Talk:Curley v. NAMBLA

message: I removed the link to User:Adam_Carr/Documents1 because it is the same as one of the PDF's pointed to. -- Fplay 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article replicates material in the NAMBLA article, and lawsuits are hardly notable in their own right, nor worthy of their own separate articles.  Someone needs to propose this for AfD.
Politically motivated lawsuits get filed every day.  People claim that video games or sex education or looking at Playboy or NAMBLA's website or eating twinkies drove them to commit some dispicable act.  We do not need to fill up Wikipedia with a page for each one. Hermitian 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a significant event. I agree, Wikipedia does not need to fill up a page for each and every claim that someone makes as to not being guilty because some groups literature drove them to commit an act. However cases which garner significant media attention do justify a nice reference, so people can quickly read up on the background of a case and know it's context - rather then having to sift through much more biased sources over an extensive google search. 130.71.96.19 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Notable

message: It's still 2005 information, what is going on now? Is it on Supreme Court yet? WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally I was just trying to find news on this case. Apparently the last decision was handed down March 2003, and that was just on a procedural issue. I know civil cases take time but this is odd. I can't find any trace of it being settled or dismissed.  -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This case need update

message: I have edited this article so that it quotes one of its sources correctly. The Op-Ed by Richard Hoffman does not use the word "penis". It uses the word "wiles." Whether the article was worded the way it was because of a deliberate misrepresentation of the source, or because of a weird misunderstanding of "wiles" (which looks vaguely like a slang word for "penis"), I don't know. "Wiles" was changed to "penis" in this edit, back on October 12; it's not encouraging that this wasn't reverted more quickly. Devil Goddess (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed misrepresentation of source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Curley v. NAMBLA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050417135904/http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp to http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Curley v. NAMBLA. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051023035612/http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/curley%20mem%20ord%20mot%20to%20dism.pdf to http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/curley%20mem%20ord%20mot%20to%20dism.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified