User talk:Ellsworth

Welcome to Wikipedia! Your articles and edits are very helpful and appropriate; keep up the good work! Feel free to drop me a message at the "talk" link beside my name. --Merovingian ↕ Talk 19:09, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Der Rosenkavalier

Hi Ellsworth, I have translated Der Rosenkavalier (despite not really knowing any German!) --HappyDog 00:32, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

P. tax

Well, that seems like taxation to me, but if that seems misleading to you, by all means edit it out. Your recollection sounds more specific than mine. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poll about whether we should keep either Euramerica or Laurussia

I accidently duplicated Laurussia in Euramerica. Since you contributed to these articles, I invite you to a pool on my TalkPage about how to remedy this. Ŭalabio 21:13, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Good content

Just saw your edit on the Averroes article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Averroes&curid=47836&diff=0&oldid=0). Good edit. ---- Charles Stewart 11:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why thank you. Are you interested in philosophy or the Divine Comedy? Ellsworth

Siegfried Line

Article: de:Westwall

- *Corresponding English-language article: Siegfried Line - *Worth doing because: English version is a stub, German looks comprehensive - * Originally Requested by: Ellsworth 23:13, 15 May 2004 (UTC) - *Status: Claimed - am going to start work on this Saintswithin 18:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC

(and today he deleted the note saying he'd completed it, but I am guessing he didn't notify you, so I am.) -- Jmabel 18:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Reagan and the Klan

Found a 1984 cite for you, but it needs further checking:

"In 1984, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Mary Frances Berry expressed concern to the commission that President Reagan had failed to repudiate Imperial Wizard Bill Wilkinson's (Leader of the Louisiana based Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) endorsement of Reagan and his labeling the Republican platform as "pure Klan." After a two-week delay, Reagan did finally renounce the Klan in a letter to the Commission. Berry, however, indicated she did not feel it was a clearcut repudiation of the Klan's political support (Washington Post, May 2, 1984:2; Feeney and Goldstein, 1984)."

From this paper (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Progressive.Sociologists/authors/Young.TR/kkk-and-american-nazi-party) on the Klan and the neo-Nazis.

State courts

Thanks for your note and the clarification on Georgia. Actually, to make things clearer for all the states, I put in parentheses the portion of the name that would only be used when referring to a specific district or circuit court. Take a look. Acsenray 14:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Po'Folks

The Pensacola area Po'Folks is not Folks at all. It's Po'Folks. I've changed it back. Mike H 01:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia study

Would you be interested in being interviewed about your work on the Wikipedia?

As part of a research project conducted by the Electronic Learning Communities group at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, we are conducting a study of the Wikipedia. The purpose of this study is to explore the online community of the Wikipedia by investigating who contributes to the Wikipedia and why.

To that end, we would like to interview people who write, edit, and comment on the articles that make up the Wikipedia. Study participants agree to be interviewed about their experiences with the Wikipedia. The interview can be face-to-face (if you are in the Atlanta area), on the telephone, or via email, whichever is most comfortable and convenient for you. Participation is voluntary and can be discontinued at any time with no reason given.

If you think you might be interested, more information about the study, including how to volunteer, is available at:

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~susanb/wikistudy.html

If you are not interested, there is no need to reply to this message, and we thank you for your time.

I completed the study, and recommend other users do so as well. Maybe we'll discover the true causes of Wikiholism... Ellsworth 22:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Colonel-General

Article: de:Generaloberst
Corresponding English-language article: none, perhaps place at Colonel-General?
Worth doing because: It's the next rank below Generalfeldmarschall in the WWII German military hierarchy, and the German article looks comprehensive
Originally Requested by: Ellsworth 17:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Status: Translation done -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Other notes: It's possible that some of the names -- especially the Austrian names -- could use further work to match the "correct" forms under which articles might exist. Also, I've made a couple of commented-out notes in the article on some major missing information about Austria. Basically, the dates for which this rank was used in Austria are unclear; so is whether the Austrian list is complete. Obviously, lists for Germany in other than the Wehrmacht era could be added. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Grand Illusion

I have taken the liberty to undertake a massive rewriting of the Grand Illusion article. So far, the powers that be, haven't changed the article name. I will be adding a significant political and historical analysis of themes in the film in the coming hours (maybe as long as a day or two from now). Please do let me know if there is something I may have missed, and what is your reaction (good or bad) to the rewritten article. I do apologize if I may have appeared unnecessarily harsh in my retort to your addition of a literal translation. --ExplorerCDT 16:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Ellsworth

Thanks. the job isn't done yet though. I have a section analysizng political and historical themes that I haven't put up yet. Which is going to wipe out the three paragraphs that are there now. (which i just kept there for the interim because while over-simplified, I will address those issues). *About the literal translation..."grande" in French can be translated as "grand" in English, in addition to its usual translation as "great", "big", "large" etc. There are several accurate translations. Technically (in this regard), the English-speaking release title is correct. If you want to remove it because of that, I will is up to you, but for the time being, I don't think that the statement is appropriate as "trivia."--ExplorerCDT 20:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your reply on my talk page, what exactly was said about it in the bonus notes? Because from what I've read of Renoir's memoirs, he doesn't broach the issue. --ExplorerCDT 20:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In regard to your response to my response...

Now put that in the trivia column, rephrase it down to a sentence, maybe two, because that is rather unique. Never knew that. --ExplorerCDT 21:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Replied on your talk page. Ellsworth

Christos Sartzetakis

As requested by you, I have translated this article from Dutch into English. Furthermore I added some content. As I am not a native English speaker, the article may need some copyediting. Please take a look at it. JoJan 21:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

United States Trustee

My understanding (more a vague recollection from a seminar 3 years ago) of why there are no USTs in those areas is because the UST program began as an experiment, and those areas were opted-out of the experiment. As to why they were never brought into the program I couldn't say. Nice edits on the article BTW. Are you involved in a bankruptcy practice? Flawiki 19:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very minimally. I do some creditor representation, but only as "favors" for current clients. Ellsworth 19:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Queen Anne

Hello. The Bill of Rights provided that the line of succession would be William and Mary's descendants, then Anne, then Anne's descendants, and finally William's descendants by any future marriage. After Mary's death without children, Anne became the heir-apparent; her claim could not have been defeated even if William remarried and had children. Any other children of James II were irrelevant, as they were not included in the Bill of Rights. -- Emsworth 01:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Günter Wallraff

Hi, as per your request at Wikipedia:Translation into English, I've translated the German language article on Wallraff and combined it with material from the existing English version. The German article, IMO, spends too much time relatively on the legal ramifications of Wallraff's investigations and on unsubstantiated allegations of Stasi collaboration and not enough time on the reportage itself. However, I've 'ported' it over on an 'as is' basis. Valiantis 18:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi, it seems that you've been around Wikipedia for a while and understand pretty well how things work. Are you interested in being an administrator? There would be no obligation for you to do anything in that capacity, but you'd have some additional functions available that might be useful, such as in dealing with any vandalism you occasionally run across. I would be happy to nominate you if you're willing, please let me know. --Michael Snow 16:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Ellsworth 22:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've posted your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you could go there to indicate whether you accept, that would be great. There are also some stock questions people like to see answered, for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with you. --Michael Snow 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Ellsworth 23:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

expos/nationals debate

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Montr%E9al_Expos). Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jurisdiction

Good catch on the jurisdiction articles - I take it you're a lawyer too. :-) -- BDAbramson ^talk</font> 05:44, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not real knowledgeable about this, but I had a really good Civil Procedure I professor. Ellsworth 18:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Another good catch - I'm beginning to think you are the prof! ;-) -- BDAbramson ^<b>talk 23:49, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Barrister

I saw your change to the Barrister article. While I'm not an attorney-at-law (I am qualified as a canon lawyer), I have a very good friend who was recently admitted to the (U.S.) Supreme Court bar, and as I understood it, admission to the Supreme Court bar as well as the bars of the various Courts of Appeals is more involved than a "matter of course."
It was my understanding (U.S. Supreme Court Rule 2 (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf)) that there were restrictions on candidates, that one has to have practiced law for a certain period of time, to be eligible to practice in the highest court of the candidate's state, and must be nominated by two members of the Court's bar. I also understood this to be the case with the various Circuit Courts of Appeals.
If this is still the case, is there a better way we could word the article text to reflect that while most attorneys can be admitted to practice in the BK and District courts, that there is a more selective process for admissions to the COA and SC bar? Essjay 13:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Ellsworth 14:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! All I was trying to convey originally (the "each has it's own admissions" line was mine) was that each Court is in charge of it's own bar admissions, and that there is a separate process. Since I try to stay out of articles that don't involve my expertise (theology), I'll leave the details of the semantics to the lawyers. Good work! Essjay 21:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Good Job

One Plenary Indulgence

You were so nice about the barrister-issue, even though I was a bit of a jerk (end of the semester and all; I need a sabbatical). Anyhow, for being nice in the face of the Inquisition, I hereby award you one plenary indulgence. Peace be with you! Essjay 01:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Et cum spiritu tuo. Ellsworth 15:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board

I have now reopened the notice board, if you are interested in contributing new topics, or in nominating articles for the Collaboration of the Week, which also received a revamp. Please post on the project's talk page if you show interest. Mike H 02:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Ellsworth"