Talk:Andrew A. Skolnick

I'm flattered that Spicemix has created a Wikipedia entry on me. I haven't a clue who he or she is or what possibility motivated him/her to boldly go where no man has gone before. I have a feeling it may soon fill up with edits from editors I have pissed off in past edit wars -- not to mention some of the targets of my published investigative news articles. Oh, well, people in glass houses and all that...

I've made some corrections to Spicemix's very good start. Also added some material and replaced some tertiary sources with more more direct secondary sources (or with primary sources as allowed by Wikipedia guidelines - ie. a subject's resume as a source for biographic information on the subject).

I welcome editors to fix any changes inconsistent with Wiki guidelines or to add any additional information; I'll try not to blush in modesty or fume in anger.

Needless to say, my keyboard is ready for edits that are not so well intended.

Beware

Well, I wondered when the first [opponents] would get here. The honor" belongs to the global warming denier and cyberstalker Pete Ridley, who just popped up to edit this biographical article -- after the moderator of Dr. Judith Curry's web site repeatedly snipped and warmed him to stop posting malevolent personal and intimidating attacks. Pete Ridley is a global warming denier who argues that the "global warming hoax" is being perpetrated by the International Jewish Banking conspiracy led by the Rothschilds. http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-91954

Perhaps the most rabid stuff he posted there were quotes from a letter written by Neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denier David E. Michael in an effort to portray me as seeing anti-Semites everywhere. The [editor] didn't quote the part where the Neo-Nazi calls on his fellow national socialists to support their Islamic friends in their jihad against the United States:

“America is our enemy. We should be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with our Islamic friends under the slogan ‘death to America!’ … You may rest assured that, using whatever resources I can command, I shall continue to fight resolutely and defiantly against the enemies of our people, and for a better future for our children.

Death to America! “Death to the New World Order! Yours sincerely (Dr) David E Michael”

Ignoring Michael's record of hate speech against Jews and denying the Holocaust, Ridley argued that the Neo-Nazi is not an anti-Semite because he supports Muslims and Muslims are Semites.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-93323

I don't think Wikipedia is in need of "scholars" like Pete Ridley. Askolnick (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

comments redacted slightly for compliance   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is his calling an editor a "[editor] " compliant? TimidGuy (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think calling this new account an "editor" is giving him too much credit. He's stated his sole reason for coming here is to add negative material to a biography of someone with whom he's in conflict, and whom he has spent the last four months researching.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is calling Pete Ridley a "[editor] " compliant? Perhaps that should be redacted too. TimidGuy (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Per your repeated request, I've changed [editor] to [editor], to avoid the use of [editor] about this [editor].   Will Beback  talk  11:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A referencing problem

I'm not entirely happy with the referencing. I can't check it in detail, since much of it is print-only and beyond my reach (here in the back of beyond), but I invite AS to do it himself. Specifically, this is not a proper reference for the sentence "The suit alleged Skolnick's news report on TM's health care products and services marketed under the trademarked name Maharishi Ayurveda was libelous and that it tortuously interfered with their business interests." It looks like a link to Skolnick's original report (via the Wayback Machine), which may well be a useful reference for somewhere else in the paragraph, if it's a little rephrased; but the statement about what the suit alleged needs a cite to some reliable source that says what the suit alleged. There may be such a source a little further on in the paragraph, but, well, I can't check that, as they're print only. Maybe one of the later footnotes could be moved up? Over to you, Andrew. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC).