![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Those of us in the Brenner v Scott now Armstrong case would like to ask that the photo located on the web site of the Jax paper be used on this site. This photo was taken BY the plaintiffs and supplied to our attys to be used by the press. We have others that can also be used if you do not want to use the one from the Times Union.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2014-12-03/story/gay-marriage-could-be-real-many-jan-6-barring-supreme-court-action
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brenner_v._Scott&diff=636852490&oldid=636828809
Problem fixed. :) 96.59.130.176 ( talk) 06:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Fireman452 ( talk), I see you were able to fix information typos in my previous edit, where I placed the photo; I am sorry if I made some typos, but I was just copying & pasting from wherever and trying to get your photo posted. Good job: I am glad that we could team up and get these things fixed and updated. 96.59.172.254 ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not mean this with any disrespect towards the judge, but I feel that Judge Hinkle is losing it:
1, he styled the case in Brenner v Scott, a clear typo! (This after the case had been changed to Brenner v Armstrong, with Scott removed, and then it was appealed without Gov Scott as a named defendant.)
2, he made claims that one litigant forged other peoples' names, when a credible news source investigating this found no such evidence that litigant (the guy who wanted to "marry" his computer, probably a vexatious litigant and a bit nutty, but otherwise, following the rules) did this in any of his other filings (and thus was unlikely to do so here).
3, In fact the Judge had the evidence destroyed by the time this reporter came onto the scene to ask for proof of the judge's claims regarding this litigant's forgery. Destroying the evidence is careless at best, and criminal (and immoral) at worst!
4, I do appreciate that Judge Hinkle seems to care about the gay citizens of Florida being deprived of certain financial rights, and that shows he is both paying attention (smart) and also has a good heart and integrity. But, his logic is weak insofar as he is unable to separate the several "intertwined" issues (the financial disparity, which, on the one hand, is a just cause, with the legal recognition of 'Gay Marriage', which, on the other hand, seems sure to fail on Equal Protection grounds, since, as many Amici Curiae litigants have said, even polygamy is illegal).
Therefore, I personally believe that this judge is getting old and senile and losing it. I mean this in no disrespect, and hopes that if he should read this that he is not offended, for I do not mean it in that way, but word up: truth is truth, here.
Thoughts? Feedback? 96.59.130.9 ( talk) 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brenner_v._Scott&diff=642078955&oldid=642062653
First, the editor states the Fla couldn't be bothered in edit notes... that may (or may not) be true, but one thing we know is this:
The 11th Cir. R.28-1, I.O.P. 4, dealing with waiving your right to reply states: "Waiver of Reply Brief. A party may waive the right to file a reply brief. Immediate notice of such waiver to the clerk will expedite submission of the appeal to the court."(see below)
Secondly, the publisher (of note 30: which stated ' "Oral Argument Calendats". Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Retrieved January 11, 2015.') was not the 11th Circuit as http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brenner_v._Scott&oldid=642062653#cite_note-30 states: it was the Advcoate.com, an apparently left-leaning, but accurate, news source.
Lastly, it was HELL fixing the formatting; please don't screw with it -- if it works, and it's not broke, don't fix it!! (Besides, the areas in formatting where we disagree are minor, so plz don't sweat the small stuff, kk?) 96.59.161.38 ( talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know I assessed Brenner v. Scott to B-class per the request at WP:LGBT/Assessment - this is the max a Wikiproject can assess. Do see WP:LGBT/Assessment#Requesting an assessment for links for nominating the article for GA or FA status. Cheers Gmcbjames ( talk) 05:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brenner v. Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Those of us in the Brenner v Scott now Armstrong case would like to ask that the photo located on the web site of the Jax paper be used on this site. This photo was taken BY the plaintiffs and supplied to our attys to be used by the press. We have others that can also be used if you do not want to use the one from the Times Union.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2014-12-03/story/gay-marriage-could-be-real-many-jan-6-barring-supreme-court-action
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brenner_v._Scott&diff=636852490&oldid=636828809
Problem fixed. :) 96.59.130.176 ( talk) 06:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Fireman452 ( talk), I see you were able to fix information typos in my previous edit, where I placed the photo; I am sorry if I made some typos, but I was just copying & pasting from wherever and trying to get your photo posted. Good job: I am glad that we could team up and get these things fixed and updated. 96.59.172.254 ( talk) 22:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not mean this with any disrespect towards the judge, but I feel that Judge Hinkle is losing it:
1, he styled the case in Brenner v Scott, a clear typo! (This after the case had been changed to Brenner v Armstrong, with Scott removed, and then it was appealed without Gov Scott as a named defendant.)
2, he made claims that one litigant forged other peoples' names, when a credible news source investigating this found no such evidence that litigant (the guy who wanted to "marry" his computer, probably a vexatious litigant and a bit nutty, but otherwise, following the rules) did this in any of his other filings (and thus was unlikely to do so here).
3, In fact the Judge had the evidence destroyed by the time this reporter came onto the scene to ask for proof of the judge's claims regarding this litigant's forgery. Destroying the evidence is careless at best, and criminal (and immoral) at worst!
4, I do appreciate that Judge Hinkle seems to care about the gay citizens of Florida being deprived of certain financial rights, and that shows he is both paying attention (smart) and also has a good heart and integrity. But, his logic is weak insofar as he is unable to separate the several "intertwined" issues (the financial disparity, which, on the one hand, is a just cause, with the legal recognition of 'Gay Marriage', which, on the other hand, seems sure to fail on Equal Protection grounds, since, as many Amici Curiae litigants have said, even polygamy is illegal).
Therefore, I personally believe that this judge is getting old and senile and losing it. I mean this in no disrespect, and hopes that if he should read this that he is not offended, for I do not mean it in that way, but word up: truth is truth, here.
Thoughts? Feedback? 96.59.130.9 ( talk) 05:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brenner_v._Scott&diff=642078955&oldid=642062653
First, the editor states the Fla couldn't be bothered in edit notes... that may (or may not) be true, but one thing we know is this:
The 11th Cir. R.28-1, I.O.P. 4, dealing with waiving your right to reply states: "Waiver of Reply Brief. A party may waive the right to file a reply brief. Immediate notice of such waiver to the clerk will expedite submission of the appeal to the court."(see below)
Secondly, the publisher (of note 30: which stated ' "Oral Argument Calendats". Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Retrieved January 11, 2015.') was not the 11th Circuit as http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brenner_v._Scott&oldid=642062653#cite_note-30 states: it was the Advcoate.com, an apparently left-leaning, but accurate, news source.
Lastly, it was HELL fixing the formatting; please don't screw with it -- if it works, and it's not broke, don't fix it!! (Besides, the areas in formatting where we disagree are minor, so plz don't sweat the small stuff, kk?) 96.59.161.38 ( talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know I assessed Brenner v. Scott to B-class per the request at WP:LGBT/Assessment - this is the max a Wikiproject can assess. Do see WP:LGBT/Assessment#Requesting an assessment for links for nominating the article for GA or FA status. Cheers Gmcbjames ( talk) 05:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brenner v. Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)