media and by governments. If that puts some NGOs back on their heels, that's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjonrun (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 October 2009

As I already said here, you are correct that some sentences in the previous version were incorrect because someone had confused NGOWatch and NGO Monitor. But that had already been fixed before your last series of edits, and the rest of you assertions in unconvincing.

Even if the relaunched NGOWatch were a completely unrelated organization, the "old" NGOWatch would still be relevant - there is no justification for deleting the historical information about it -, and you would be asked to create a separate article for the "new" one. But as it still seems to be backed by the same organizations, one can hardly claim that they are completely unrelated.

If you wish the article to describe the difference between the relaunched NGOWatch and the previous version more clearly, you are welcome to point out independent, reliable sources supporting such statements on the article talk page. In the meantime, I ask you again to respect the Conflict of Interest guidelines, i.e. to stop making controversial edits to the article itself and accept that Wikipedia is not for promotional activities.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the diatribes that you are writing are not supported by any evidence. I was not party to the creation of the other NGOWatch. I created the current one. I never wrote for the other one--no one did!! The atatcks against it were never factually based, as NOTHING was done with the website for 4 years after its launch...it just sat their, unused, and not updated. Give up your crusade. To quote a website such as PrivateEye that the old site was a Bush creation is absurd. I'm a registered Democrat, for god's sake, and found of the Democratic Party in my town, Indian Hill, in Cincinnati. You're attacking something that doesn't exist because of your ideology. You have done no research on this site...either it's history or its current content. You can't even get your spelling correct! In my comments, I wrote only descriptive information with links to events put on by NGOWatch so people can evaluate the site for themselves. If you don't agree with the descriptions on the site, then cite a reputable critic that has evaluated it and criticized it. None has. Save your propaganda for another. I've made No "controversial" edits...the gibberish you are putting in--highly inflammatory and unrelated to this website--is totally out of line. PLEASE follow Wikipedia guidelines, as I do. If you actually believe something I posted is "controversial" rather than just a straight statement of fact, then discuss it here, don't just continue to put up unsubstantiated trash.

Welcome / Conflict of interest in NGOWatch

Hi Runjonrun, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for identifying yourself [1], but please note our Conflict of interest guidelines. You are welcome to point out what you see as inaccuracies or others problems on the talk page of the article, but you should refrain from making edits to the article itself which could be considered controversial.

Encyclopedia articles about an organization might differ from a typical self-presentation of that organization in that they are less focused on the present and future, and place more emphasis on its history. Even if the revived NGOWatch differs from the previous incarnation, I see no reason to delete relevant and well-sourced historical information.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above editor has posted at the conflict of interest noticeboard, here regarding your edits. You are encouraged to comment in the discussion. Smartse (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that runjonrun--the person being criticized by the above user--has posted at the conflict of interest noticeboard, here regarding the above "editors" comments. I believe they are factually inaccurate and biased. Until I modified this web page, various people had entered information referring first to an organization that is not this one (one known as NGO Monitor, which has no affiliation in any way shape or form with NGOWatch, and has its own Wikipedia page) and then subsequently insisted on putting in repeated references from one lone web site---not one well known or with widespread credibility--criticizing an iteration of NGOWatch which went defunct in 2007. This was pointed out to the above person, but he continued on his crusade to post misinformation and out of context information. I believe if you read the website now it is as absolutely neutral as could be found. If credible organizations come forward to analyze the new NGOWatch (which was founded in May, 2009), citing evidence, positively or negatively that's great, it should be posted. But this crusade by this "editor" violates the very rules that has made Wikipedia a credible source.

Deleting other users' comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:NGOWatch. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those references referred to a prior organization that no longer exists. It creates a false impression that it applies to this website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjonrun (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 October 2009

Users are not allowed to refactor other user's discussion comments at all. Netalarmtalk 03:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI at Jon Entine

As you use the same username, Runjonrun, as Jon Entine uses on other internet sites, it appears that you at least have a close connection to the subject. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography for the guideline on someone writing about themselves. Fences&Windows 17:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jon Entine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seralini affair

Please stop vandalising this article. It is disruptive, anti-social, and anti-scientific behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusha100 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Jon Entine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir

I just want to remind you that editing a biographical page about yourself in violation of NPOV is disallowed on wikipedia and it is my belief that you have repeatedly violated the spirit of this rule by editing your own page once-weekly and removing properly sourced information. I would ask you to reconsider what you are trying to accomplish and to please adhere to the guidelines as you edit.