User talk:MarkGT

Hello, welcome to my talk page. As I am just getting started in Wikipedia, please point out any of my errors here; constructive criticism is welcome. MarkGT (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your timely and consistent work on updating the zoo of same-sex marriage cases on the Same-sex marriage in the United States article, you've earned this. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! My first Wikipedia award of any kind. Cool. With the many SSM cases coming up to the Courts of Appeal, I'll be busy :) MarkGT (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

SSM lit

Hey, wondering if any of the other cases here[1] belong on the map. Also, separate color for state supreme court? — kwami (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been adding cases as 1. they are noticed in the press, and 2. as significant developments occur (i.e. surviving a motion to dismiss, court makes a ruling, a party appeals a ruling, etc.) I am familiar with the www.freedomtomarry.org website, and I check it often. I will be adding more cases as time allows and as development occurs. As for a separate color for state supreme court cases "in the pipeline", I don't believe we need it yet; but it's your chart, your call. I will try to leave a comment on your talk page if I add a case and it's not on your map. Oh, and thanks for the map, it's cool! MarkGT (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. I've read that there are cases in nearly all states, but some of them didn't really seem to be cases yet. As for the state supreme court, that was motivated by PA: In most states, I don't bother with the green, because the fed court is higher, but that's not true when it's the state supreme court. I thought people might get confused as to why there are two colors in PA but not in other states. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Should Ohio be yellow, as the circuit-court case is only about death certificates? Or did the ruling strike down the ban in its entirety? Similar question as to whether Alabama should be on the map at all. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohio is fine the way it is, I believe. The "circuit-court case", i.e. the Ohio case before the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Obergefell, is only about the death certificate issue. However, there is also the Henry v. Himes case, out of the same U.S. district court, and issued by the same judge, that ruled more broadly on the marriage issue. Both cases are stayed, the state says it will appeal the Henry case, and I'm waiting for it to be docketed in the Sixth Circuit.

Note - the main map showing Ohio with red and gold/beige stripes was solid red even after the Obergefell, death cert., ruling, but the beige/gold stripes appeared after the broader Henry ruling.

As for Alabama, I did point out that the case was similar to Obergefell, but the thing is that these death cert. cases have a way of turning into cases for full marriage recognition, or for allowing in-state SSM. I would leave it the way it is, unless you feel strongly the other way. MarkGT (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alaska and Mississippi?

It seems as though there's been a case filed in Federal District Court in Anchorage, according to ABC News. The case name is Hamby v. Parnell per the Anchorage Daily News. A quick Google search didn't find any text, but it looks like we might have a new case for the list. Maybe this wording:

Hamby v. Parnell (2014-present), Alaska same-sex marriage lawsuits filed in U.S. district court in Anchorage.

Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. I posted it. There's a Mississippi state case, Czekala-Chatham v. Melancon, it's a divorce case, but since state divorce cases in Texas, i.e. In re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (Tex. Sup. Ct.) and In re State of Texas (Tex. App. 4th) have been used to strike down (and thus allow) the marriage bans, I am now leaning towards including it, too. MarkGT (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would, due to the similarity with Texas. I'm in the process of updating the LGBT rights in Alaska article. Thanks for being so quick! Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 16:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll add AK to the map, and change IN to tan. Pls revert if that's not appropriate. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, sounds good. Also note I've added a Mississippi state same-sex divorce case; I believe it's relevant since a Texas divorce case led to the marriage ban being declared unconstitutional in that state. This is MS, with the judges and chancery courts having a long history of discrimination so it's a long shot, but think about adding MS to the map. MarkGT (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe add (divorce case) in print? That would mean the map is no longer language-neutral, but it's unlikely to be widely used in other WP's anyway. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not separate the divorce cases. I was of that opinion before, but now I see that these divorce cases, in effect, get the marriage bans thrown out. They are a vehicle to challenge the bans. I read an ACLU brief for the Nebraska Supreme Court same-sex divorce case, Nichols v. Nichols (which I just added) that argues to separate the divorce issue from the marriage issue, but the district (trial) judge in that case opined: "Granting dissolution of marriage under Nebraska law necessarily involves recognizing the marriage." So you can see how divorce can affect marriage, until the each state court decide one way or another.

So for now I'm of the opinion to add MS and NE as "green" on the map; these divorce cases have a party arguing to strike down marriage bans. Note there's a Kansas same-sex marriage case, but that's a tax case, and I would not include KS yet. BTW Thanks for all your help! MarkGT (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also as a heads up, there is a planned case in South Dakota. Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The case would leave Montana and North Dakota as the only states without a marriage-related case. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Kentucky

Hey, do you know why the title is italicized now..? --Prcc27 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no clue. Just got back from vacation over the past 4 days in the Smoky Mountains. Weird. I'll check it out. Also noticed some links were off. MarkGT (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed (along with other pages with a similar issue.) At first I had no clue that this was my (unintended) doing. However, I found that adding legal-case-related infoboxes in the middle of an article without setting the parameter "|italic title = no" results in an italicized page title. It's a bug I just discovered; and this parameter is only available for United States District Court case infoboxes. It doesn't work with Court of Appeals templates/infoboxes, so I have to use the former and adapt it. Hopefully someone can fix this bug for all court case infoboxes; as some court cases do not warrant entire Wikipedia pages of their own. When put in the middle of an article, there's no need to automatically italicize the title (court case names, e.g. Baskin v. Zoeller are usually italicized, but putting an infobox about this case in a Wikipedia page, e.g. "Same-sex marriage in Indiana" would automatically italicize that title.) In sum, infoboxes contain crucial info such as docket numbers and citations, that are very useful for scholars/legal professionals that want to reference or read the original decision, but automatically italicizing page titles when the case infobox is buried in a related article is buggy. MarkGT (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

Thanks for supporting the Wiki Loves Pride campaign! I see you have been making great edits lately to LGBT-related articles. If you wish, you can add articles you create or improve to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014/Results. Our goal is to showcase great work! Thanks again. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. Just trying to stay on top of the legal developments related to the subject. MarkGT (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated. SO much news lately! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For a hard work in the Same-sex marriage in the United States article !! M.Karelin (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much; yet there's still so much to be done!

Reminder to self: Expand on the Tenth Circuit's reasoning in Kitchen v. Herbert, and expand on SmithKline v. Abbott, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2014), sua sponte en banc call for reh'g rejected (9th Cir. Jun. 24, 2014), giving the ruling it's own page and discussing the en banc call's dissent by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain’s from denial of rehearing, as it has a substantial impact on same-sex marriage yet it hasn't been addressed. Order and dissent here. MarkGT (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in Florida

As I posted on Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Florida, the article Recognition of same-sex unions in Florida needs to be updated to reflect the new decision in Huntsman. The order will taken effect next Tuesday, July 22, so there is no urgency to do it today. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Circuit court decisions not automatically binding throughout circuit?

First, I wanted to thank you for your explanations on the Talk page of the SSM map. I assume you have a legal background - I do too, but I don't know nearly as much about the technicalities of this stuff as you do. Second, I wanted to ask: why doesn't a circuit court decision have as immediate an effect within its jurisdiction as a U.S. Supreme Court decision does throughout the nation? For instance, in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, sodomy laws across the nation became illegal once the Court ruled against the Texas law. Right? Or perhaps I'm actually wrong about that. I don't know. I was just curious to know the answer. Thanks. Tinmanic (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Lawrence v. Texas is not the best example; the laws weren't really enforced in the first place—they were antiquated but still on the books—and while Lawrence originated from Texas, the opinion discussed other states' sodomy bans as well. Also, I'm pretty sure that afterwards, states took it upon themselves to update or remove the offending sodomy laws. Virginia still used it's sodomy laws to prosecute "sex with a minor" offenses until maybe a year ago until the Fourth Circuit ruled that unconstitutional. I'm sure there were subsequent court cases in states where sodomy laws remained to get them declared unconstitutional as well. Another thing: Once a criminal statute is found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court, if any state tries to enforce a similar statute, they are liable for a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the criminal civil rights statute. As issuing same-sex marriage licenses doesn't involve criminal law, and as the remaining portion of DOMA precludes it, § 1983 does not apply.

In any case, a Supreme Court example is not a good one, because there's several ways to get a case before the high court, and then one ruling can have more "reach" than another, depending on wording. Usually a case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court out of one Courts of Appeals or a state supreme court, and before that, it comes out of a U.S. district court or local trial court. Sometimes the Supreme Court rules broadly and sometimes narrowly; sometimes only the specific case before the court is affirmed or reversed, and then it's up to other courts to follow precedent.

Now, with the Bostic decision, we do know the specifics. The original case was out of Virginia and only applies to that state. We would have a different outcome from the Fourth Circuit if it had before it, cases out of multiple states. Note that the Sixth Circuit has same-sex marriage cases before it out of every state in the circuit: Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky. When the Sixth rules, it will likely be a broad ruling applying to every state in the Circuit. Here, in Bostic, however, the immediate appeal only applies to Virginia, it is the lower Virginia decision that was affirmed, not one out of, let's say, North Carolina. If the mandate (a formal order telling the U.S. district court in Virginia that it's ruling is affirmed) is ever issued, it will directly only affect that Virginia.

As there are same-sex marriage cases pending in NC, SC, and WV, and they have had their proceedings stayed pending resolution in Bostic, the first thing that needs to happen, according to the rule of law, is that these stays get lifted. Next, the North Carolina case, Fisher-Borne v. Smith , needs a ruling for summary judgment, and it should be easily granted as there is precedent now. But we still have to wait for that ruling from a U.S. district court judge in North Carolina. Again, the rule of law (there are ways to short-cut the process, with courts ruling on their own, sua sponte, for a judgment order based on precedent alone. It's been done in the Ninth Circuit, but as I noted, opponents claimed it wasn't fair). After that, same-sex marriage should be in effect in North Carolina, since that state's attorney general, Roy Cooper, said he would not defend the ban. Note that we can have non-state intervenors trying to keep the ban in place, as is still happening in Pennsylvania. While we have same-sex marriage in PA, the Whitewood v. Wolf ruling there is still technically under appeal because of one lone woman. South Carolina, too, has to go through the same process with Bradacs v. Haley (or another SSM case), but the attorney general there said he will defend the ban, even if it means appealing any case making it's way back up to the Fourth Circuit.

In essence, lawyers tell us all the time that no two cases are alike, and that you can't make assumptions on how one case will turn out based on another; each one turns on the specifics of the case. I sometimes tend to forget this myself—note I'm not a lawyer, that's not even my field—it's electrical engineering of all things! But I follow law closely, especially civil rights law. MarkGT (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough answer! Tinmanic (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake I made on the Same-sex marriage in the United States page

I'm sorry that I deleted the jurisdiction sections on the table. It was an accident. Just wondering though, how do I get a consensus for editing? Anonbonbon (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem; everyone makes mistakes. That's why we can correct and revert changes.

Each article has a talk page. Usually the topic you're interested in editing is already the subject of debate...I know the tables and map on the Same-sex marriage in the United States article are nearly always the subject of heated debate, e.g. what states should be included, which ones aren't, what color schemes should be used on the map. It just so happened that you unknowingly stepped into a big disagreement on whether a trial-level Florida case, several rulings in Colorado and the big Fourth Circuit decision should have been listed on the tables and maps as "allowing same-sex marriage".

To get consensus, you just present your opinions on the talk page (here's an example, look towards the bottom), and make an argument to sway others to support your viewpoint. Once enough users support your idea, they will indicate it by noting support or like instead of disapprove or dislike in their replies. At that point, you can propose to make the change, and someone, usually someone who's been active in editing the page for a while, will give you the go-ahead to make your change.

Know that I'm pretty new to this myself; I've been editing for little over a year. The best advice is to start with small, uncontroversial changes, as you usually don't need consensus for these. For same-sex marriage in the United States, instead of first editing the main U.S. page, first see how your edits go over the state pages; i.e. if the ruling's out of Colorado, first edit the Same-sex marriage in Colorado page. These "little" pages are often neglected and need editing.

Oh, and some general editing 'guidelines': Try to stay away from "breaking news"-type edits. There's a lot of competition and a big rush to be first, and hence, a lot of mistakes to clean up. And keep away from "edit wars" where people change things over and over. Look at a page's history for this. It means that no consensus has been built yet, and editors are fighting over their preference on how an article should be edited. MarkGT (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Colorado Same-sex Marriage Case

Per the Colorado Supreme Court's orders, both Boulder and Pueblo counties have stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I think the case should be moved to the "States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage table". Anonbonbon (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I would seek consensus on the talk page first. It's a difficult position: While the Colorado Supreme Court ruling did order a "stay" (I only read the news but not the legal decision as I'm away from the office), the case below isn't supported by arguments on the merits of same sex marriage. It's premised on the right to civil disobedience. In short, while this case seems like a same-sex marriage case, it's not; it's a First Amendment/protest case.

I would keep that ruling, an appeal from Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall, out from both tables, but that's only my opinion. I would leave, in place, however, the Colorado case of Burns v. Hickenlooper; this U.S. district court ruling is scheduled to take effect as far as I know.

One last thing, I am truly sorry for the hostility I used towards you when removing your alterations; I should have left a gentler notification on your talk page. The arguments on the Map Talk page were getting heated, and I got caught up in that (which I vowed I wouldn't) and once I stood back I extracted myself from that debate.

It's just that we have so many rulings coming in so fast, and people (not just you) are making all sorts of changes that may not be correct, based on just personal opinion or on breaking news (which is often incorrect). We had half the Southeast Coast as "blue" on the map for legalized same-sex marriage a couple of days ago—not one same-sex marriage had taken place, nor will one take place take place in NC, SC, or WV until the separate U.S. district courts (or local trial courts) rule otherwise, i.e. apart from the Fourth Circuit.

If you have any questions or clarification, by all means contact me; I appreciate you doing so today. I may be slow to respond as today's my day off. Good luck. MarkGT (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For your courage in tackling the SSM map talk page and as an apology for the ill-tempered revocation. I appreciate your patience in untangling the Fourth Circuit for us. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage in Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling

Today, July 31, 2014, Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a 2009 same-sex domestic partner law, which extends registry to same-sex couples, and gives them the right to hospital visits, family medical leave to care for a stricken partner, health benefits under a partner's insurance and the right to inherit assets when a partner dies, is constitutional and not in conflict with the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Should this be mentioned somewhere on the page? Anonbonbon (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I know my reply is late; just got home and found out I had no electricity—had to replace the main circuit breaker. I see that users have made a page dedicated specifically to the Wisconsin case: Appling v. Doyle; it would be an excellent idea to expand and add more info about the case there, too. Search for the ruling, and see what others have missed—maybe the page could use something as broad as an analysis, maybe something more specific, like quotes from the ruling, or the negative reaction from the attorney general in that state, or maybe something legalistic, like the docket number and name of the judges that decided the case.

As for the U.S. SSM page, in my opinion, the Appling ruling would fit in nicely near the bottom, where we list legal cases affecting same-sex marriage, i.e. Same-sex marriage in the U.S. → Case law → 2010s. You can fit it in elsewhere on the U.S. page if you can find a way to tie it in to the national story on same-sex marriage, but that's up to you.

It could also go on the Same-sex marriage in Wis. → Lawsuits area as a recent ruling that shows how the Wis. court votes on these types of issues. Have fun! MarkGT (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Info boxes

I noticed you added an infobox a while back to Same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania in the middle of the entry. Perhaps you're responsible for several others I've noticed, all for SSM-related court cases. I don't think that's how we're supposed to use infoboxes. An infobox is meant to go at the top of an entry and provide info relevant to the entire article. See Help:Infobox#Locating_the_infobox.

"infoboxes should be placed at the top of an article after any disambiguation links and maintenance tags."

That's why the Manual of Style considers an infobox as part of an entry's lede: Wikipedia:Lead_section.

Maybe the logic should be: if the material is sufficiently noteworthy and substantial to merit an infobox, then it should have its own entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about no mid-page infoboxes. Your last sentence is correct, and I will stop this practice. I did not consult the Manual of Style; as the infoboxes stayed up for many months, and it's only being challenged now, I did not think of stopping the practice as consensus had supported it. My original thought was that it would be OK to add an infobox to a subsection (i.e. mid-page) when it involves a court case; case details such as judge information and docket number and citations do not really belong in the body of an article, it is better in an infobox.

As you know, we've had several same-sex marriage cases start off with just a small amount of information, and these were not really worthy of having an infobox. The more important cases, though, had more and more info added to them, and evolved into their own full-page articles. I've added infoboxes to those cases that were linked to from the main same-sex marriage page; and there are four or five twelve cases that I think should be full-page articles, but these cases are somehow still in-progress or on appeal, most in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal or in state appellate court.

Cases with mid-page infoboxes to make full page articles (Current court in parenthesis):

Update below as necessary.

• Same-sex marriage in Wisconsin § Wolf v. Walker (7th Cir.)
• Same-sex marriage in Hawaii § Jackson case (2012-2014) (9th Cir.)
• Same-sex marriage in Ohio § Obergefell v. Wymyslo (6th Cir.)
• Same-sex marriage in Ohio § Henry v. Himes (6th Cir.)
• Same-sex marriage in Colorado § Brinkman v. Long (Colo. Sup. Ct.) Done.
• Same-sex marriage in Colorado § Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Hall (Colo. Sup. Ct.) Done.
• Recognition of same-sex unions in Tennessee § Tanco v. Haslam (6th Cir.) Done.
• Same-sex marriage in Kentucky § Bourke v. Beshear / Love v. Beshear (6th Cir.) Done.
• Same-sex marriage in Colorado § Burns v. Hickenlooper (10th Cir.) Done.
• Same-sex marriage in Arkansas § Wright v. Arkansas (Ark. Sup. Ct.) Done.

I see that you have already taken care of Bostic v. Schaefer, Whitewood v. Wolf, and Baskin v. Bogan. Thanks!

Cases with mid-page infoboxes where infobox could be deleted:

• Same-sex marriage in Florida § Pareto v. Ruvin (Fla. 3d Dist. App.) Infobox removed.
• Same-sex marriage in Florida § Huntsman v. Heavilin (Fla. 3d Dist. App.) Infobox removed.
• All others (feel free to modify these sections).

When I have time, I will transfer over some of these cases into full-page articles myself. Furthermore, if you see cases with infoboxes and the case does not warrant a full-page article, simply delete the infobox. I will heed the Manual of Style from now on, and not create mid-page infoboxes. MarkGT (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated. MarkGT (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Updated again. MarkGT (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brenner v. Scott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Morris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Kansas map update

Wikimedia Commons is acting up for me, so could you add the six new counties listed at [2]? They are contiguous in the north central part of the state. Thanks, Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. (Looking at the map, I guess western Kansas is sparsely populated.) MarkGT (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the largest city in the western half of Kansas is Dodge City, at less than 29,000 residents. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts, feedback? Judge Hinkle is losing it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brenner_v._Scott#Judge_Hinkle_is_losing_it..._.28commentary.29 96.59.130.9 (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I will look into the matter in the next week or so (busy with a few other projects). MarkGT (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark.68.207.227.55 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Judge Hinkle has issued a brief but important clarification in the matter. He offers very wise words on what the source of law is, legal standing and case-or-controversy requirement, and the scope of the preliminary injunction. Most importantly, the judge visits the independent duty of clerks to follow the U.S. Constitution — i.e. "rule of law" — that clerks issue same-sex licenses in Florida as of January 6, 2014, or otherwise be open to further lawsuit for violating what is now clearly the law after the U.S. Supreme Court has acted in denying a stay of the injunction. You can find it here. The rest of what you mention (you list no source) is merely noise from the sidelines of the case with no direct bearing on it.MarkGT (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MarkGT. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MarkGT. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)