Talk:Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Out of context statement[edit]

"his mother's reliance on the starets Grigori Rasputin to treat the disease helped bring about the end of the Romanov dynasty."

This seems a rather bold and out-of-context statement for an introduction. I suggest that it is clarified extensively and backed up by adequate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCorp (talkcontribs) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Burial place[edit]

Alexis (and his sister Maria) are the only members of the family that where not buried in the 1998 funerals. The government and the Romanov family recognize that.

The Wiki article on Nicholas II states that the daughter's remains recovered with Alexei are those of Grand Duchess Tatiana, not Maria, but that information has not yet been transferred to this page. Thoughts? Sdsures (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I seem to remember reading that a later analysis of the remains found revealed them to not be Alexei's. Can somebody please check that?--Stephen C Wells (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


This is quite an exercise in speculative history. RodC 23:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of the valuable research I have done into the Imperial house of Romanov, it seems fitting that I should add a possible hitch in the history of the Imperial family. As I'm sure you are all aware, the Tsar renounced his throne for himself in one document and for his son in another. However, as the Tsar had already abdicated in the first document, prior to the second document, it brings me to the conclusion that the Tsar's right to relinquish his son's claim was totally and utterly illegal. Having abdicated formally himself, it meant that the Tsar was now the former Tsar and that his son was now the Tsar. Bringing the situation closer to home I will use the example of the Queen. If the Queen abdicates tomorrow, her son Prince Charles will succeeded automatically and should the Queen wish to relinquish his right in the near future, she would not be able to and any attempt to do it will be ignored as she would then have nothing to do with the affairs of state. The same is indeed true in the case of Alexei. Unofficially, Alexei was the Tsar and Autocrat of all the Russia's and more arguably the Tsarevich was Tsar until his death in 1918. Therefore, Michael II was never legally Tsar in the slightest sense of the word. Huw 23:06, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

According to one of Russia's laws of succession, I don't think Nicholas had the right to abdicate in favor of Alexei in the first place. Nicholas could not abdicate on behalf of his son at rate, regardless of whether there are two documents. However, on one hand, it was probably better for Nicholas to have abdicated for Alexei, there's no telling what might have happened to the boy, as his parents would have been forced to leave him behind if/when they went into exile. Morhange 01:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Move to Tsesarevitch Alexei?[edit]

I'm not sure--the title Tsarevitch had gone out of use in the 1700s, and Alexei would have been known as Naslednik Tsesarevitch Alexei, or, The Heir Tsesarevitch, but not Tsarevitch. Google defines Tsesarevich as: "literally, "son of the tsesar") is the term for a male heir apparent, the full title was Heir Tsesarevich ("Naslednik Tsesarevich"), informally abbreviated in Russia to The Heir, 'Naslednik'"

So should this be moved, or stay here? Morhange 21:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Article shouldn't be moved, but the title of Alexey must be corrected. Tsesarevich (not tsarevich!) was his official title after all. (ouital77 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
Tsarevich is the most widely used title in English and is the correct spelling for this article. Just as his sisters' articles refer to them as "grand duchesses" instead of the more accurate translation "grand princess," Alexei's title must remain "Tsarevich" in his article. I have reverted your changes. --Bookworm857158367 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is just a wrong title. He was never styled like this in his lifetime (officially). Do whatever you want, but for the sake to precision and accuracy, you should indicate the basic difference between the two titles - "tsarevich" is an unofficial title for any male offspring of an emperor/tsar, while the "tsesarevich" is an official title for the Heir Apparent. So, if N. II would have had any other male children, every one of them would have been called (popularly, not officially) "tsarevich", while only Alexey, as the first-born son, could have been styled as "Tsesarevich". A few letters, but a world of difference. (ouital77 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
This is an English-language article; the only usage I've ever seen in English-language articles is "Tsarevich" or "Czarevich." If the longer, more precise Russian title is included, it should be in the body of the article, not the title, with most references continuing to be to "Tsarevich." It must remain as it is. --Bookworm857158367 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Tsesarevich is all too complex word, and unfamiliar, should be avoided. If other alternatives fail, Alexei should then be Alexei of Russia or Alexei Nicolaievich of Russia. Arrigo 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Stay here. Tsesarevich is not widely used, too complex and utterly unfamiliar, as Arrigo points out also. It is not a feasible option. FearÉIREANNCoat of arms of Ireland.svg\(caint) 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

can somone please add a explaination of why he was not canonized Zapacna 10:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

He was canonized. He, his parents and his sisters were all canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church as Passion-Bearers. Ikons of the family show the entire family as saints. I'm going to remove that sentence. Morhange 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And did not understand: why not Tsesarevich? This is a title that should not have transferred, in any language. English title, tituty, titles are usually not translated into Russian. So why then should it be otherwise? And here at all "difficult" words? The man was given the title, regardless of whether it is a difficult word or not. Especially the title "Tsarevich" at the time simply did not exist. And the difference between the "Tsetsarevich" and "Tsarevich," - big. It is not even translated into English. You either look for a similar word in the English language, or to correct Tsesarvicha. It does not matter that many are accustomed to "tsarevich". This Wikipedia and here in the first place is important credibility. Sorry for the terrible English :) Google Translator ...

Czarevich or Tsarevich are the commonly used titles in English. The article title must stay Tsarevich, according to Wikipedia convention. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand the popular use of tsarevich but it is still inaccurate. The best compromise is to put a footnote explaining the actual title, which I went ahead and added.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I see no trouble with using the title Tsesarevich instead of Tsarevich because he was the heir, and heirs are titled Tsesarevich not Tsarevich. But this seems beside the point. He was actually either Tsar Alexei - as his father abdicated the throne and Alexei became Tsar - or if you accept that his father can amend an abdication, which seems unlikely as he had no authority to do this once he'd abdicated, then as the son of a Tsar (and no longer heir) he would be Tsarevich Alexei. (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be Tsesarevich or something else but not Tsarevich. Wikipedia is supposed to be ENCYCLOPEDIA, therefore, strict attention should be made to factual accuracy. This "well more people know them as this" is bull. They can read the article and quickly become enlightened. Tsesarevich is not particularly hard to pronounce either. If you're interested in an article about Russian history, you probably won't have a problem saying the word. So silly. Wikimandia (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. "Tsesarevich" is not an English word; "Tsarevich" is. - Nunh-huh 03:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
LOL! And in which region of jolly old England did "tsarevich" originate from? They're both Russian words. Wikimandia (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The test is as follows: if a word is in an English dictionary, it's an English word. This is not an exotic concept; it's used by copyeditors to help decide which words to italicize if their style guide calls for putting foreign words in italics. "Tsarevich" is an English word because it appears in English dictionaries, and "Tsesarevich" is a foreign word because it doesn't. Your "LOL", therefore, is not only inappropriate in civil discourse, but wrong. The origins of a word don't determine whether it's been incorporated as English vocabulary. - Nunh-huh 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
LOL again. Why do you say it's uncivil when you make me laugh, which is so joyful for one to do? Someone should tell those people at Merriam-Webster and Harper-Collins to take out that Not English word out of their dictionaries! Somebody, hurry, for the good of humanity and all that is pure and English! Wikimandia (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Your incivility is clearly apparent to anyone who can read. - Nunh-huh 08:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The "civility" of users have little with the discussion, but nevertheless your knowledge of proper conduct has inspired me to tip my fedora in your general direction. DJ Phylactery (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Birth date[edit]

Is the August 12 date correct? Russia is using the Julian Calendar, so this date might be wrong. Sandy June 05:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Russia is NOT using Juian Calendar. -- tasc wordsdeeds 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Russia was using the Julian calendar when Alexei was born (the changeover to Gregorian occurred when 31 January 1918 was followed by 14 February 1918, though parts of the country lagged behind. So the August 12 date was not correct; Alexei was born 30 July 1904 (OS) = 12 August 1904 (NS). - Nunh-huh 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is specifying Aug. 12 (and old-style July 30), so should be OK.


I read in a British newspaper some years ago about a man in the Soviet Union who claimed he was Prince Alexai. Allegedly he had been writing letters to his Uncle George in England in perfect English that had been intercepted by the KGB and that he knew his way around the royal palace. His photos of him he had some resemblance to his father. When the royal family's bodies were exhumed and he was missing I wondered if this man might have been him. Does anyone know anymore to add to this webpage? I would be most interested!

Murdered vs Executed[edit]

The reason the Imperial Family were ACTUALLY Assassinated/Murdered was a Legal one : An execution, by definition, is done by the established, recognised government. The accused ALSO must receive Due Process of Law. The Bolsheviks were usurping insurgents attempting to overthrow the recognised Provisional Government duely established. Add to this, the Imperial Family received NO Due Process of Law. Finally, Yurovsky implemented RUSE/Lies to induce the Imperial Family to go down to the Cellar room (under the guise of taking a photo of the Family). Ergo : The Imperial family were ASSASSINATED due to the insurgent/usurping character of the Bolsheviks, and because the Family received NO Process of Law, but instead were surprised with a squad of non-Russians given orders to shoot the Family. When such ruse & surprise are used against a political target, that is tantamount to Assassination. Maj. Jesse Carnes (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A murder is an unflawful killing. When the order is signed by the government it is an execution. Executions can be unjust and inhumane also. You can of course claim that this execution was unlawful, but this is a POV.--Konstable 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Albeit with considerable reluctance, I must agree with the above. Kevin Nelson 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There is some question over whether the Ural Soviet was following the orders of Lenin or decided to kill the family on its own, which would put the legality of the killings in question. There's also the question of whether the government itself was a legal entity. At the time Russia was in a state of civil war, between various White Army forces and the Red Army. I have seen it referred to as execution, assassination, and murder. I am extremely reluctant to label the killing of a thirteen year old boy a legal execution when I don't think it was. A politically-motivated murder, yes. --Bookworm857158367 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was an execution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. ( (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Again -- he was a deathly ill 13-year-old boy, without personal power to commit such alleged crimes. Aside from that, there are the arguments made above, which still hold. Do not revert this page again without consensus. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole family needed to be executed for the tens of millions of dead men, women and children they were responsible for. Plus Alexis was about to be captured by the Czechs and installed as a puppet Tsar. ( (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

and he deserved to be shot because of that? Did his teenage sisters also deserve to be shot? Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Saying that the "whole family needed to be executed for the tens of millions of dead men, women and children they were responsible for" is like saying that all the Germans in the world should be executed for brutally torturing and killing up to 17 million innocent people. This kind of comments should be removed immediately, as it is not productive. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Status[edit]

The article has passed sections 3), 5) and 6) and needs corrections on sections 1), 2) and 4).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD

The assessment is as follows :

1) Written Quality - Well written but the quotes need more prominence as they run into the text.

2) Factually Accurate - Sergey Egornov, Alexei Poutziato, Joseph Veres and Vassili Filatov are all non-existent links. The imposters need to be separated from the "Death" section and put into their own separate section. Add a sentence pointing out the the futility of the imposters trying to impersonate Tsarevich Alexis, the monarchy was so discredited that even if the Royal family had survived, there was no support for the the restoration of a Tsar Alexis, see here for the reference


3) Coverage - the article is broad in coverage and stays focused on the topic.

4) Neutrality - Some of the language used to describe Alexis as a "naughty boy" , the half paragraph starting "At age seven,,,,,," betrays a gushing sentimentality. It needs to be re-written and the language toned down, don't use a direct quote, just indirectly describe his naughty behaviour. Tsarevich Alexis was not just a boy, he was the heir to the Autocratic Romanovs. The language needs to be more neutral.

5) Stability - Article is relatively stable though I see you have had acts of vandalism by unregistered ISP users. No major edit conflicts.

6) Photos - Good use of photos. Free public domain photos are used. No fair use photos.

Corrections, as specified above, must be carried out within seven days. Contact me when they have been carried out and I will re-assess.

Tovojolo 22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows seven days for corrections to be carried out, I have been lenient, I have allowed eight days but I am dismayed to note that not one correction was done. Therefore, I have no alternative but to announce that the article has now been assessed as a Fail.

Tovojolo (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the suggestions above: while it would be perfectly reasonable to separate out the pretenders, it's silly to state that their impostures were "futile" because there was no movement to restore the monarchy: that assessment makes the mistake of overlooking the other motivations for their impersonations of Alexei. - Nunh-huh 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


The family was Russian by nationality but ethnically diverse. Should we add that to this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All Romanovs from Peter III are Germans. The correct name of the dinasty is Holstein-Gottorp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless sentence in Stavka section[edit]

"Alexei's favorites were the foreigners of Belgium, Britain, France, Japan, Italy, and Serbia, and in favor, adopted him as their mascot."

This looks like the beginning of one sentence combined with the ending of another one. I can't make much sense out of it anyway. (Especially the mascot part.)

Article Title[edit]

He was the Tsesar-evich rather than just a Tsar-evich. He may have become a Tsarevich after his father's abdication, but the Wikipedia article on Edward VIII still uses his regnal title rather than his post-abdication title Duke of Windsor. I don't think the title Tsarevich was even officially used for children & grandchildren of the Tsars, but rather Grand Duke/Grand Prince, with the heir being Tsesarevich. (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Oppose votes have valid reasoning. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of RussiaAlexei Nikolayevich, Tsesarevich of Russia – Alexei was The tsesarevich, not a tsarevich. Tsarevich was any son or grandson of the tsar; the tsesarevich was the heir and next in line for the throne. That's a BIG difference. It's been discussed many times before and arguments against it are weak. Wikimandia (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support as nominator.

  • It doesn't matter that he was wrongfully called that in the west and so more non-Russians know him by that name - that is just an unacceptable argument for something claiming to be an encyclopedia. If you care enough to look at his article, then you probably care about accuracy. And it's not like they made the clarification in terms in 1915. It was changed in 1721.
  • Secondly, within the first sentence it can be linked to the tsesarevich article, easy enough to click. Within 10 seconds, someone will have learned something! Yay!
  • Thirdly, it's not particular hard to say. It's only one more syllable than tsarevich. If you're interested in Russian history in the least, you probably will not challenged by this word.
  • Fourthly, he was 13-year-old hemophiliac kid shot to death for nothing he'd done. Do we have to knock him down in status too?
  • Fifthly, if you're dead set against it simply because you hate the word "tsesarevich" then it should just be called Alexei Nikolayevich of Russia or Alexei Nikolayevich (period).

Let's get it right please! :-) - Wikimandia (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • It's the English encyclopedia; Tsesarevich is a Russian term, not an English word.
  • we use English terms, not foreign terms, in our article titles. For this reason, we have articles titled "Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia" and not "великий князь Константи́н Па́влович" or "Velikiy Knyaz Constantine". And this is despite the fact that "Grand Duke" is not an exact translation, in the same way that tsesarevich and tsarevich do not correspond exactly.
  • in summary: the English word "tsarevich" means "the eldest son of a emperor of Russia", and is correct to use of Alexei when speaking in English, whether Russians would use the same word for him or not. - Nunh-huh 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah except.... Tsesarevich is in both the Merriam-Webster and Harper-Collins dictionaries, which according to your logic, makes it an "English" word. So glad you'll be supporting this move! Yay! Wikimandia (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I might have, if that could actually be confirmed by someone trustworthy in a printed dictionary (since you've provided one link to "cesarevich", not "tsesarevich", in an online dictionary, and one to another online dictionary for a word qualified as "in Russian history" and spelled four different ways. On this evidence, the best you can hope for from me is abstention. - Nunh-huh 08:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What difference does it make if it's in the online dictionary? It's MW and Harper's, not Urban Dictionary. And the article on cesaevich lists the multiple spellings, the way they always do for most Russian words, eg czar.
  • Tsarevich or Czarevich is the most commonly used English term. This is the English Wikipedia. Oppose. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per common name. DrKiernan (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


There is no clear reference to the Tsarevich having become Tsar upon the abdication of his father. (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, because it's not clear that he did. His father's two abdications and their questionable validity seem to be clearly referenced. - Nunh-huh 04:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Again, another very nice article, but I cannot go higher than B, until it goes through a GA review (or a FAC, when it automatically gets FA status).--Yannismarou 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed[edit]

The sole remaining statement in this article that is tagged "citation needed" is: "It is possible that if Alexei had not suffered so terribly, Rasputin could never have gained such influence over Russian politics during World War I, which is generally seen to have at least hastened the collapse of Romanov rule."

The opinion expressed in this statement remains unsourced. I propose it be deleted in its entirety so that the Citation Needed template can be removed from this article. A discussion of the influence of Rasputin properly belongs in the Wikipedia article for Rasputin (where it is discussed), rather than in the article for Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov. A Wikilink is provided for Grigori Rasputin in this article so that readers may further investigate this matter if they so choose. Mccunney (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The opinion expresed in that statement is also completely uncontroversial and mainstream. It doesn't say everyone believes there's a straight line from hemophilia to Rasputin to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, but many (perhaps most) historians are of that opinion. Removing it to get rid of a citation needed template is exactly the wrong response. The way to remove a citation needed statement would be to find a citation that [1] supports it, or [2] contradicts it – removing the statement as well as the template in the latter case.
I think the foremost proponent of this viewpoint was Robert K. Massie, and that you could find a supporting citation in Nicholas and Alexandra: The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty. To my mind, this passage from page 561-2 fits: "The current struggle dividing the world is not over trade or territory, but over ideology. This is the legacy of Lenin. And also the legacy of Rasputin and hemophilia. Kerensky once said, 'If there had been no Rasputin, there would have been no Lenin.' If this is true, it is also true that if there had been no hemophilia, there would have been no Rasputin...[...]...Had it not been for the agony of Alexis's hemophilia, had it not been for the desperation which made his mother turn to Rasputin, first to save her son, then to save the pure autocracy, might not Nicholas II have continued retreating into the role of constitutional monarch so happily filled by his cousin King George V?" - Nunh-huh 16:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see Massie as the "foremost proponent" of the hemophilia/Rasputin/revolution connection because I do agree with your other point that "The opinion expressed in that statement is also completely uncontroversial and mainstream." If Massie's comment is too attenuated, here are others: 1. "Rasputin, Grigori...Before and during World War I, Rasputin gained great influence over Nicholas II, Czar of Russia, who considered him a miraculous healer. The czar's only son suffered from hemophilia, a blood disorder, and Rasputin seemed to be the only person who could alleviate the disease...Russian noblemen murdered Rasputin in 1916, but his direction of the czar's policies was to prove disastrous after his death: Czar Nicholas was overthrown in 1917..." pp. 223-224, The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Ed Hirsch Jr, Joseph Kett, James Trefil. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, 1988. 2. "The odious Russian faith-healer Grigori Efimovich Rasputin, 45, who has ingratiated himself with the court by promising a cure for the hemophilia that afflicts the czarevich, dies December 31 at Petrograd at the hands of a group of noblemen bent on ridding Russia of the monk's corrupting influence on Nicholas II and the czarina Aleksandra (see 1918: Bolshevik revolution, 1917)." p. 772, The People's Chronology. James Trager. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1979. FactStraight (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"Foremost" may have been a bad word choice; I mean only that he is well-known to the public; a popularizer perhaps rather than a proponent. - Nunh-huh 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there continues to be discussion concerning the sole unsourced statement in this article, I agree that the statement in question should not have the "citation needed" requirement removed. However, since only one section of the article needs a source, I suggest the "citation needed" template be moved to that section (Historical significance), rather than have it apply to the entire article. Mccunney (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)