User:Lord Roem/Shelf

Barnstars

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		In a short amount of time, you have created several important articles on Supreme Court cases, reviewed GA nominations, and had 3 DYKs on the front page. Keep up the good work! —Ute in DC (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping me busy at DYK with all these exceptional new articles on SCOTUS cases. I get to read lots of articles about birds and fungi, the odd church and plenty of ships at DYK, but good-quality law articles are something of a commodity. Keep it up! HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 06:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For reviewing 5 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Good job! –MuZemike 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

		The Law Barnstar
		I, Verkhovensky, award to Lord Roem this Law Barnstar because your focus on creating Good Articles and your commitment to filling in the missing Supreme Court case articles is a huge benefit not just to Wikipedia's legal coverage, but to Wikipedia as a whole! Verkhovensky (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to the Freedom of speech related article about the Supreme Court of the United States case, United States v. Alvarez. The Wikipedia community recognizes and values your quality improvements to the site. — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Cirt!

--Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting Washington v. Texas promoted to the Featured Article level. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Washington v. Texas. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK Credits

On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Illinois v. McArthur, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. McArthur that police do not need a warrant when they have probable cause to complete a search? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez that the First Amendment protects against free speech viewpoint discrimination? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph that arbitration agreements do not need to discuss the costs of arbitration? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

On 10 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Central Green Co. v. United States, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Central Green Co. v. United States that the term 'flood waters' includes accidental flooding from a canal? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

On 18 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that it took the U.S. Supreme Court less than three months to decide a case concerning an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act in 2001? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that interscholastic athletic associations have police power? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniels v. United States, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court has ruled in Daniels v. United States that a defendant cannot challenge previous convictions that were used to enhance his sentence? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On 22 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On 22 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shafer v. South Carolina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the US Supreme Court ruled in Shafer v. South Carolina that defendants must be allowed to inform a jury of an alternative sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On 25 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Int'l Holdings, Inc., which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2001 securities fraud case that secret plans to disregard an oral contract are illegal? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On 25 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank ACB, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. Supreme Court said Congress did not exempt certain federal banks from state taxes in Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank ACB notwithstanding the landmark decision in McCulloch? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On 27 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penry v. Johnson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Justice Thomas said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Penry v. Johnson on the relevance of mental retardation in death penalty sentencing sent "mixed signals" to lower courts? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that boxing promoter Don King was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

On 29 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Booth v. Churner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Booth v. Churner, over 30 U.S. states asked the United States Supreme Court to require prisoners to resolve all administrative claims before pursuing litigation? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

On 30 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida v. Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Florida v. Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that a state court decision is not "final" if a trial has not concluded in a verdict? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On 2 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Hatter, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court upheld a requirement that federal judges have to pay taxes for Medicare in United States v. Hatter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Hatter.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

On 7 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cleveland v. United States (2000), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cleveland v. United States that video poker licenses are not "property"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cleveland v. United States (2000).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On 8 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss concerned a prisoner who had been "adjudged a juvenile delinquent on five separate occasions"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

On 9 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court dismissed an important First Amendment case after it was found to be moot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On 11 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States free speech exceptions, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there are eight exceptions to the freedom of speech in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States free speech exceptions.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On 14 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article False statements of fact, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court once said that "there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/False statements of fact.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On 2 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seling v. Young, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Seling v. Young that laws authorizing civil commitment of sexual predators are not criminal laws? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Seling v. Young.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have been able to help with the review. I didn't "know" about this aspect of U.S. law. It's disturbing... --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

On 27 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Washington v. Texas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Washington v. Texas that the right to obtain witnesses in one's favor is critical to the very ability to "present a defense"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Washington v. Texas.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On 17 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taylor v. Illinois, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Taylor v. Illinois that defendants do not have an absolute right to obtain witnesses in their favor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor v. Illinois.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

On 18 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Compulsory Process Clause, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Compulsory Process Clause of the United States Constitution allows defendants to force the attendance of witnesses in their favor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Compulsory Process Clause.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

On 13 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilkie v. Robbins, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court case Wilkie v. Robbins involved a land dispute over a dude ranch resort? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wilkie v. Robbins. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On 14 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zivotofsky v. Clinton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Zivotofsky v. Clinton concerned the status of Jerusalem in United States foreign policy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zivotofsky v. Clinton. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

On 6 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorsey v. United States, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court decided in Dorsey v. United States that a new law on crack cocaine offenses applied retroactively? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dorsey v. United States. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)