Hello, Werchovsky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  sbandrews (t) 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Werchovsky/Archive 1

I recently reviewed the article Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria for possible GA status and placed the article on hold. I know you were not the nominator, but the nominator is not a regular contributor to the page, so I would appreciate your input (but you certainly have no obligation to respond). My (substantial) comments are here. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version you pointed out is probably a bit closer to GA class, but still has substantial problems that would preclude it passing GAN. Some of my concerns with the version I reviewed should also apply to this version; I encourage you to see what you can do to fix up the article and then possibly renominate. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a general point for this type of article, in addition to the usual quotes, stats, etc, any controversial statements or statements that historians disagree about, should be footnoted. Also, to maintain neutrality it's important to avoid terms of opinion or, in most cases, emotion. You should also avoid indirect editorializing wherever possible. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is for that sort of statement, as long as it's cited to a reliable source (and your wording doesn't imply something other than what the source says), then it's fine to use those sorts of words where they are supported by context and fact. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to change it round. the way it was before didn't make sense as there was no explanation of how things were connected and it jumped around timewise, to simplify:

"In June 1910 Žerajić attempted to kill Verešanin. Žerajić was a Serb from Herzegovina. 12 days before the attempt on Verešanin, Žerajić had made an attempt on Joseph. Verešanin went on to crush the last Bosnian peasant uprising in the second half of 1910. The bullets Žerajić fired at Verešanin made Žerajić an inspiration to future Serbian assassins..."

It starts of saying Zerajic attempted to kill V, then goes back in time to say he had attempted to kill Franz Joseph, then goes forward in time to say V crushed an uprising the second half of 1910, then goes back in time again to June 2010 to talk about the bullets fired at V.

some of the sentences don't really connect, it's just a sequence of sentences which are standalone facts. Tom B (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Removed vague, outside-the-scope, misplaced, unencyclopedic, uncited edit": i reinsert the passage in the "Protests and compensations" section (so it is no longer "misplaced", "vague" and "outside-the-scope") and i quote my sources (so it is no more "uncited" and "unencyclopedic"). --AndreaFox2 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not sure why you are citing the original Italian...": it's because i'm Italian. What i have written isn't really disputed in Italy and it is widely acknoledge that our politicians at the time were enraged because Austria violated an agreement made in 1887 and confirmed in 1891 and 1912 (i exactly wrote those three dates in the article) and that this fact contributes to the decline of our political relationship with Austria, a fact which eventually lead to Italy joining UK and France. I have never heard about this whole university issue and i'm quite informed about world war I's history. I cited Albertini, but i could have cited other works. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the original treaties: go check them instead of accusing me of being "ignorant of the Italian University" issue and of poorly editing. Go check them and see what Italy and Austria had agreed upon. Or do you really believe that the Italian University issue was really the problem back then? I do not care if you think that "territorial transfer from Austria to Italy were not at all realistic expectations during this crisis", as long has the two states had agreed upon this in that same treaties. "Austria-Hungary was not occupying new lands, rather, it was giving up one piece of land and annexing another that it already occupied under a long standing mandate": Austria was occupying a territory which legally (altough nominally) belonged to another empire, thus by annexing it Austria legally occupyed a new land ("On February 20, Austria-Hungary settled the matter and received Ottoman acquiescence to the annexation in return for ₤2.2 million"). --AndreaFox2 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize I didn't understand some of your English. It's because of this that I delete the "a bit too rude" comment: by giving it a second thought, I realised that I may not have understand you clearly. I cited other sources: they're in Italian, but maybe you can find some translations for them on the web. If I have made grammar errors, maybe it's better you correct them, as I don't realise I made it, even if you told me so. Thanks. See you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding this comment ("But the object of my edit will not be to justify Italy attacking Austria-Hungary in 1915") I hope you didn't think I could have been political biased about the article. I didn't feel the need to "justify Italy", nor I think anyone would need to justify a war happened so long ago against a state (Austria-Hungary) that doesn't exist anymore. War is simply war: you can try to justify it, but it is never a right choice. What i wrote is simply what i studied at school and what i read on hystorical books. Maybe i wrote it in bad grammar, but i assure you what i wrote is 100 % true. Hope you can find English translations of the books I cited, so you will have a simplier confirmation. See you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria for things which need to be addressed.

• Please ignore the comment about seven days: that is added by the template that I'm using. If it is fixed by late Monday / early Tuesday I will pass it. If it is not fixed by then I will review it on 28th or 29th October and make a decision then. Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (estimated annual readership: 358,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria to Good Article status.

I see you're not very active any more, but I still wanted to express my thanks for all you've done for so many readers. If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]