Talk:MV Faina

Vadim Alperin

Why is Vadim Alperin, an Israeli citizen, not mentioned at all in the article? Nyna Karpachyova, a human rights ombudsman, said that the real owner of the weapon-ship is an Israeli citizen with the name Vadim Alperin (alias Vadim Oltrena). Vadim was once quoted to be "Mossad Brother" (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/30-days-mv-faina-piracy-crisis-background-by-ecoterra.html). I do not wish to explicitly tell you what all this means, but such information must be reported. The fueling of war in Sudan between the Southern part of Sudan, where the majority are christians, and the majority muslims of Sudan is a serious matter! This is not the first time we have seen the exploitation of differing believes taken to the advantage of a third party. If we are planning to always wake up late to such matters there will never be progress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.139.131 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

European Union Vessels

This section needs to be edited to state which country's vessels they are. The EU is an economic organisation and therefore doesn't have any warships. I'd do it myself but I can't find a source that states the nationality of the European vessels. ABurness (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The only source I managed to find said nothing about who's ships they were, other than the quote: ""The European Union would also send its ships," Mr. Lavrov said at a press conference in New York which was televised live in Moscow." Mozyr (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably france.Geni 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably is a bit vague but if the neutral nations were ruled out that would help. --Candlewicke (Talk) 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

hijacking (biased) -> Capture

Hello, this seems to be a pure “ pirate capture �?, like Japanese captured boats in the XVIth, or Spanish pirats captured many in the XVIIth. The terms "hijacking", "hijacked" are misleading and biase untill there are not religious claims.

Accordingly, I changed : hijacking -> Capture ; Hijacked -> Captured.

Yug (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The term hijack is not restricted to anything to do with religion. It is an acceptable term in this case and is used by the media. Especially since somalian piarates tend to ask ransoms. Capture is also an acceptable term though. but I see nothing biased in either and fail to see your point. Russeasby (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "hijacking" has no religious implications. It would make perfect sense in this article but "capturing" works too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously hijacking. They were not capturing the ship; they don't want it. They want the money don't they? And they are not at war with the owners or the country of origin of the ship either. They are just criminals of the type who make life difficult for ordinary people everywhere - in this case ordinary Somali citizens as well as the crew of the ship.--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Webster's dictionary defines hijack as "to seize control forcibly of (an aircraft, bus, ship, etc.), esp. in order to go to a nonscheduled destination" This fits perfectly with what the pirates have done with the Faina. It was not sailing to Hobyo and was due in Mombasa a week ago, thus, by definition it has been hijacked. Furthermore, couldn't the term "capture" imply a lawful act, such as that of a coast guard or naval ship seizing an enemy ship or boat whose crew is acting unlawfully. Hijack is also the term used in most news accounts, see for example the Atlanta Constution, Daily Telegraph, Reuters and others. The US Navy, on the website for the Fifth Fleet, refers to it as having been "pirated" so we could use that term too.Mcpaul1998 (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The pirates' point is that a) they are the de facto legal authority in these waters (there certainly is no formal legal authority being exercised there) b) merchant ships have been illegally dumping hazardous waste off their coasts and therefore they act as caretakers of the law (beacuse nobody else cares to). They are still interested in making money, so the point is moot. But it serves to illustrate that things down there, in the absence of a Somali Navy, are a bit murky. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

These are pirates. They don't give a hoot about "legal authority" or dumping of waste. Let's not naively fall for any spurious justifications. If caught they would face criminal charges in any other country.--Mountwolseley (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Owner?

In the main text it states that the owner is "either Tomex Team or Kaalbye Shipping Ukraine", but in the table on the side it says the owner is "Waterlux". Who is the owner?

I think this is clarified in the lead now. It's operated by Tomex Team or Kaalbye Shipping Ukraine, and owned by Waterlux. Spencer^T♦C 00:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Split the Article

Should the standoff with the pirates have its own article sepreate from that of the ship? Generally i have created such articles in the past if there was some sort of military action taken against the pirates, but this incident has gained much more notablility than other events. 74.214.106.9 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, because the article about the ship itself would be very short without the information about the hijacking. Mozyr (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be about the incident itself then as opposed to the ship? --Candlewicke (Talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ship

forum like discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why has it taken so long for the Russian ship to arrive? Also having been granted permission by the Somalian foreign minister to raid the ship must the USA wait before boarding a ship containing Russian military equipment? I could not find an article detailing this but it would be interesting.203.51.107.62 (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Why has it taken so long for the Russian ship to arrive? Maybe because a)MV Faina isn't Russian and b)it is quite some distance from any Russian port. As far as I am aware none of the equipment on the ship belongs to Russia. The reason for the USA to wait has nothing to do with the origin of the equipment on board but rather simple prudence. Instigating a firefight that is almost certain to cost the lives of many if not all the crew members of the MV Faina where one might not be necessary would be astonishingly stupid. At present the order of the day is containment while negotiations are carried out to secure a peaceful outcome. In any case if the ship were to be boarded it would be done by special operations units who would have been very unlikely to have been aboard the American vessel when the crisis arose. They would need to have been mobilized and transported to the region before any such operation would even be considered. --LiamE (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC) My bet is that the Americans will lead a heavy-handed assault on the ship, and most, if not all, of the crew will die. Behaving with extreme belligerence when human lives are at stake may be "astonishingly stupid", bit it has never stopped them in the past, to my knowledge.79.68.36.96 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Getting Rusian and Ukranian citizens killed with prior agreement of the respective governments would simply not be an option. The diplomatic upset would be intollerable. As the crew are Ukranian/Russian it would be seen as a massive blow to national pride (particualrly in Russia) if the crew were to be rescued by anyone other than a Russian and or Ukranian forces, particualrly if those forces were American. How would the American media react if an American ship were to be hijacked and it was stormed by Russian forces resulting in the death of the crew while American parties were still negotiating a peaceful outcome? --LiamE (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC) no need to throw out sterotypes about americans, i tend to think we would act with more prudence when there are people from other countries involved, since there are no americans it is doubtful we would engage in a direct confrontation unless it was sactioned by the crewmembers countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.109.26.60 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC) As others have said, it appears American forces are acting as containment only, preventing the pirates from moving the vessel or the military cargo. With Russian armed forces on the way, memories of the Moscow theater hostage crisis and the Beslan school hostage crisis come to mind. ~PescoSo say•we all 02:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC) When was the last time the Americans led "a heavy-handed assault" on a ship or plane resulting in the death of most or all of the crew? I can think of a number of times when the Russians stormed a place (Beslan, NordOst, Budyennovsk in a heavy-handed fashion and most of the hostages died, but I can't recall a case of the U.S. special forces doing that. So maybe we shouldn't wait for the Russian ship....Mcpaul1998 (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Should the flag in the infobox be the flag the ship flies? If so it should the flag of Belize. – Zntrip 22:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Pro --Scriberius (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. If you look at the CIA World Factbook, under transportation, you'll see a country's count of merchant marines are by registration, but in a subsection they make the distinction of how many are foreign owned. They also make a note of how many ships owned by entities in that country are registered in foreign countries. This is apparently a common practice. I think the infobox flag should be Belize to note the laws it operates under, though the category should remain as 'Ships of the Ukraine', and text in the article should continue to make a note that the country of registration (flag of convenience) is different than the country of the owner/operator. For all practical purposes, this is a Ukrainian ship. Switzpaw (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the infobox to conform to the typical style used for civilian/merchant ships by WP:SHIPS. The ships various names and registries/flags are all included in the infobox still. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CAT

There should be a Somali-category such as Category:History of Somalia or Category:Transport in Somalia connected to the article. Maybe soon Category:Piracy in Somalia?! --Scriberius (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a Piracy in Somalia article. Mozyr (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any article about piracy in a specific country. This is about adding a catogory which connects this article to a category that covers Somalia. You've probably misunderstood my text. Any suggestions?! --Scriberius (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget Category:Disasters in Somalia! :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Which leads us to Category:Transport disasters in Somalia! :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 19:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

…We're getting there :-) --Scriberius (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy

The unsourced statement that Faina was pursued by USS Howard "along with two Royal Navy Type 23 frigates" doesn't seem to be entirely correct. This Times article (dated today) says "...HMS Chatham and HMS Lancaster, are already in the region and could join the proposed fleet." So that would indicate, bar some concrete evidence to the contrary, that neither RN ship has actively pursued Faina. It's also worth noting that while HMS Lancaster (F229) is indeed a type 23 frigate, HMS Chatham (F87) is a type 22. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Pirates "celebrating"?

The pirates say so, and it may not be too believable, but the source is actually an Associated Press article. Even if the claim from the article is based on nothing else but claims from the pirates, at least Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources applies. Ultimately this is a matter of verifiability over truth. GregorB (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The AP source is fine for a newspaper but this is an encyclopedia - the purpose of the article is to present the event, not to publicise or attempt to give the pirates a fair hearing (or unfair either). We cannot reasonably expect the spokesman to be concerned with the truth, can we? So it may not matter whether it is verifiable. It should be removed, and if it turns out not to be a gunfight after all - well then the whole paragraph is not relevant and can be removed (since the religious celebration is not part of the story of the hijacking anyway.)--Mountwolseley (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point of view is incompatible with Wikipedia practices. The article does not report on pirates celebrating, it reports on pirates saying so, which is a big difference. Note also that the opposing point of view - that there was actually a gunfight on the ship - is based on speculation, as it is not supported by any evidence. GregorB (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point anyway - I removed the sentence because it is only relevant providing that they really were in a gunfight - if they weren't then it is not part of the story. A verified quotation from a hijacker (who is interested in stealing not facts) does not become relevant just because it is verified (Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources does not apply therefore). Wikipedia practice tends to present ongoing events as newspaper articles, but that does not mean that it is correct.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the truth about gunfire is known for certain - but not before that - the pirates' story will become irrelevant. (Actually, if there was a gunfight, then the pirates' attempt at explaining it away will become an irrelevant detail.) I agree with you that Wikipedia sometimes goes too far in following the newspaper style of coverage of current events, but I'm afraid that's the price of being up to date. GregorB (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Blowing up ship

This was on BBC, thought it would be worth putting in but wasnt sure how to go about

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7664767.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.39.12 (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

They are becoming less like pirates and more like terrorists now. --Mozyr (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

En route?

According to one of the references, a Russian missile frigate was passing through the Suez Canal on October 21st, enroute to the MV Faina. What is a reasonable speed for a missile frigate to make?

Perhaps they are not in any hurry, since the MV Faina is apparently not going anywhere, and it is not clear what the missile frigate might do when it arrives on the scene.  ??? CBHA (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The frigate has reached the coast of Somalia now (reported on the 27th).. It was expected it would take a long time. There was also a report that it was doing training exercises near Libya first. I concur with your question, however, unfortunately press accounts are vague on this. Switzpaw (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a retitle

As the ship itself serious fails to be notable other than for one news event, this article should really be about the incident and named as such. --neon white talk 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The news is not an authorative source for information. There is no way of checking the credibility of their so called anonymous sources. Perhaps this article can be boosted by some sources besides the media?

Its amazing how much can be said about such vague and questionable information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.34.157 (talk • contribs)

You may want to check out Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources and policy of verifiability. Mainstream newspapers with a reputation for fact checking are acceptable, and the threshold for inclusion is based on verifiability, not truth. If a reliable newspaper relies on an anonymous source, it's okay for us to include that in the article as long as we attribute it appropriately. What passage(s) do you have a problem with? Switzpaw (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update?

What's the current status of the MV Faina? It's been quite a while since there's been an update on the situation. I mean how much food and drink do the pirates have at this point to hold out for almost 3 months or more? 24.193.28.27 (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only is there a shortage of food and drink, but there's a rotting dead body on the ship. I think they may have had some food delivered to them, but negotiations are still in progress between the pirates and the owner. No developments worth adding to the article yet. Switzpaw (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of Crew Captured

The reference (#7) talks about 11 vessels and 200 crew members. These 200 people are NOT all Faina crew. They are apparently crew from the 11 vessels. Please do not change the 200 to 20 unless the mention of the 11 vessels is also changed. CBHA (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence has been removed because it's ambiguous and this article doesn't need a current event summary which is subject to near daily changes. Please note that there *are* 20 (or 21 if you count the kid) on Faina. If you are to re-add this, please paraphrase it in a non-confusing manner. Switzpaw (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, if you want updated numbers, use this reference. Switzpaw (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably fake incident

This is a scam. The french has done daring air mobility raids on pirates, using parachutes, the brits have the dreded SAS, the germans have the GSG9, the italians have a famous commando frogmen unit. The pirates could be put down in a matter of hours, if the ship was any important. Looks like those 33 battle tanks on-board are fiction or the west is actually happay about the ship not going anywhere (some say the tanks were meant for the sudanese genocide). 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this commentary? Switzpaw (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mystifying

To me, reading this article raises a lot of questions that are not answered. I do not know whether this is because the article needs work or because the necessary information about the situation is unavailable.

For example, the article says: "Supplies of fuel for electrical generation were accepted on board, but as of October 25, no food or fresh water had been taken on."

Questions this brings to mind are: (these questions may reflect a profound ignorance of the situation)

• Why are the vessels around the Faina allowing anything to be brought to it?

• Are they not able to prevent stuff being delivered, or are they not trying?

• "No food taken on" because the pirates are refusing to accept food or because it was not brought.

• How have other Somali piracy incidents ended?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As the article states, warships have prevented cargo from being unloaded, so i think they would be able to prevent things to be brought onboard.

Secondly, there are 20 hostages on board. It seems that the vessels around the Faina do not want to risk direct confrontation with the pirates, so they would probably allow supplies to be brought on board and thus avoid angering the pirates.

On how other incidents ended look at: List of ships attacked by Somali pirates (I'm sorry, i dont know how to link to that article.) 92.230.16.224 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates. The case of the MV Faina is (from the Somali pirates' perspective) apparently business as unusual. These guys are tough and resourceful and don't seem to have particular problems with such standoffs - though as they survived the last decades' events in Somalia, this is probably to be expected. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry confirmed that food and water were delivered to the ship. ref. Article has been updated. Switzpaw (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As the MV Iran Deyanat article and news reports seem to imply, it is essentially impossible to stop anyone delivering goods at nighttime without risking the captured ship: the pirates are technically rather adept (again, it is not unexpected) and use skiffs which are hardly picked up by radar. So when night falls, they are as good as invisible. Of course the US/Russian vessels would try to intercept too overt attempts to resupply, but given that the pirates were able to deliver spaghetti and other "Western" dishes to the hostages in other cases, the naval ships can only achieve so much. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of flag at top of infobox

I have removed the prominent Belize flag graphic from the header of the infobox. The WikiProject Ships practice for present-day commercial ships is to not display a large flag at the top of the infobox. (The Belize flag is still shown in the "Port of registry" section of the infobox.) This practice is in line with the Manual of Style, which cautions not to emphasize nationality without good reason. With the complicated situations these days regarding nationality of the ship owner, the country of registry, the nationality of the operator—which are all different in the case of Faina—it's a bit misleading to have a single flag at the top. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

so what happened?

is it just more or does this article not say what the current situation is? are they still being held hostage 2 months later...? Jessi1989 (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As it seems, yes. The pirates are certainly bent on getting around such situations, but they don't mind sitting it out either. It's apparently a game of who blinks first loses, and the pirates put Garfield the Cat to shame.

If anything happens, RIAN and al-Jazeera would seem to break the news first; they are the only outlets which have shown more than the initial interest in the matter. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks :) unfortunately my cable (inc. al-jazeera) has died and i only get three channels in urdu... ah! your blink comment made me lose the game :( xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh

Beings that I was stationed (and still am) onboard the USS Howard when this happened I can say with 100% certainty that NO OTHER SHIP was present when we chased down the MV Faina and escorted them to their anchorage point. I am tired of hearing that other ships were present. USS Vella Gulf showed up 5 days later to relieve us so we could continue our original taskings. NO RUSSIAN SHIPS were in the area as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokeyjr26 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Beings that I found media & navy press releases to back up what you say, I've updated the article. (No need to shout, btw.) Thank you for doing a great job out there. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another US State Dept cable

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/11/09STATE122115.html

From 27/11/2009 covering the arms probably from the MV Faina and in particular the issue of this being action that could cause sanctions to be triggered against Kenya and Ukraine. Expresses concerns about the capture of these arms.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article on the Kaalbye Group describes a condom offshore firm which probably no longer exists. I wonder if we can sustain that page unless it is a section here. Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on MV Faina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081003164259/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93H9K500 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93H9K500
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081018132655/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2008/WORLD/africa/10/15/somalia.pirates.ap/ to http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/10/15/somalia.pirates.ap/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on MV Faina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002134636/http://www.freep.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/NEWS07/80930082 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080930/NEWS07/80930082
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012083610/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93LHVA00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93LHVA00
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002101947/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93GL6EG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93GL6EG0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001105031/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93FSFT00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93FSFT00
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013180553/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93N579O0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93N579O0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004112403/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93HU3182 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igGmlfz-K3g6EyC2vN8yK10vpCugD93HU3182

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on MV Faina. 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/20081001002509/http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2453784.0.0.php to http://www.sundayherald.com/international/shinternational/display.var.2453784.0.0.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080930%2FNEWS07%2F80930082
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005145345/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihiCUqAF4ZNT_8sWoX3MNdUAzzZg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihiCUqAF4ZNT_8sWoX3MNdUAzzZg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1143996017&cid=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201095821/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxzBM8B5jScl8Wirb9gP7aMZ-A0g to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jxzBM8B5jScl8Wirb9gP7aMZ-A0g
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520174539/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iD-AOo_tEeALdsa8JBdV0kE5Hpaw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iD-AOo_tEeALdsa8JBdV0kE5Hpaw

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) 04:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)