Talk:Konstantinos Tzechanis

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Albania Mid‑importance

	Konstantinos Tzechanis is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Logic / Modern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Logic
	Modern philosophy

Untitled

Seems we had a typical collection partisan material: magazines far to be considered of academic value, while at the same time all the academic bibliography is ignored (mainly Peyfuss). I don't agree that he was of a specific ethnicity (he was most probably Arumanian as most of the Moschopolites). But a specific source [[1]], claims that he was part of the Greek patriotic movement.

I also see that Peyfuss doesn't adopt his Albanian ethinicity, he just mention that a specific Albanian linguist (of the socialist period) believes that he is Albanian [[2]].

Per google hits:

[[3]]Tzechanis: 6
[[4]] Tzechanes: 2
[[5]] Tzehanis: 2 (sum 10) and
[[6]] Xhehani: 1

I moved the name to Constantine Tzechanis, since english bibliography gives only 1 hit to Xhehani, but if we take a look [[7]] (Peyfuss) just mentions the title of an Albanian work: so we have virtually 0 hits on Xhehani.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in your source that he was Greek or the other one about any involvement in some Greek patriotic movement? The first one is just a long list of names without any context or even prose. Btw if you want to move the article start a move request and as always you're using the Balkan Studies group as a source. While searching about the Tzechanis google hits I found this The Romanians were not the only Balkan people to feel Greek influences. There were of course Albanians who wrote in Greek. Konstantinos Hadj i-GeorgiouTzechanis so I don't think you'll mind changing the ethnicity since you don't have any sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he was Greek, just want to make a compromise between you and CrazyMartini. Quite obvious this: [[8]] says that Greeks wrote poems about a new Greece and he mentions the 'patriot' Konstantinos Tzechanis. Also I can see (obviously) this list is a list of Greek scholar [[9]], that's what exactly what the work says. We have also this: [[10]] (by Emanuel Turczynski) Tzechanis is again mentioned as one of the 'Greek' scholars.

What's really unexplainable is that you changed his ethnicity to the previous one according to this [[11]], that's weird since you fought against the reliability of Clogg in talk:Epirus (region)). I've noticed that he also claims that Kavalliotis is Albanian, something that's completely unexplainable (Peyfuss doesn't adopt this, probably Albanian has a geographical meaning here).

Well, most probably he was Arumanian, and please participate in the discussion. I've upgraded and doubled the article, which initially was in a really bad condition.

I agree with the present title: although not based on bibliography this form is much better than the non-existent K. Xhehani.Alexikoua (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kavallioti being Albanian is another theory just like the others. Btw please don't make OR deductions about the use of the word Albanian and can you please give a full quote about the poem about Catherine being a patriotic work that aimed at the national awakening of the Greek people that lived under Ottoman rule because that's not supported by the snippet.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are not or deduction but we have 3 rs that say that he was Greek. On the other hand Clogg (you rejected him in Epirus (region)) says that he was Albanian, so believe we should adopt a middle version.Alexikoua (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:Keep Konstantinos Tzechanis Sulmues ^(talk) 20:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Tzechani → Kostë Xhehani — This recent controversial move was initiated by Alexikoua today [12], saying that there are no hits in English bibliography when the English bibliography is not the only reason why a move should occur. There are plenty of sources with the name Kostë Xhehani. A move request is needed for controversial moves. Sulmues ^(talk) 13:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulmues: I'm sorry but that's called wp:npa vio. Also you need to give arguments about a move that meets '0' hits in mainstream bibliography (German bibliography is also using Tzechanis).Alexikoua (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of the subject, but Alexi had every right to move it if the bibliography supports it, per WP:BOLD. Relevant sources are required as an argument, not lawyering. BTW, this hybrid "Tzechani" form that is now used is weird. If the bibliography uses his Greek name, then it should be "Tzechanis". Constantine ✍ 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold or not, I don't see any books in English with the Greek name, so Alexikoua's move is very controversial, especially given the history that the Greek side has with the Albanian side on the Aromanians. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to avoid oring and this X side versus Y side conspiracy theories. If you don't provide a single argument (apart from wp:npa vios against me in the edit summaries [[13]]), I fear this has to stop.Alexikoua (talk)

Alexi, show me the sources in English, I'm still waiting: You made the move, you justify it. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Constantine Tzechani" has 0 hits in google books --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was Zjtoues move, my move was to Konstantinos Tzechanis. I'm moving it now, per Cplakidas suggestion.Alexikoua (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) @ Sulmues: Quite right, the form should be "Konstantinos Tzechanis", per the other modern Greek names. Alexi has already given the link: [14]. Constantine ✍ 15:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I see says that he was an Albanian. There were of course Albanians who wrote in Greek. Konstantinos Hadj i-Georgiou Tzechanis of ...--Sulmues ^(talk) 15:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been given in the section above. Please take a look (Tzechanis 6, Tzechanes 2, Tzehanis 2, (sum 10) but Xhehani 1 -virtually 0)[[15]].Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where is it stated that this "Albanian" is in an ethnic and not geographical sense? We've been through this before, like it or not, people who at that time received a Greek education were hellenized. They used Greek, wrote in Greek, and used the Greek forms of their names, as do most of the scholars who refer to them. It is not really different to other people, whatever their original ethnicity, who assimilated into a specific culture, e.g. Marie Jana Korbelová. Constantine ✍ 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see Konstantinos Tzechanis has 0 hits in English. Constantine, we are still not discussing nationality, only article title here. Please open another thread for that. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues, are you kidding me? Who wrote "The only source I see says that he was an Albanian" in this discussion? As for sources, even the link you yourself quoted in English says "There were of course Albanians who wrote in Greek. Konstantinos Hadj i-Georgiou Tzechanis". Seriously, WTF? I smell serious bad faith and POV-pushing here. Constantine ✍ 15:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want Alexi to use that only source in English which says that Xhehani was an Albanian to favor the move of the article to a Greek name, to then dispute to death that he was a Greek using other sources. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that is precisely why I introduced the argument above. Whether he was "Albanian" in an ethnic or geographic sense alone is not clear, what is clear is that he was culturally hellenized. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of bibliography favours Tzechanis (and similar forms) [[16]] (ratio 10 to 0) as stated above.Alexikoua (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please use the English Google? I really don't understand Greek. In English there are 0 hits in English--Sulmues ^(talk) 16:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong: [17] Constantine ✍ 16:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the name without quotes, which is fine. Again the only source in English besides the one that says that he was an Albanian, is simply a list of writers by Manolis Patiniotis, a Greek from the Athens University, who just gives a list. This is not sufficient reason for a move. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be moved at all while under discussion. I had a look myself and there doesn't appear to be a strong argument for any of the names under WP:COMMONNAME, at least in English.

Konstantinos Tzechanis gets 4 google book hits [18] (none of which are English) and 0 google scholar[19].
Constantinus Tzechani gets 3 google book hits [20]] (none in English) and 0 google scholar[21].
Constantine Tzechani 4 google book hits (1 English)[22] and 0 google scholar [23].
Kostë Xhehani 6 google book hits (none in English) [24] or 8 google hits (none in English) as Koste Haxhijorgji Xhehani OR Kostë Xhehani[25] and 0 google scholar hits [26].

Given this information, I'm not particular to one name over another but I will say the move to Konstantinos Tzechanis, while the article is under a requested move disccusion (and there being no consensus), was not an appropriate move.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment on Alexi's move, but disagree with including the Albanian-language books, else we ought to count Greek-language publications too [27]. Constantine ✍ 16:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results include all sources written in romanized text, as per convention. Including greek spelling wouldn't change the results anyway. A search for Κωνσταντίνος Τζεχάνης produced 0 google book hits[28] and 0 google scholar hits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Labattblueboy: Τhere is this: [[29]] (ca. 10) Greek word searching is problematic in googlebooks (dependes on which excect form you search, polytonic etc.)Alexikoua (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine, let's face it. There is only one English speaking publication about Koste Xhehani: Clogg, who says that Xhehani was an Albanian who wrote in Greek. If we use that only source then we have to use his Albanian name as a title and this move is not justified. In addition we have to say that he was an Albanian as per source. That Xhehani was an Albanian who wrote in Greek is also backed up by Shuteriqi, Lloshi, Qafezezi and a plethora of other Albanians. The Greek scholars perhaps speak about him being a Greek. We have a content dispute that will start with a name. If we take the English speaking sources, we'll have to go with Koste Xhehani.--Sulmues ^(talk) 16:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Using Clogg for naming him an Albanian with no qualifications, while not using Clogg for his name. Yes, no double standards at all. Sulmues, the guy is known for his philological work, and that was done and published in Greek: [30]. Hence he is known through the Greek form of his name, just like many writers who wrote in a language other than their native one. Whether modern Albanian historiography chooses to use the Albanian form of his name is a different question (from the books in this link, five out of six are either in Albanian or published in Albania). If Albanian were not written with the Latin alphabet, we would not even be having this discussion. Constantine ✍ 16:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. Elsie mentions him as an Albanian who wrote in Greek, as well as Lloshi. For an entire century we have Albanians who wrote in Greek. That doesn't mean that we have sufficient sources to have an article name in Greek now. I personally think he was an Aromanian, and if that nation were stronger now, they would not let us fight their people, but who am I to disagree with the sources? --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: I suggest that we bring him back under Kostë Xhehani and say nothing about his nationality. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the second one, but not on the first. I made my argument quite clear: writers/artists etc are known under the name they use in their work. Plus, since most of the Albanian-form books come (understandably) from Albanian sources, the only form with somewhat close to "international" usage (given the limited bibliography) is the current one. Constantine ✍ 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we ought to use Clogg till the end and say that he was an Albanian who wrote in Greek language. We either use Clogg all the way or we don't. --Sulmues ^(talk) 16:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people of Moschopolis can't be treated easy in terms of ethnicity, so I suggest to mention that he was from Moscopole a '18th century cultural metropolis of the Arumanians' in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say Costa? Here comes Alexi who wants to use Clogg's name (English bibliography), but doesn't want to report what Clogg is saying. --Sulmues ^(talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should leave ethnicity out of it and just mention that he was from Moscopole. Athenean (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we are going to go to Kostë Xhehani. The only reason why we are having him under the Greek name is because the only English speaking source, Clogg is mentioning him with the Greek name. If we go with Clogg, then we better believe him and say what Clogg says: XhEHANI WAS AN ALBANIAN WHO WROTE IN GREEK. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What did I say Costa? Here comes Alexi who wants to use Clogg's name (English bibliography), but doesn't want to report what Clogg is saying" And you want the exact opposite, which is equally a case of double standards and selective sourcing... "The only reason why we are having him under the Greek name is because the only English speaking source, Clogg is mentioning him with the Greek name." No, we are going with the Greek name because that is how he is named in international bibliography (there is not enough evidence at hand to establish a definite name only for English usage) and because as a writer and scholar, he himself used that one. Since we (including you, Sulmues) know and acknowledge that as a Moschopolitan, he was most likely a Vlach, Clogg's "Albanian" is probably meant geographically. Either way, it is too vague, and barring Clogg himself intervening here, it is nor good practice to speculate what he meant. Let's leave just his origin from Moscopole there, and if anyone is interested, they'll check out that article to find out about the ethnic mix-up of the region.Constantine ✍ 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well all three of you (Constantine, Alexikoua, and Athenean) are using double standards now: You want Clogg because he is saying the Greek name so that you have the article in the Greek title, but you don't want to say what Clogg says (that XHEHANI WAS AN ALBANIAN). If we take what the source says we ought to report it correctly, period. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that including (the purported) ethnicity in the lead is against the spirit of MOSBIO. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it against MOSBIO? Are you willing to make all the Greeks born under Ottoman rule Ottoman citizens? --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Sulmues, I want to use the current name for the reasons I wrote out quite clearly, and I am not relying on Clogg alone. Read what I write before assuming anything about my motives please.Constantine ✍ 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the only reason why you should use the current name is Clogg. If you have any other reasons, let me know. Since Clogg is the ONLY English speaking source, you have to use it all the way. Otherwise it should be Kostë Xhehani, for which we have more sources as Labattblueboy pointed out. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Sulmues it isn't. My arguments are pertinent, the fact that there is "only" one English source is not decisive evidence: if the name is not used in its Albanian form by anyone except the Albanians, but the Greek form is used by Germans and Romanians, then the latter takes precedence by common usage. And "it should be Kostë Xhehani, for which we have more sources" is plain wrong, and I pointed out why... Constantine ✍ 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have French literature on Kostë Xhehani and German Literature under Koste Xhehani for that matter. Thank you! --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even check these links? The first group quote a single book, Koste Haxhijorgji Xhehani nga Voskopoja, in Albanian, about him. They do not use the name for the person himself (Peyfuss for instance uses the Greek form quite clearly [31]). And the five out of six from second were written in Albanian or in Albania, as I pointed out earlier. Constantine ✍ 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Clogg, it is not clear whether he means geographically or ethnically. I also see you have now added an infobox, which, since it is completely useless for an article such as this, I'm guessing is solely used to drive the point that he was Albanian, Albanian, Albanian, and by the way, Albanian. Athenean (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much more clear Clogg can say that Xhehani was Albanian. The infobox person is needed to bring the article to a higher status. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the heck does he not call him Xhenani? Perhaps because the Greek form is more recognizable to any scholar who has studied the era? Constantine ✍ 18:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. My guess is yes. And I am not disagreeing to using this name. I just think that you guys can't have it both ways: use Clogg to show that English speaking sources use the Greek name and then say that probably Clogg didn't have a clue. Either we use Clogg fully or we don't use him. Clogg is the only reason why we have the article under the current name. If Clogg goes, Tszehanis goes, and Xhehani comes back. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wonder what happened to "Constantine, we are still not discussing nationality, only article title here". If we all agree that the Greek form is the more recognizable, then that stays. It's really simple. The ethnicity issue can be dealt with separately. Constantine ✍ 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I took your suggestion to say that the writers have to be called by the name they signed their books. I don't know where you found that wiki policy, but I assumed good faith. I suggested a compromise that was not taken up by any of you, although it seems reasonable to me. If you want to have no compromise, then we have no compromise and I insist that the article be moved back to Kostë Xhehani because this move is controversial and has no consensus. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues: I've asked you to avoid wp:npa violations and trolling. What's really weird is that you fought against the use of Clogg in Epirus (region) (for the typical nationalistic reasons). In general Clogg is a tertiary source (not to mention that the term Albanian has here geographical meaning as Cplakidas explained), on the other hand we have 4 secondaries that mention that he is a Greek scholar. So please calm down and at least avoid this pattern. Ethnicity in 18th century Moscopole was not as simple as we believe.Alexikoua (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are the one using Clogg as a means to obtain a move of the article's name, you have to justify it. He is the only English speaking source we've got. It seems like you don't know what a tertiary source is. This book is a secondary source and I would really appreciate if you tell me what makes you think that it is a tertiary source since you removed Clogg from the article. And since you are saying that ethnicity was so complex in the 18th century, why didn't you do a move request to get some more consensus before you moved the article's name? Btw at Talk:Epirus_(region) I was discussing Mikropoulos, I didn't dispute Clogg and I still have no clue why Athenean brought Clogg up in that context. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you still aren't understanding, Sulmues, is that Clogg is not the only thing that should determine the article title. Read the reasons Cplakidas explained to you on this page one more time. Athenean (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them and I have answered them all. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But haven't understood them, as your line of argumentation clearly shows. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that? --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid wp:ninja edits: you are the only editor that adopts an extreme one sided approach. For future reference: the people born in 18th century Moschopole were not of clear ethnicity, as all secondary sources explain.Alexikoua (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was the only one to offer a compromise: Greek name of the article and mention that he was an Albanian. The only English source that you use to move it to the Greek name clearly says that Koste Xhehani was an Albanian. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope situation is settled now. I'll add the references about every ethnicity.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I added the Albanian one. Hope you don't remove Clogg again. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I, the ethnic background is presented per consensus by all parts (it's contested).Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revistaklan.com

Removed this [32], as revistaklan.com certainly does not look like a reliable source. Athenean (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an article on Ilo Qafezezi's work, which I cannot find inline, since I've been reverted twice, I won't insist much there. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article of Albert Kotini Sulmues, so you can add it back and if someone has rs then they should take them to RSN.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't want to insist with a source that doesn't meet RS status if someone reverts me. If I can't find Qafzezi that's my fault, not Athenean's. --Sulmues ^(talk) 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doublication

Is it possible for someone to explain why this part is needed in the main text: He is known as Kostë Haxhijorgji Xhehani in Albanian[2] or Konstantinos Hadji Georgiou Tzechanis in Greek. We have the alternative names in the lead, that way we are just recycling the same information (I was reverted with a wrong edit summary [[33]] when I removed this virtually useless part).Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That revert brought back information that you had taken away arbitrarily by reverting me. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English names please

Can we give English names to all of his publications that are given merely in Greek? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.Alexikoua (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since we have a lot of works written both in Greek and Latin, it would be nice to also have the latin version. In general it should be English, Greek, and Latin. If you have time of course. --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konstantinos Tzechanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930025354/http://195.134.75.14/hellinomnimon/authors/New%20Bios/Tzexanis.html to http://195.134.75.14/hellinomnimon/authors/New%20Bios/Tzexanis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]