Jump to content

Talk:Byllis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV vandalism by IP

I changed the article back to the correct, sourced version, following some inane POV-vandalism by an IP editor who called it an "ancient Albanian" city. Comical value aside, there is really nothing else to discuss here (I can only hope not to be faced with the by now usual barrage of tedious WP:LAWYER nitpicking about sources that has become routine in these articles). Athenean (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

clearly...though byllis is one of those cities in the borderlands so it was probably not a 'greek polis' initially either...but both byllis and the illyrian 'bylliones' seem to have had ties with greece at least later87.202.22.134 (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

megistias as usual botched his citations..jesus87.202.22.134 (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive misuse of sources

It seems that sources have been massively misused so I'll start checking them one by one. Also I'm removing the disruptive edit of Athenean who added the wikiproject Greece.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about an ancient Greek polis. So, I'm restoring WikiProject Greece. Off course wpsq can stay too since it's in the modern Albanian state.15:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be okay assuming it is an ancient Greek polis, but after checking sources including those not included in the article it seems that this is an Illyrian settlement influenced to a degree by Hellenistic culture and not an ancient Greek polis.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

'It seems that sources have been massively misused so I'll start checking them one by one. Also I'm removing the disruptive edit of Athenean who added the wikiproject Greece' not at all disruptive and the 'misuse' while there isnt exactly as 'massive' as youre implying...there are opinions that consider byllis a greek foundation from the beginning BTW..87.202.36.138 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are right (Ilyrian settlement later hellenized) still WikiProject Greece can be added here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And why can it be added Alexikoua? Because some Greeks lived in this city 2000 years ago? Why is that more important than the fact that Albanians lived in Paramythia and Margariti only 70 years ago? By the same token we should add the Albanian task force in all the inhabited areas of Chameria. Would you be ok with that? --Sulmues Let's talk 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an ancient settlement. About present settlements I believe the policy is different. I suggest you open a case in WikiProject Greece or ani, or ask some administrator that is familiar with this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the Tag as we already have WikiProject ancient Greece and Rome tag. Greece country is completely out of place and Greece country Wikiproject tag has nothing to do with the old city.--Sulmues Let's talk 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The 71. IP is Deucalionite who seems to be supporting and helping some users. I don't know how he found out about the article, unless someone contacted him offline and asked for his help.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm never sure how many vandalisms one page should have to be able to ask for semi-protection. --Sulmues Let's talk 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

lots of good will from everyone i see...87.202.23.67 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Misuse 2

It seems that Athenean was trying to add a tag based on a source that doesn't confirm it.[1]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean please don't confuse the term Greek and Hellenistic.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It just gets and worse and worse. [2] Duh! Athenean (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess that if you actually bothered to check what Hammond wrote instead of providing a link of the interpretation of Hammond, you would read that Hammond is recounting ancient Greek myths regarding Byllis [3]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why such a childish move? [[4]] According to Wilkes this wasn't in what we call 'Ilyria'.Alexikoua (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hammond is also quite clearly saying that ancient Greek colonies had Greek foundation myths. He then mentions that Byllis had such a foundation myth. Therefore Byllis is a Greek colony. Get it? Athenean (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Some additional info by Hammond [[5]]. Seems Sakelariou was 100% right...Alexikoua (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hammond states it was a polis not that it was founded by Greek colonists. The polis of the Hellenistic period isn't a colony founded by Greek colonists, but a town with polis-like structure. According to Wilkes it was an Illyrian town in Illyria [6] --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Sources verifying the town was located in Illyria:[7][8]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) ]

Actually Wilkes says nothing about what you claim, [[9]]. I've restored the fague geographical term 'Illyria', although as per Wilkes, it was on the borders of Illyria and Epirus.

Wilkes seems to state that the commonwealth of Bylliones was Illyrian so I'll change that. Btw I added a cn tag about the inscriptions and removed Sakellariou because Wilkes the most reliable source states the exact opposite regarding the commonwealth of Bylliones.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical removal of WP:GR tag

The WP:GR tag merely denotes that an article falls within the scope of the wikiproject. Since Byllis is an ancient Greek city, it easily meets this criterion. *Any* Greek topic, whether it is a city founded by Greeks, inhabited by Greeks, formerly inhabited by Greeks, whatever, fall within the scope of WP:GR. Nor is WP:GR mutually exclusive with WP:Greece and Rome: The two wikiprojects will necessarily overlap on ancient Greek topics, it's only exclusively Roman topics that fall outside of WP:GR and post-antiquity topics that fall outside of WP:Greece and Rome. I can't understand why some people are incredibly bothered by the WP:GR tag. I don't see Spanish users removing WP:GR from Empuries, Italian users removing WP:GR from Syracuse, or even Turkish users removing WP:GR from Trabzon. This nationalist hysteria is detrimental to wikipedia and needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean I left the ancient Greek theory only because I couldn't find enough sources online to remove it(until a couple of hours ago). Hammond doesn't state that it was a Greek polis but a polis(of the Hellenistic era).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all, how can you look for sources to remove something? That makes absolutely no sense. Second, Polis=Greek Polis. It's a Greek word, no? Hammond doesn't state explicitly that it's a Greek polis because that is A) redundant, and B) everybody who knows anything about ancient history knows that a polis means an ancient Greek polis. Hammond never imagined that his readers would be Albanian nationalists trying to deny every trace of ancient Greek history in their country. Why is it that French, Italian, and Spanish people (and even some Turks) are proud that some of their cities are originally ancient Greek, and why is it that some Albanian users are hysterically ashamed of it? I don't get it. It's un-European and uneducated. This fear of ancient history would be funny if it weren't so sad and disruptive. Athenean (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Athenean this is a polis of the Hellenistic era. A polis of the Hellenistic era was in most cases a non-Greek polis, because the era of colonizations had ended and new colonies established were mainly Macedonian in Asia and northern Africa.

Trapezus was founded in 756 BC during the first era of colonizations . Byllis already existed but was developed during the 4th and 3rd century BC in a polis-like structure(agora, theater etc.).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A settlement existed. A settlement is not a city (polis). And that is already mentioned in the article, right in the second sentence. The polis of Byllis however, was Greek in culture, design, everything. The Bylliones were Hellenized early on. This is what is meant by "ancient Greek city", it refers to culture. Athenean (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Athenean many scholars would disagree with your deduction. For example Winnifrith describes Byllis as rather Illyrian than Epirote.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that Winnifrith uses "Epirote" to mean Greek, i.e. NOT Illyrian, don't you think? But anyway, Winnifrith is not an archeologist, and it is not clear whether he talks about the original settlement of Byllis, which we already mention in this article is Illyrian, or the polis of Byllis, which was definitely Hellenic in outlook. In any case, it is already mentioned in the article that the original settlement was Illyrian, so I don't know why you are repeating yourself ad nauseam. Athenean (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The massive walls Winnifrith describes as Illyrian were built during the 4th century BC i.e the era of the development of the town. According to your deduction they would have to be Hellenic but they're not. UN historians also describe it as an Illyrian town. Winnifrith is RS so please don't wp:lawyer with personal deductions and without sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Repeating myself: It is not clear if Winnifrith is talking about the settlement or the polis. The polis is not Illyrian, because un-Hellenized Illyrians did not build poleis. As for your UN historians, they are not "UN" they are Albanian (the same ones that claim Illyria stretched all the way to Crete), nor are they historians. The UN environmental program (UNEP) is completely irrelevant here. In your effort to frantically remove every trace of ancient Greek culture in Albania, you are beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Why does it bother you so incredibly very much that Byllis was a Greek polis? Why is is that French users are not at all bothered that Massalia was a Greek polis? I don't get it. Athenean (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Those walls were the fortifications of the town built during its development in the 4th BC, so Winnifrith is talking about the town. UN material is RS too and wp:lawyer doesn't justify your reaction to not use it. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies seems to consider it too an Illyrian town and they are also RS(btw Hammond was one of its members)[10]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Pffffft, it's UN, it's HAS to be reliable. No way we are going with a totally irrelevant source. Regarding your other source, it is Albanian and does everything it can to avoid mentioning the word "Greek" (for example, it avoids calling Apollonia Greek). Not surprising, and boring. Athenean (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Hammond asserts that Byllis was a Greek colony..." [11]. I really don't see how it could be any clearer than that. Athenean (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Athenean please don't recycle already refuted arguments that is very disruptive as I answered to that in

[[12]]. Copying:

Ancient Greek cities had ancient Greek foundation myths. Byllis has an ancient Greek foundation myth. Therefore Byllis is Greek. Simple, no? If Byllis weren't Greek, it wouldn't have an ancient Greek foundation myth. If Byllis were Illyrian, it would have an Illyrian foundation myth. It doesn't. Instead, it has a Greek foundation myth. My argument is not "refuted", you are just trying your hardest not to hear it. Talk about disruptive. And why is it that you have such a hard time indenting? Athenean (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)As a 4th source [14]

  • Quoting:Byllis is a typical example of the Illyrian civilisation of the Hellenistic period. Btw Hammond had used Mucaj many times as a reference in his works regarding Albania and the work apart from being written by many highly regarded scholars is published by a very distinguished organization in the field of archaeology. Athenean your deductions are sourceless or and avoiding to refute sources by repeating your personal deductions is disruptive.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Argh. The article already says it was an Illyrian settlement. It seems your only interest is to remove any mention that Byllis was a Greek polis. No way. The only thing that is disruptive is your tiresome nationalism and WP:IDHT. Anything I say you just ignore and recycle the same arguments ad nauseam, scraping the bottom of the barrel each time with useless sources that you are incapable of interpreting. Discussing with you will obviously lead nowhere, as you are incapable/unwilling to listen to what I'm saying and simply cannot accept a compromise. We have an impeccable source (hammond) that says Byllis was a Greek polis, and it should stay that way. I'm done here. Athenean (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The recent versions after the latest edits by 87.* IP are satisfactory. Yes, "polis" implies Greek cultural traits, but it certainly doesn't imply exclusively Greek ethnic character, so just because one source calls it a polis doesn't mean we have to monopolize its description with Greek attributes. Duh. As for the tags, you all know my ceterum censeo: tabulas proiectorum esse delendas, all of them. I cannot express here what I think about people who edit war about project tags, on both sides of this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Errors of Stephanus

The page is semiprotected now so I guess the IP editor might not be able to explain this edit, but I'm directing my question to the confirmed editors: could you please reference this sentence? --Sulmues Let's talk 12:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the unprotection guys, future...i wrote 'erroneously' because stephanus (ethnica) calls it a 'parathalassia' ('seaside' - polis Illyridos parathalassia 'seaside city of Illyria') city but this is wrong since byllis has been identified with an inland area..87.202.54.152 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Deucalonite, that's your interpretation of Stephanus. Through Vjose 2000 years ago the city could be reached by sea, did you think of that? The boats were really small back then. Other cities such as Seville or Lisbon, or even London (or to consider more ancient cities, Ostia) were once considered maritime cities, because reachable through water easily. --Sulmues Let's talk 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

are you KIDDING man..?? the 'deucalionite' guy is the other ip that future perfect reverts i think thats who you have in mind do you think youve been talking to 'deucalionite' in all these articles..?? as for byllis its a site on a hill very far from the sea and not that close to the aoos either unless you have information that shows this to be wrong or that sailing was done from the adriatic along the aoos to byllis..in fact hatzopoulos agrees about stephanus being wrong about the 'seaside' part..im not married to it if you find it to be wrong according to other information go ahead87.202.53.82 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for addressing you as deucalonite, my mistake. Can you bring Hatzopoulos' reference so that we can source the erroneously word? --Sulmues Let's talk 13:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

'stephanus of byzantium mentions byllis as a "seaside" city of Illyria but excavations have brought it to light a distance of about 25km from the sea' translation from the greek87.202.53.82 (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)e

"Koinon" vs. "Commonwealth"

I am somewhat bothered by the excessive use of "commonwealth" instead of "koinon", e.g. here [15] in an article about a topic of classical antiquity. It seems a little anachronistic and odd. I propose that "koinon" be used throughout, with "commonwealth" appearing once in parentheses. After all, the Bylliones were Hellenized, not Anglicized, and this is a topic of antiquity, not the contemporary history. Athenean (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean this isn't a topic of the classical antiquity because classical antiquity ended in the 5th century BC, while this is a topic of the 4-3th century BC. For future reference please avoid using terms about which your knowledge is limited. The term koinon was used by a writer of the era that described their political status and as such it is just a literary reference. The term commonwealth is the actual term used by historians such as Wilkes, while the term koinon is mentioned briefly in the context I analyzed previously. Btw many historians no longer use the term commonwealth but the term league.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Incredibly inane. 5th, 4th, 3rd century BC, it's all antiquity. Wilkes uses both, and most other sources use koinon. Koinon and commonwealth aren't exactly the same thing either, so koinon is more "precise" (which you seem to be very fond of). Commonwealth is also highly anachronistic. Anyway, I'm more interested in what other people have to say. Athenean (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The term commonwealth is completely misleading here. Morevoer, Wilkes seems to comfuse the Koinon with the tribe of the Billyones.Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wilkes is rs unlike your personal deduction.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As are all of these [16]. Case closed unless I hear objections from intelligent, neutral users. Athenean (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Google books hits mentioning a phrase in a literary context along with the term commonwealth? Athenean the lack of arguments can't be substituted by google.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually the one who lacks arguments is you [17]. Even Wilkes uses "koinon". Like I said, case closed unless I hear something intelligent. I am not interested in desperate WP:LAWYERS. Athenean (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In the literary context I mentioned before unlike the term commonwealth which is the term used by historians.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What historians? Historians use "koinon" [18] for obvious reasons. I'm going to wait a day or so to see if anyone neutral has something to say, otherwise we go with "koinon". Athenean (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean: Why should you go with koinon if no intelligent neutral users give no hoot about koinon in the next days? The English speaker has no clue about that word. In addition how come commonwealth is more anachronistic than koinon? If koinon was used 2000 years ago, commonwealth doesn't seem to be older. The English user would of course prefer commonwealth. The only reason why koinon is used as an explanation of commonwealth by Wilkes is to show the word that the Greek authors used. That doesn't mean koinon is an English word. Besides, Byllis wasn't even a Greek city, it was an Illyrian city described by Greek authors, so an English author and user prefers commonwealth. --Sulmues Let's talk 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Silliness. Rabid silliness, on both sides. For the record: I don't care which word gets used. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

'Besides, Byllis wasn't even a Greek city, it was an Illyrian city described by Greek authors' why do you keep insisting even after i showed you what hammonds (among others) opinion is..?87.202.37.216 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does he say this?Alexikoua (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, mainstream translation for the term 'Koinon' is 'League' not Commonwealth.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are three translations:commonwealth, league, federation. Regarding the Bylliones most historians use the term commonwealth while some have proposed to use the term league.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, only Wilkes uses "commonwealth", everyone else uses "Koinon". Athenean (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Athenean in a literary context and as Sulmues told you whom would benefit to use the term koinon?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Repetition is boring. Athenean (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually apart from Wilkes non else translates this term as 'commonwealth', they prefer to translate it League.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Made a change to call it League. It's more neutral and far from the very anglosaxon word "commonwealth". Sulmues (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a -dubious- tag about the recent findings [[19]]. So far I coulnd't confirm the source with an academic reference.Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a 1-week-old discovery and the comments are directly from one of the most important archaeologists of Albania Bashkim Vrakaj.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Cclaiming the 'ethnicity' of a statue is really a dubious claim, escpecially when the city wasn't clearly Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua take it to RSN. Btw please don't add fringe theories about Pyrrhus, who conquered the town[20] i.e he isn't its founder.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
In general statues can't be of a specific nationality, especially if this town wasn't considered Illyrian. Also, please avoid wp:pov and unexplained edits like [[21]] with removal of reliable material (Pyrrhus probably founded this city, that's what it says).Alexikoua (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to ANI because your blind reverts of huge sourced parts are bordering vandalism. I'm at a complete loss Alexikoua, because you're reverting everything including the a source that just explains that it was only once attested as a polis.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid pov and or attempts to prove that the city was Illyrian. Off course reverting such extreme views is part of this project's policy (as well as removal of sources that mention the city's Greek character and also removing from lead everything contains the word Greek).Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua you are again saying that I deleted sources like on Athenagoras, however, the 2 sources removed were both deleted by you.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't explained the massive moves from lead of everything that points to the Greek character of the city. Also please avoid spreading falsified information about me on other users, it can be considered wp:gaming the system.Alexikoua (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You removed part of the article and now you're deliberately attributing edits to me like on Athenagoras.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Things seem to be diferrent: in accordance to this [[22]] you need to explain why you removed essential parts from lead (...Byllis as a Greek city), and on the other hand placing on 1st line 'Bylliones, the Illyrian tribe', while both the city and the tribe the time it was found in Byllis weren't clearly Illyrian, as an entire bibliography suggests.Alexikoua (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua you're IDHT the source I added i.e it is only once mentioned as a polis(and not a Greek one) in the 6th AD, but you deleted the source and the sentence(first source you deleted), then you deleted the source that said that it wasn't founded by Pyrrhus(second source you deleted). Btw that it was the capital of the Bylliones was already on the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid falsifying what's happening: the source I placed says it was probably found by Pyrrhus (without explanation moved from lead). Not only this you moved everything related about the city's Greek character from lead too, while also changing 'Greek' to 'Hellenic', contrary to the reference. I will appreciate if you become precise on your arguments (without launchin wp:npa violations), and avoid spreading misleading information to other users, both here and in irc.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The verdict is on the difs i.e you deleted 2 sources and I deleted none, so I'll wait someone who doesn't have a COI to join the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Please avoid falsifying edits of other users, since what you claim is already stated in the text (ie possibility the Pyrrhus didn't found the city). Also, do not remove everything that contains non-Illyrian descriptions from the lead, as you did without giving the slightest explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Alexikoua, unless you have a good reason for removing that it is only once mentioned as polis, you should revert it back.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Byllis. 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:

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) 03:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byllis. 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:

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) 00:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Byllis/Archive_1&oldid=1136584915"