Talk:MV Brigitte Bardot

Sea shepherd's new interceptor vessal

it seems that it's been purchased by sea shepherd as a replacment for the Ady gil that now rests on the bottem. heres the link http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/10/24/sea-shepherds-new-interceptor-vessel-revealed/ Joesolo13 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

correction- they only are planning to buy it as of yet they have insufficent funds for the vessal. appernatlly there about 1 million USD short and are looking for donations. will try to post the link to the article tommrro. Joesolo13 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that they have bought it, and only need to repay the loan they took out. It appears that the ship is now an SSCS vessel. -TyphoonOne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.160.6 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sources are contradicting eachother. SSCSs page said yesterday that they intended to get it. Today it has been modified slightly but still use the phrase the vessel "would" instead of "will" or "should". I don't know if ecorazzi is RS but their report did not match SSCS's. We also do not know if it is being rented, purchased, or used in partnership with. The info needs to be removed or clarified until their is a credible source.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

On the official Sea Shepherd site, it says that the ship is part of their fleet, period. There is no mention about who owns it, but it has already been repainted, so I assume it's theirs now. Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

SSCS is not a reliable source. Their story has also changed in less than 24 hours and still isn't clear. Also, was it painted or is it an artist rendition? An example of why I believe caution is necessary has to do with two other vessels. TWatson said the Ady Gil was going to block harpoons. This was later denied by Bethune and never happened. The ship recently used in the Farose somehow was added here on Wikipedia as being SSCS. The webpage for the org that owned the boat made sure to mention that it was a partnership. Also, there have been other nontruths on their page. Watson has been accused of and admitted to manipulating the media. It is a simple reaquest: Find a reliable secondary source.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ecorazzi had the story 12 hours before the SSCS press release. It is also absurd to claim that an announcement of this size is false. If the vessel did not belong to the SSCS, the owners would have mentioned something. In addition, Sea Shepherd's website can be considered a source for general factual information according to WP:SELFPUB, as general information taken from the article (Sea Shepherd has bought the O7A) is not unduly self serving. Anything more specific than that, it gets iffy, but for now, It's a safe call to say that the Sea Shepherds have indeed aquired the new vessel.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/10/24/sea-shepherds-new-interceptor-vessel-revealed/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.5.91 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Is ecorazzi even RS? "The latest in green gossip" isn't very convincing. It also conflicted with the statements SSCS made yesterday when it was posted yesterday. Knowing SSCS, a press release will come out when it is all finalized and it should get verified and picked up quikly in US, Australian, and Japanese press. SO far I am not seeing anything from an established and reputable news organization.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2010

(UTC)

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has chartered the new vessel, but continue to raise funds to cover all the costs of the campaign against the Japanese whaling enterprise. The fact is they announced that have obtained use of the vessel. That is the "fact." It is also a "fact" that the Shonan Maru 2 sliced the Ady Gil in half. That event resulted in its sinking. There is no non-neutral point of view in stating that the Sonan Maru 2 ran over the Ady Gil and sliced it in half. That factual statement has nothing to do with fault. While it is pretty clear to me and most others that the SM2 was a fault, that is not subsumed in the statement that it ran over the Ady Gil and sliced it in half. Look at the videos, including the whalers' own videos. That is your RS.

Provide RS. The sinking is not part of this conversation. And obtaining the use/charter is different then what others have said. Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "others" have said, but the SSCS itself has made it clear in its announcements that the O7A IS part of its fleet and that it has secured the use of it. That IS a charter under maritime law. They never said they "purchased" it. Moreover, the O7A replaces the Ady Gil which objectively, factually was run over by the Shonan Maru 2 and sliced in half. To remove that factual statement betrays a bias. If you want to add the Japanese whaling organization's ridiculous statement that the 13 ton Ady Gil ran into the 491 ton Shonan Maru 2 somehow causing the Shonan Maru 2 to run over and slice the Ady Gil in half, feel free. But the fact that the SM2 ran over the Ady Gil is just that, an objectively verifiable a fact and should be stated as such. No legal entity has yet assigned blame. But that is not the issue. The issue is the FACT that the SM2 ran over the Ady Gil and sunk it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvpatentlawyer (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is an RS it does not matter. Please provide a source.Cptnono (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is also not RS.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to report on what Sea Shepard says it is doing, regardless of verification, as long as it is qualified as such(that it is what they allege to be doing). I don't think that violates the principles set out in WP:SELFPUB. Also we have a second source. The second source alleges that they already have it. I had read the Ecorazzi article when I made my first edit to the Ady Gil page but I didn't add it as a source at the time. Note that my last edit on the Ady Gil page did not remove the tag you placed; it only put the new source before the discussion tag, and thus it may have appeared that way at first glance. As for facebook, it may not be a reliable source, but that anonymous edit certainly helped me out :) --Anthonzi (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It currently is not worded as a claim by them. On top of that, this isn't a mirror for SSCS. Where is the secondary reliable sources? Until they are provided we are falling into the same errors as we did a few months ago and a few months ago before that. Find secondary RS because SSCS is going to be nommed for the blacklist here. Secondary RS should be used and if secondary RS can not be found it puts into question why the info is in at all.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well like I tried to say, we don't have to make statements of absolute fact, we can just say what is being said by certain parties with proper attribution. And which errors are you referring to specifically? Just curious. Something to do with Pete Bethune? Where they really that bad? (Aside: it would be great if there where a wiki with a more open editorial policy; something like wikinews but with an encyclopedic format.) --Anthonzi (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Using self published sources typically allow us to directly attribute such information. Unfortunately, that is not what happened here. Furthermore, SSCS has been so unreputable and unclear to the extent that it needs to be questioned. This is not a news site and it most certainly is not a mirror of the SSCS site. This is a problem with contradicting information coming out and without having a secondary source available.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't see a contradiction between the two sources.--Anthonzi (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So, who are they going to get to plow this one under the bow of one of the Japanese whaling ships? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not appropriate, Herbalgerbil. Please read my statement above regarding the contradiction, Anthonzi. Still no RS in a google news search. Why isn't there RS yet? SSCS has historically had plenty of media coverage. To many red flags to keep.Cptnono (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How would any news source get a non-mirrored story? The O7A is in the middle of the indian ocean, her original owner not responding to contact requests (as the SSCS would ask of them). How, I ask you, would an RS go about getting original information on SSCS's purchase of the Ship until said ship reaches port. For now, I think we should leave the reference in, but not change anything other than the bottom paragraph. When we get RS, we can add her new owners to the opening statement and add the SSCS vessels category box. -TyphoonOne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.5.91 (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"The O7A is in the middle of the indian ocean, her original owner not responding to contact requests (as the SSCS would ask of them)." Where does that info come from? Also, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." is from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Maybe it has not been picked up as a story because the media is not seeing anything of substance. Contradicting info from SSCS and a gossip website. Sounding more and more like shennanigans especially if it is true that the owner is not even in contact with the group. Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia should not be part of any of SSCS PR. I don' know what is going on but it looks shady as mentioned above. Since so many do want to use the SPS I have removed mentions of it except for here and at the main SSCS article with tags in place and clearly attributed. Hopefully the owner (?) will contact SSCS or the media soon.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please state specifically the contradiction you are referring to, otherwise I will assume it was the one adequately addressed by Bioniclepluslotr. Using that particular language does not contradict what is stated in the Ecorazzi article.--Anthonzi (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to repeat myself. Scroll up.Cptnono (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And now the gossip site is saying that no, it is not purchased.[1] I don't know why SSCS is making the claim but it is apparent that it has not come to fruition with their contradicting releases on their site, the OR above (assuming he knows what he is talking about), and the gossip page clarifying.Cptnono (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I will again ask you to point out the exact contradiction between the two sources. Just because they have not paid for it does not mean they do not have control over it.--Anthonzi (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will again ask you to scroll up.Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

At least we won't have to wait long to see what is going on: "A new monohull fast vessel, which looks like something out of batman and is yet to be named, will replace the Ady Gil this year and will be unveiled at Fremantle Port on November 6."[2] Maybe it is this boat.Cptnono (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are can rightfully ignore your objections then if you are unwilling to elucidate them in a logical fashion.--Anthonzi (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we are can rightfully ignore your objections then if you are unwilling to read the discussion.Cptnono (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and have asked you to clarify the contradictions you see in the two articles and you have failed to do so.--Anthonzi (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have not. SSCS amended their page to change the wording as mentioned here. They also only changed one line and not the tense of other lines as mentioned here. Another gossip site has contradicted it as mentioned here. If you insert Facebook as a source again I will seek your block. End of story. We have the SSCS self published source on the SSCS article. It is even used here (against the standards in place). Do not expand on it in other articles without a reliable secondary source. No more sock puppetry, no more conflict of interests, and no more unreliable sourcing. Any more and I am seeking blocks on IPs and editors.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The facebook link is the only source for that particular statement. And it is the primary source. So I don't understand how it could not be a source that needs to be linked next to it.--Anthonzi (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also we have been addressing your claim that wording on the SSCS article contradicts the Ecorazzi one. That is not the case as far as I read it.--Anthonzi (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't see the original. It was changed yet they didn't change he tense throughout. And it is also contradicted by the gossip site. Even an RS says the vessel is not named but does not say it is this one. Realistically (as mentioned below), the self published source is good enough for a line at SSCS. It actually is not good enough for here since it has not been verified that it is theirs but if it is attributed and worded correctly I see no harm in it staying until the 6th. Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And now it is the 10th. Several days overdue for the announcement. So since there is no news (Wikipeida is not news anyways) maybe it is time to axe it. I really expected to be wrong about this. RS ca still verify it in the future. Hel, they might want it to be a surprise.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And now it is the 15th. Still nothing.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

self contradictory cpnote, either its a fact or its not, it cant be an "unverified fact". and sea shepherd has never lied,(what you consider lieing by them is way less than almost every political group in the world says and there still no doubted) so why doubt them? and if your gong to claim they lie, link to a neutral article that proves they lied about somthing rather then rambling on. Joesolo13 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC) look, instead of arguing over the ady gil (irrevlavent) and evrything else about sea shepherd being "unreliable" lets just stick with whats on the page right now. theyve obtained the ship for use. its a simple fact, nothing to fight about. as to the pictures, eco-razzi has some that are photoshoped to have a sea shepherd paint job and one picture of a picture thats pretty grainy that could be the ship, but obviously we cant be sure so were probally best off waiting to add a picture till theres one of it in port. and paulwatson has stated it was purchased and they just need to pay off the loan. obviously somecp people wont accept that as "npov" or some such but honestally, why would he lie about getting a new ship? Joesolo13 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A fact that has not been verified. This isn't that complicated. Hopefully there will be some news next week but so far there is nothing from good solid RS. Cptnono (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact not verified was tongue in cheek based on the earlier statement. I also am not "rambling". SSCS manipulates the media according to statements made by Watson (see his book Earthforce!, The Telegraph as examples). So again, please provide a reliable secondary source.Cptnono (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

either its a fact or not. we know they obtained it, they wouldnt and couldnt claim that falsely, and theyve never made a false claim about somthing important. and this isnt manipulating the media(which everyone who has a motive for anything does or tries to do) its just stating they have the ship, now please tell me how would that be self serving? 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"we know they obtained it," No we don't. Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And another probable notRS that isn't clear on it.[3] When it is official the info can go in. Until then we only have a selfpublished source which is not considered acceptable for use anywhere on Wikipedia but the SSCS article. Be happy that it is even allowed here. Knock it off for 3 or 4 d when we have an answer (assuming we actually get one). Wikipedia is not a mirror for SSCS. If it isn't covered in reliable secondary sources it probably isn't worthy of inclusion. This is not a news site, a blog, or a place for rumors. Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And still on Ady GIl I just realized (although even another person here agreed to just have SSCS and this article). I am OK with it as long as the tag stays since it should only be for 3 more days. It cannot say that it is a fact yet. Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the O7A in Freemantle at a public berth, as seen by http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs494.ash2/76770_456967342357_502892357_5714031_4621167_n.jpg , where the two Freemantle harbor tugs are seen behind her. Also, in this picture: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs494.ash2/76770_456967342357_502892357_5714031_4621167_n.jpg , we see SSCS Captain Locky McLean and SSCS Aussie Director Jeff Hanson on the ship. This isn't enough to make it official, but im not sure the Dubious tag is justified with this. -TyphoonOne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.160.6 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, find RS. There is no rush.Cptnono (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole argument is irrelevant to the statement that is dubious. The sentence says the SSCS said that the O7A is part of their fleet. That part is true. However, what you guys are arguing about is the whether or not the statement is true. So basically, the tag is misplaced, as there is nothing untrue about the statement. Even if SSCS is lying, they did say the fact. Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

i agree with bionicle, they said they had it in there fleet, wheter or not its true is what cpnotes contesting. we know they clami to have it so we can put thatup. Joesolo13 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Selfpub is for articles close to the subject. Right now we do not have a valid selfpub for this article since it has not been verified. And again, their press release was supposed to be over a week ago and it never came. I have know idea what is going on but until there is secondary RS it needs to go.Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The dubious tag was removed. Does that mean that the current source is reliable? Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks goodCptnono (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

name changed to MV gonji

i dont see why this was adde, only one paper has said this and sea shepherd's operation no compromissed st ill saidbthe name wasnt changed yet when i checked early today. also, no recent sea shepherd vessal has been registered MV (motor vessal) but MY (motor yatch) so it could be a simple mistake on the part of a editor. i think we should wait for sea shepherd to announce the name before having it up there. we can trust self published source on that yes? Joesolo13 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If SSCS has released information contradicting that source since the time of publication then I could understand using some editorial discretion. Have they made any such statements? Also, the MV v MY game might have caught up to them. Who are we to assume anything?Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

game? its a simple rule MV is pretty much misceselanious commercial vessals MY is yat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is a recreational vessel. Their categorization as such led to one country pulling the registration.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

id like to see nutral evidence of a country pulling registration. and that african country never informed sea shepherd or announced anything but japan's whalingfleet said they pulled it so we cant be sure. anyway, they have announced this is the new name for it, (though they did not specify MV or MY) so shouldnt the name be changed to Gojira? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles in the topic area yet? They are sourced. Belize pulled a registry: "The International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize is reported to have found that instead of being a pleasure craft researching the Belize Barrier Reef, Farley Mowat was in Australia about to embark on a mission to ram and otherwise interfere with ships engaged in whaling."[4] I believe the British did it for the same reason but need to double check.Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the name contain the "MV" prefix? It said so in one of the sources, but others don't have it. Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

no, only one source seems to have MV. the rest have nothing and in recent history no sea shepherd vessals have been MVs, all MYs. probally need to wait for more info from SS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesolo13 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MV is not an appropriate prefix for this boat. MV is for ships. The "Gojira" is a pleasure craft at most. And it is being leased and insured by the SScS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.36 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd called this ship MY Gojira. Is this real name or just mistype or misunderstanding? Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

the title is a mistake on the part ofanother eiditor.24.228.24.97 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

partially fixed. dont know how to change the title. Joesolo13 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gojira is not the Romanized Japanese for Godzilla, this is the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.93.111.155 (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mascot

Is the picture on the bow Godzilla snapping a harpoon? If it is, it might be noteworthy, as it's their goal to stop whaling. Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Source?Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

hes only asking if it is. stop jumping to conclusions. now, if we can find a source for that we could but as for now all we know is that its a lizard. Joesolo13 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be source enough just to look at a picture of it? Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that would be possible since the same can be done for videos. However, it does not seem worthy of notice if a single source has not mentioned it. I see tons that mention that it was painted black so i am a little surprised since it is kind of cute.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

i'd have to say its a soruce. its kind of like using a picture as a source that the sky is blueJoesolo13 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

New Name

Sea Shepherd said they renamed the Gojira to Brigitte Bardot (http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-110525-1.html) and repainted it silver. Should we change the article name? Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:MV Brigitte Bardot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MV Brigitte Bardot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Image

I have an image for this article and permission from the photographer. Which licensing should I choose, because it keeps getting deleted for improper licensing? Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SSCS has not responded to a request I sent. It is clear that you have permission from the FB page. The nominator should have taken it to requests for deletion instead so that a discussion could take place. Too late now.

There will be some editors expressing doubt unless the OTRS process is used. I think it is unfortunate but understand the reasoning. I recommend forwarding this link to the copyright holder so that they can verify that they really don't mind it being up. Worse case scenario: They don't respond and we use something else or nothing at all. We don't need their images even though they would be great to use. Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The photos were taken by a crewmember, and aren't owned by Sea Shepherd itself. Bioniclepluslotr (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through OTRS.Cptnono (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have the photographer post the photo to Wikimedia Commons and release it to the public at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard Then you can link to it and post it in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO number

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships § MV Brigitte Bardot: IMO number

In December 2012, MV Brigitte Bardot was discussed at WP:SHIPS where it was revealed that the vessel does not have an IMO number. The number that was used in the article and at several sites (6418273) is for a similarly named vessel built in 1964. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MV Brigitte Bardot. 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/20110522031038/http://www.milesforsmiles.co.za/achievements/the-madagascar-challenge.html to http://www.milesforsmiles.co.za/achievements/the-madagascar-challenge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703225105/http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-110525-1.html to http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-110525-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522031038/http://www.milesforsmiles.co.za/achievements/the-madagascar-challenge.html to http://www.milesforsmiles.co.za/achievements/the-madagascar-challenge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003093523/http://www.ratsport.co.za/adventurer%20webpage/ to http://www.ratsport.co.za/adventurer%20webpage

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) 03:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)