Talk:Williams v. Pryor

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It seems this article is correctly flagged for copyright investigation, as its summary and analysis (“Details”) are copied (or closely paraphrased) from the source identified in the copyright tag. To rewrite this article, please refer to the full text of the decision, at

Also refer to the subsequent history, as noted in the “Full rulings” section of this article under the dates of “July 28th 2004” and “February 14th 2007” (as cited in the original version of this article). Bwrs (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Williams v. Pryor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]