Andregen8

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, Andregen8, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Marshall Williams2

Happy editing! Marshall T. Williams (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Frank Prewitt question?

So it seems there are those that think I am Frank Prewitt. I do know who he is, but I don't know who doesn't know who he is if you have lived in Alaska for as long as I have. The article does not need to be deleted for he is a considerable encyclopedic addition to Alaska's political history. Many continue to edit the article to a degree that is almost humorous. This is Wikipedia not your blog, so if you have a beef with Mr. Prewitt do a Google search and find him...and call him, much like I did when I asked for permission to mention his book that was deleted by someone who thought I was Frank Prewitt. Don't be scared, he seemed like a reasonable guy despite according to some editors assumption of his "questionable" background. If you have further beef with me, respond to my talk page or email me: andregen8@gmail.com Andregen8 (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Prewitt Rebuttal

Activists (sic)(editor) seems to leave no room for people to disagree without slander and hate. Prewitt was on the opposite side of an issue that was important to Activists (sic). Had Prewitt committed any improprieties of sufficient stature to have been charged with State or Federal violations of law, or disbarred, or even disciplined by the Alaska Bar Association he is notable enough that it would have happened a long time ago. Ah, Activist, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Have you no regard for the U. S. Constitution and the dignity (?) of civil discourse?

Isn't it curious that Bridges To Nowhere has five well reasoned reviews, one of which is written by Alaska Superior Court Judge Beverly Cutler, another by a retired Professor of Criminal Justice and head of the U of A teachers union, Robert Congdon and another by a sitting Alaska House Representative, Wes Keller.

Activists behavior resembles the obsessive compulsive fixation of criminal stalkers. He is creating a traceable cyber record of stalking Prewitt and, while many blogs are on to him, Prewitt needs to be careful and Wiki needs to avoid complicity with an anonymous person with an apparent mental condition :) Andregen8 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

You call that a rebuttal? It's actually an ad hominem attack.

If I were you, Mr. Horton, I would ask your father-in-law of the last 4 1/2 years, Frank Prewitt, if your unfounded claims of "slander" and "mental condition" might expose you to litigation. Of course he's not much of an attorney...he was rated extremely low by the Alaska Bar Association when he applied for a judgeship. [1]

As far as the identity of the official who Frank allegedly quoted, O'Clary says that the quote in the book is "Absolute b******t." I thought Prewitt was probably writing about another former union official, Chuck O'Connell, who actually represented correctional officers a decade ago, and whom Prewitt imagines destroyed what he presents as perfectly reasonable correctional initiatives. That latter official said he indeed did have a conversation with Prewitt, but nothing such as Frank claimed. Indeed it would have been very unlike O'Connell to make such a statement.

You imply that you only know Prewitt, not admitting you're married to his daughter, because he's a well-known figure in Alaska. Your own writing of one of those "five reviews" (at Amazon) is crafted as if you didn't actually live in Alaska. You self-referential mention, seems extremely disingenuous.

I am surprised that Bev Cutler wrote a credulous review also. For decades I held a higher opinion of her until I saw that.

It also has become clear why you chose to excise the cited article I posted about Prewitt's extremely close, long-term relationship with convicted corrupter Bill Weimar, now doing time in the federal pen.

My presumption that Prewitt might have written the hagiographic WikiPedia page himself was based on his and your extremly unusual and amateurish style of writing: Pseudointellectual, turgid, florid, laden with purple prose and misspellings, in sore need of a competent editor. Now I'm given to wonder if you didn't actually write "his" book for him.

Lee Gutkind, who coined the phrase "creative non-fiction" some 35 or so years ago (calling it a "classic" form is quite a stretch), stresses that the genre maintains a core allegiance to the facts. [2]

Gutkind cites Tom Wolfe as an exponent of the genre, perhaps erroneously, as Wolfe is noted for his composite characters in books such as "Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers." As an Alaskan, you are probably familar with John McPhee's epic, which has been criticized for alleged use of literary license. [3]

Gutkind references the work of the late Jimmy Baldwin and Wolfe, both of whom I knew perhaps before your parents were born. Prewitt's conceit certainly does not meet the criteria Gutkind represented.

"Last Bridge..." brings to mind what the late Bertrand Russell, said about Time Magazine, about 45 years ago...that he believed everything he read in it in inverse proportion to what he actually knew about the subjects.

I would advise "you get your facts straight" yourself before pursuing Prewitt's continuing efforts at self-exoneration and his perhaps transparent intentions to sell the book for a movie.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact" [4]

So, fact is indeed fact, and fiction, my friend, is still fiction.

ActivistActivist (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem

I see you find no humor in jest. You seem angry, lonely, jealous, anxious, and full of pure hatred for Prewitt. This is about constructive public discourse not hate, personal vendettas, and whatever questionable objectives you have on the Wikipedia forum.

I found the part about "unfounded claims of 'slander' and 'mental condition' might expose you (me) to litigation" really good! I especially like the parts where you scolded me on usage, proper English, and how something about getting your Amazon review deleted has drastically effected your now revealed fragile self esteem. I also liked your conclusion which is basically a categorical syllogistic fallacy. You seem to take things way more personally than most...which again hints towards that "mental condition" I mentioned earlier. The funniest part about this whole back-and-forth is that you assume my comments are litigious when I don't even know who you are, but you allegedly know who I am? So you make assumptions about me, my so called family connections and you make threats to my family based on your assumptions about who I am... yet you hide behind your anonymous screen name, one could say that "cowardice" is a clear definition of your underlining writing style. And to make sure you understand, the reason for argumentum ad hominem is that I do not know you are. If you told me who you are...who all your family members are, in-laws, who you are married to, than I would treat you as such...a person standing behind their words, beliefs, and actions...not a faceless screen name hiding behind words. I believe you to be a fair rational intelligent contributor to our community...so act and write like one.

We should just agree to disagree. You can't change my mind about Prewitt regardless of the context in which you assume our relationship nor by your less than persuasive smear campaign against Prewitt. My apologies for the Amazon article...it appears the public has spoken.Andregen8 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I haven't engaged in any "smear campaign." I've simply given a more objective perspective by modifying and supplementing your otherwise wholly laudatory presentation of Prewitt. I've posted sourced facts.

The conclusions I drew, aside from I assume your pseudointellectual attempts to characterize them as something they weren't, was that either Prewitt posted his own webpage or had someone do it for him. It appears conclusively that you are personally the author. As far as my speculation as to who you are, I'd bet 100 to one that you're Andre Horton.

Your grammar and spelling leave much to be desired, it's true. Your writing sometimes borders on word salad. Here's the bottom line, however. The purpose of Wikipedia is not supposed to be for its use as a vehicle for painstakingly sanitized self-promotion. Activist (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point...

Congratulations! I am glad you can use the internet to find public information. It must be gratifying knowing you think you found all this cool information derived from nine alphanumerics. While you may be proud of yourself, it does show a mental condition with borderline cyber-stalking proclivities regardless of who you think I am. I still don't see why you are so obsessed with Prewitt's endeavors or successes beyond jealousy or anger. I would encourage you to seek professional help. Maybe I will travel down the same path you have taken and google "activist" and see what I get. I will try to reach you and tell you what I find!

I will no longer use this as a channel of communication with you Activist, for this is a degradation of Wikipedia's intent. If you need to contact me, use my email as listed in my talk pages or profile. -Regards Andregen8 (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Lastbridgecover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lastbridgecover.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Frankprewitt.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frankprewitt.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lastbridgecover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lastbridgecover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)