User talk:DrWolfgang

Travis County
1. Your edits to LGBT rights in Texas are way too detailed for that WP entry. Try Same-sex marriage in Texas. Then try writing less. WP isn't a newspaper.

Too detailed? Odd. Why would anyone want to look at a wiki article unless they wanted MORE information than what they already have? This is totally surprising....your effort to suppress information, rather than welcome the provision of more. I may not have any track record of how things go around here (I joined a couple of days ago, and not even because I have a same-sex marriage agenda, though that fits within my area of interest), so I realize I may have stepped on some feet and some turf that is apparently jealously guarded by some with more seniority -- but pleeeeaaaaezzzeee.....is it about people defending their turf?...is it about your bruised ego or mine?....or is it about getting information to the public ... accurate information... like looking what judge Herman's court order actually says before saying it's a will contest. It was an order on special exceptions and motion to dismiss. And it's an interlocutory order, which means the case remains pending, and you can't normally appeal from that, even if you are a party.

If I am wrong, correct me. Don't delete my whole section and tell me it's too much information, and that we'd rather stay ignorant around here.

Even the supreme court got it wrong in its "SPECIAL ORDER" news item. It's not a will contest, according to the pleadings, it's an issue of who is entitled to inherit in the absence of a will, and in the other case, it's a TRO which expires within 14 days by operation of law. And with that kind of order you have to have a date set for hearing on the temporary injunction, at which the parties can are expected to present evidence. Generally, you don't appeal or file a mandamus on a TRO because it expires within 14 days anyhow.

And both a mandamus petition an interlocutory appeal are supposed to go to the court of appeals that has jurisdiction over the trial court first. Which is the Third Court of Appeals, not the Texas Supreme Court.

How many news articles and wire services pointed that out? Wiki could, as long as people who know and are willing to share what they know contribute and as long as you don't rush in to suppress the information. Wiki can provide superior information, and more quickly. Why would you spent energies to sabotage such effort?

I am, to be frank, shocked at the response I have received.

I am not infallable, and I wrote up the stuff I submitted in haste. Hey, it's breaking news.

If my information is false, correct me. Don't delete me. I almost thought myself I had made a mistake by claiming the AG had submitted a request for emergency relief. I went back to the mandamus petition and it was not there. But it turns out that the emergency motion was not on the Supreme Court's website yet on the first day (even thought they had already issued the notice of stay). So, I did not have to go back to correct the statement about the AG having not only filed the mandamus petition, but having requested an immediate stay order BY SEPARATE MOTION.

All this stuff is happening very quickly, and it is national news. You fault me for trying to improve the debate by putting out correct information, with links to the source materials. I find this nothing short of exasperating, having such a bad experience with Wiki the first time I got off my fillintheblank to actually do something to contribute to this worthy cause, rather than just finding it worthy in the abstract. Thanks to you.

Your rebuke directed toward a newbie has the predictable effect of discouraging any further contribution. If that is your intention, how does square with the wiki mission?

2. Think about where information belongs -- don't just add material at the top of a WP entry as if we're a bulletin servcie that puts the latest news at the beginning of a news story. You're not the first WP edit to take up these topics. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right about that. The national media is all over it. So I am not alone if I am excited about the topic. The difference is that the national media is even more in a hurry that you guys (whoever you are) and it behooves all of us to improve the public debate by trying to provide MORE information rather than less. Not to mention accurate information.

Like looking at what was actually filed, which I have done. I spent several hours looking at the stuff (and some was not even immediately available on the supreme court's website even though they had already issued the stay order), so my contribution was based on my review of what I was able to get, and then I added the additional information to the more specific entry on same sex marriage in Texas (thereby acting in accord with your complaint). That reflects the information about the application for emergency relief. Which was not available online on 2/19.

Your are right that I deliberately put my article at top -- after my revisions were rejected as conflicting with stuff that was at the same time being revised. If that was wrong (and you have not convinced me that it is) I plead guilty as charged. I was hoping that you and others who are watching the page would, in due time, revise the page, integrate the new information and in the course of such further editing eliminate incorrect and duplicate information, rather than treat me as an interloper and delete the stuff that I had contributed in good faith.

A couple of days I got excited about becoming a contributor to wiki, rather than just a consumer. No this. What a bummer!