Talk:Electric Bond and Share Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 September 2019 by reviewer RoySmith (talk · contribs).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I'm frustrated that this article was removed while I was still in the process of working on it!

I'm also confused why it was placed here since the article and its contents came directly from wikisource.

Not to mention that there is one additional outside source for the article:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1938722303us4191677 which to me would appear to be and independent source of the supreme court decision!

I assume that it was pulled because the entire judgement from the case was copied from wikisource to wikipedia. That judgement was also exactly as printed in the Leagal.com piece. Immediately after posting the judgement from wikisource, I took a break and came back a few minutes later to find the entire piece moved to this draft mode. I will make attempts to reorganize the piece, but the idea that it was pulled while I was working on it is surprising!

Energynet (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

since the last denial didn't identify the "copyright material" for being turned down. The only thing I can think of was the library of congress direct quote from a now dead newspaper.

So I paraphrased that graph at the top of the background into my own words and left the reference to the original article. If this isn't the issue please identify what was. Energynet (talk)

As I understand it, anything that is paid for or sourced by the United States Government (US Tax payers) is copyright free, and that includes the Supreme Court decisions,or for that matter anything read into the Congressional record. As regards secondary sources I do not see where a court case ruled on by the Supreme Court and recorded in Law Review Journals and found on LexisNexis is not adequate. Problem is that Lexus Nexis is fee for service. I can see where persons, who are motivated by ideology, politics or dollars, would be motivated to find reasons to object to, or even promote,this article. .Oldperson (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (geez! I'm working as fast as I can! I am currently in a medical crisis with the person I take care of as well as a damaged phone line that ate up the previous 4 hours. I started writing questions as to the problem I face. I received an answer about the leagle.com concern and have removed that material as suggested just minutes ago - only to see this new threat of deleting the entire piece!

in addition I have been at the tea house getting help on this.

I believe I have completed your ) --Energynet (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic