Jump to content

Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations/Archive 1

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

Sea Shepherd

The "Environmentalists Jailed After Painting Baby Seals Red" reference claims that a British "Fund for Animals" owned the Sea Shepherd (presumably the predecessor to Sea ShepherdII and later ships of theirs). What does this mean? Not a SSCS vessel? Shoddy reporting? Ingolfson (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


im pretty sure they funded the sea shepherd, and more or less dontaed it to sea shepherd (the ss's were named somthing differnt then, they took the name of the ship later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. (Discuss) Dkchana (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to say *why* you feel it should be merged. You suggested it, now explain why. Personally, I think the scope of the information is well beyond that which could comfortably fit in the main article. I also think we've discussed this before and agreed to keep it here, but I could be mixing it up with another page. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think a merger is a poor idea since this was spun out for a reason. But for the sake of keeping this in one place, see Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society#Merge from Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations. Cptnono (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7

The main article covers both the sinkings and the plant attack. If that is a concern then the other page needs to be retitled but it fits within the use for a main template.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I also believe the links to main whaling articles distracts from the text. That article above is perfect for the main template and I will be changing it back if there is not any response.Cptnono (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

missing sections.

this page is missing 2 major operations of sea shepherd, operation blue rage (mediteranian blue fin tuna) and gulf rescue(pretty much self explanatory, saving animals in the gulf from the british petro. spill. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The recent bluefin tuna one was in but it was sourced and worded terribly. There should be some sources out there if someone wants to dig them up.Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maltese consideratoins

"Rueben Silvio required a dozen sutures on his right hand after accidentally mistaking for a lifeline a line bearing a grappling hook allegedly used by the activists to tear open a tuna pen. Joe Barry was badly bruised by what he claims were rubber bullets. The owners of the fishing company involved, Fish and Fish, were also summoned to the police headquarters to make a statement." Recent clashes between SSCS and maltese fishermen might be good for this article: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100625/local/investigations-into-clashes-at-sea-proving-hard-to-pursue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Good looking out for nonprimary sources!Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the same two parties and news doing CYA reporting. Someone said this, another said that this happened. Even the news is reporting it in somewhat skeptical terms. I'd wait to see what the police say first and they are the ultimate authority in neutrality (or should be).--Terrillja talk 01:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to wait for that as long as it is mad clear that it is only what one party says. And I am thinking two lines at most or we start running into undue weight.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I believe these hat notes only distract from the text. Those articles do not even discuss SSCS that much so it is not an appropriate use of summarry style. Wikilinking in the text would be better.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well they were See Alsos in the past but someone decided to change them. See also is more of a "connected thoughts" template and less of a follow to read more from this section than further. Either way, I think linking at the top would be better as wikilinking things like commercial whaling to the actual country waling article is deceptive to the reader and doesn't help them if they don't want to know about commercial waling, but rather waling in that country. They won't just click a link to see where it takes them.--Terrillja talk 00:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Faroe Islands

Is this noteworthy? "In 2010, Sea Shepherd had an undercover operation, with Peter Hammarstedt posing as a film student in order to film the pilot wale hunt[2]" The guy took a camera and rolled tape on something that is not a secret. A guy wrote an opinion piece on it so he thinks it is important. I haven't seen any other sources from a quick look that say why it is important. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: So far I am still only seeing blogs and opinion pieces. I'm going to reword it slightly. Going "undercover" sounds a little PR. Publicizing the event does give it some noteworthiness according to three pieces I saw. Still on the fence on this but might be acceptable with some clean up.Cptnono (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I agree. My apologies, this is a drive-by comment, but on reading this comment I think the substitution of 'posed' versus 'undercover' is correct. When someone is undercover it is a lot more than what Hammarstedt did; a police officer infiltrating a gang by posing as one of them is 'undercover' (e.g. Serpico), Hammarstedt simply used a plausible excuse to get to film in a sensitive area (although public). The event is notable enough to be included as it was a SSCS operation. However, I am doubtful about using the phrase, '...before he was recognised.' There is nothing in the sources to indicate that he was recognised as Peter Hammarstedt or as a SSCS worker, it seems that the people on the dock got suspicious, or antsy, about a stranger filming the whales (the 'sensitivity' I mentioned earlier). I think that phrase should be reworked to reflect the real situation. Perhaps along the line of 'He counted 236 dead whales before the locals became suspicious of his filming, prompting Hammarstedt to leave the area.' Mondegreen de plume (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the sealing incidents

I've sloppily deleted one of the paragraphs on Canadian sealing for the moment because it's grossly inaccurate. There's a video of the incident posted to YouTube by Sea Shepherd, which shows Sea Shepherd activists confronting the sealers with a Davy Jones flag and weapons of their own. Get it together, guys. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Weapons? I see some walking sticks, which are a pretty good idea. Ice is slippery.--Terrillja talk 14:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue Rage blanked

I blanked the Blue Rage section. It contained nothing but a blurb reading as if it was lifted straight from a SS press release. We need some better sources and a serious effort next time. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Divine Wind

The press has apparently been paying more attention to this year's hunt. In my opinion, this was because a violent showdown was expected, what with Japan sending additional coast guard-manned security vessels, Sea Shepherd sending three ships, and Watson's pledge to die a martyr protecting the whales. I was thinking of doing a separate article, which was one reason I was adding so much detail to the section. The removal of Brigitte Bardot from the situation, however, may be a game changer, greatly decreasing the likelihood of unprecedented violence. If no objection, I will continue to keep adding more detail, but once the hunt is over the section will probably need trimming. If nobody gets hurt or killed, I'm not sure that a separate article could be justified. Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

TheHerbalGerbil is POV pushing

This user is known to have caused serious issues on other pages involving animal rights, to the point that senior wiki moderators had to be brought in to cease his activities.

He is POV pushing this entire article towards a pro-Japanese/anti-whaling sentiment. His edits should be closely monitored.

He/she claims the Canadian govt asserted that the SSCC was within Canadian waters at the time of the incident, when they actually cited maritime laws which allowed them to operate OUTSIDE their home waters. This is just one example of the kind of spin TheHerbalGerbil likes to put on things.

His descriptions for his edits are often hostile and profane. A quick glance at his page is all that is required to recognize that this is done with malicious intent. A few selections from his user talk page as well as this very page:

A serious coming together of problems with citing the news on Sea Shepherd is that they’re relatively unknown, the topic of whaling is controversial, and for some reason the news companies don’t bother to ask anyone at ICR or KSK for their side. So more often than not, they just end up repeating statements from Sea Shepherd as if they were fact. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your continued incivility at controversial sites like PETA, Homeopathy, 9/11 Truth Movement and others, is unwelcome in the wikicommunity. It is precisely because of thuggery like yours that wikipedia has evolved into a big joke. or little joke, really. a little pond and you just want to be a big fish here in the worst way. the weird thing is, you have fleeting moments of reasonableness and constructive contributions. Perhaps you are schizophrenic. Or just a child lashing out when you dont get your way. its just too bad that your petty bickering trumps the good side. 12.36.128.89 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 

   I’m sorry, have we dated? — TheHerbalGerbil

Frankly, yes. We need to engage these kids in dialog to get them to understand that they’re wrong. Unfortunately, the only dialog they seem to understand is loud and accusatory. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (→Netscott) 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! (→Netscott) 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC) 

   Listen you will be blocked shortly if you continue. This editor was just blocked for the same reasons. (→Netscott) 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

       I will not bow under your petty attacks and personal threats. — TheHerbalGerbil 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet here you are, threatening me and lying about your feelings - you say you do not wish bad for me yet you go out of your way to defend this shameful MUSLIM BROTHER (caps added) of yours, way out here on my userpage. — TheHerbalGerbil 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage was listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheHerbalGerbil and speedily deleted under Criteria for Speedy Deletion G10, that is, "Pages whose primary use is to disparage the subject". Please do not create pages which contain content disparaging to others. Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to debunk every comment made on these pages. Most of them have no effect on the article, and are ignored by pretty much every editor other than the original poster. Michaelbusch 19:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 

   I know. But I think informing contributors of their mistakes will help prevent them from repeating them in articles. You could think of it like an indirect benefit to the article. — TheHerbalGerbil 19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's five clear reverts inside of 24 hours. In fact, inside of five hours. Not that you even need three reverts inside of 24 hours for a WP:3RR block. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 

   Congratulations, you can count. But you need to work on your honesty. Those are not "clear reverts". And this was not about the number. Quit fucking around. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

       Are you seriously claiming that these edits did not undo the work of another editor?!? --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


There were LOTS more to pick from. It seems clear that this user has decided to vandalize/POV push the SSCC Operations article and based on his previous behaviour he will likely engage in an edit war as I have removed one of his malicious lies. So far he has submitted false statements and removed accurately sourced information, which has since been restored by other editors.

Help from more experienced wikipedia editors in dealing with this situation would be greatly appreciated.

Neutrality, personal attacks and dates

I'd like to remind editors of the requirement to remain neutral, regardless of their feelings about the subject, and to use appropriate edit summaries, without resorting to personal attacks. A few days ago, an editor added some content to the article,[3] that was subsequently removed with the edit summary "added non RS while removing opposing POV".[4] The source used in the added content was SSCS, which has never been determined to be non-reliable. In fact, discussions at WP:RSN have advocated use of SSCS, which is a primary source.[5][6] As per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used on Wikipedia. In some cases, as per the discussions at RSN, they are preferred. As for the "while removing opposing POV" part of the edit summary, nothing was removed from the article so this clearly incorrect. Accordingly, I restored the content, noting this in the edit summary.[7] It was then removed again, by the same editor, with the edit summary "(1)claim not true since one of them was not sscs 2)not RS. find a secondary source that does not have a rep of not telling the truth. I'll do it in the PM if you don;t get to it".[8] The claim that "one of them was not sscs" appeared to be original research since it wasn't mentioned and the claim that SSCS is not RS still doesn't seem true. I did find a reliable source, The Sydney Morning Herald, so I added that as per the editor's request, while I did some sorely needed cleanup on the article.[9] However, complying with the editor's request wasn't good enough.[10] The edit summary is a little hard to understand, but was explained by the editor in a later edit summary.[11] I guess the moral of the story is that if you can't provide accurate edit summaries when you aren't sober, it might be best not to edit in that condition. One point from the edit summary, "not a single PS used", needs addressing. WP:PRIMARY does not exclude primary sources from being used - this seems to be an ongoing issue. Finally, personal attacks are not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, including in edit summaries.[12] One of the reasons that Australia (which is part of Oceania) declared the area the Japanese hunt in to be a whale sanctuary is that the whales in the area migrate up and down the Australian east coast on their way from and too the Southern Ocean. They're part of the Oceania population, which the editor in question acknowledges is endangered.[13]

Another issue is that of dates in the article. WP:MOSNUM specifies date format consistency. Working out what date system to use in the article was a nightmare, as several formats including formats not recognised by WP:DATESNO. This article was split from Sea Shepherd Conservation Society so it seems consistent to use mdy dates, the same format used in that article, especially since SSCS is a US organisation. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you use the talk page? So do you really want to get into the use of SSCS as a source or do you you just want to vent since someone did something that you failed to do? We can have a pissing contest or i can actually pull the trigger on getting community intervention on the ongoing (and lazy use) of SSCS as a source. And it wasn't me who cussed you out (even though his edit was alright with me). Don't talk to me about POV, seeing the talk page, and sourcing when you yourself fail to get it. (Not a rhetorical question. You want to get into it or not?)Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
But good on you for mentioning MOS I guess. Thank you for doing something good for the article. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
When you say "since someone did something that you failed to do" I have no idea what you're talking about. You said in your edit summary, "find a secondary source that does not have a rep of not telling the truth".[14] I did, and added it to the article.[15] What is your problem? Is it that I complied with your request, or that what you wanted was not what you said? If you didn't mean what you said, perhaps you should have elaborated on the talk page. Use of SSCS as a source is not lazy. As has been explained to you numerous times, primary sources may be used and in some cases they're preferable. What I provided was a secondary source that backs up what SSCS said. The reality, as you should full well know by now is that the only sources for anything from the Southern Ocean are SSCS and ICR. Any secondary source can only repeat what those sources say, since nobody else is there. As for "pull(ing) the trigger on getting community intervention", you've tried that in the past and were told that use of SSCS was preferable.[16] --AussieLegend (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You ignored other conversations. Furthermore, you should understand that "that you failed to do" refers to you choosing to not find unbiased secondary sources. Do you want me to open up a conversation discussing when SSCS should not be used or are you just talking back since your feelings are hurt that I proved that the edit could be done without relying on a primary source? I know it sounds like a silly question but I really don't know if you are arguing just to argue or if you really think that the SSCS source was preferable to secondary sources. And the secondary sources ended up painting the situation with less POV which = WP:NOT. So are you debating just to get it out of your system or do you really want me to seek verification from the community that the SSCS should not be used as a the sole source for controversial lines.? I will also seek community consensus on the SSCS not being allowable for lines that assert fact (ie: SSCS can only be used to assert their own opinions in ways that do not circumvent WP:NOTADVOCATE). You can look into the archives more if you want to see precedent since the one link you provided shows only a tiny fraction of the discussion that has already taken place. You're welcome for this article existing and being sourced from secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What other conversations did I ignore? I searched WP:RSN and found only two, both of which I linked to. Your assertion that I chose "to not find unbiased secondary sources" is completely untrue. The Sydney Morning Herald article is an unbiased secondary source. I added that and you chose to use the same source in a subsequent edit. "are you just talking back since your feelings are hurt that I proved that the edit could be done without relying on a primary source?" is, as you've said, just plain silly. Since the section was about claims SSCS made, it's entirely appropriate to use the primary source to prove that the organisation made the claims that the article says it made. You were told this at RSN. "You can look into the archives more if you want to see precedent" - I've already looked in the archives and couldn'y find any such precedent. If such precedent exists, the burden is on you to prove it exists since you are the one asserting that it does. Until such time as you do, no such precedent exist. "You're welcome for this article existing" - Credit for this article existing goes to Terrillja, since it was Terrillja who created this article, not you.[17] --AussieLegend (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You ignored plenty. The only thing I needed to prove to you is that you were wrong in assuming that the primary source was acceptable. I already did that by providing secondary sources that scuttled it. But now if you want to be proven wrong again I can seek some input from the community since the secondary sources have proven to be superior. And you are still welcome for this article. Note the sources in this article and what happened before Terrillja made the change. I'm off to bed for the evening but since you seem to like arguing you can let me know if you want me to go seek that consensus to strip SSCS as a source even further. You keep on dodging the question. How about you go find secondary sources like a big boy then actually research the topic, son.Cptnono (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
"You ignored plenty" - Yet you can't point to any of them.
"I already did that by providing secondary sources that scuttled it." - You've done nothing of the sort. The Washington Post and SMH, the latter which I provided, reiterate what was said in the SSCS statement.
"Note the sources in this article and what happened before Terrillja made the change" - Irrelevant. You said "You're welcome for this article existing" and it was Terrillja who made this article exist. You didn't even edit this article until six weeks after it was created by Terrillja. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
How about you go and look at every secondary source in this article that details the orgs history before 2000. Then take your bad attitude and screw off. If you are going to rely on primary sources when there are ample sources you are going to be treated like a schmuck. Deal with it instead of continuing to argue. Go ahead and contribute something. i am sure you actually know how to be an editor here, right?Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And if you do not see the difference in wording between the secondary sources and the primary source then you should not be trusted to edit, are pretending to be stupid, or simply can't admit that using the primary source was wrong. Which one is it?Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A serious coming together of problems with citing the news on Sea Shepherd is that they’re relatively unknown, the topic of whaling is controversial, and for some reason the news companies don’t bother to ask anyone at ICR or KSK for their side. So more often than not, they just end up repeating statements from Sea Shepherd as if they were fact. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Watson has been in the global media spotlight and had his whereabouts monitored by various intelligence agencies for decades; to describe his current and past activities as "unknown" is ludicrous. Whaling is only considered controversial in the tiny handful of backwards cultures still refusing international demands to stop the killing. The reason for the lack of opposing coverage of the story (temporarily adopting your twisted logic and choosing to simply ignore the vast disparity in numbers between people who are anti and pro-whaling) is obvious - there's nobody else in the southern ocean to report on these events besides Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the whalers. You fail to mention that the media gives SSCS loads of (well deserved) grief for their frequent publicity stunts. Coverage of the issue by major news networks is extremely rare, and an actual interview with crew members is nearly impossible in the States due to their (Japanese govt. sponsored) psuedo-terrorist label. Any audio clip of Paul's voice is virtually guaranteed to be attached to an AWFUL photograph of him. Think Saddam Hussein getting dragged out of his spider hole. And yet there is almost always a blurb inserted somewhere mentioning the dubious claims of "research" and sometimes even a brief statement from the ICR. If you're a mainstream journalist or television producer it's pretty tough to spin that story any other way. I don't speak Japanese but I have a hard time imagining their media provides less biased coverage. If anything Animal Planet seems to have stirred up a hornets nest of Japanese nationalism in the guise of pro-whaling rhetoric.


At the end of the day you have to ask yourself: who is more likely to lie to me?


1.) philanthropists who sacrifice their fortunes to help save an intelligent species from being slowly butchered to death for profit

2.) unpaid volunteers risking their lives in a frozen nightmare landscape thousands of miles from home, with little finnancial support and zero chance of rescue

3.) Paul Watson and whoever else does PR for Sea Shepherd to make sure #1 hears about #2

4.) Animal Planet and countless media networks in countries whose govt. condemn whaling and SSCS alike

5.) an international community of researchers who condemn whaling for well-documented scientific reasons

6.) billions of people worldwide who think whaling is morally wrong 

                      *OR*

1.) highly paid career fishermen who refuse to stop poaching an intelligent species in a wildlife reserve

2.) investors and executives who's business model and personal wealth is dependent on govt. contracts to sell whale meat

3.) Japanese politicians who have staked their reputations by handing out large government subsidies to the whalers and making pro-whaling statements

4.) a "research" body funded by #2 and #3 whose interests are completely dependent upon the continuation of Japanese whaling and receives little attention outside Japan

5.) Japanese media outlets operating under a government who publicly funds and supports whaling in a country where whaling is considered by many to be part of their national heritage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.80.200 (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian whaling (1992, 1994)

Maybe a hot button topic, but the current source (The Ellensburg Daily Record: p. 6. July 7, 1994. Retrieved October 8, 2009.) clearly states that "The Whales Forever rammed the Andenes in Vestfjord, about 46 miles west of Bodo [..]". So I changed the text to reflect the current source. --Jaydee711 (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to hive off some of the large sections to articles so as develop them further & balance out this article

Bunching all the operations in one article is a good idea. However, I'm sure people would like to read more about specific operations such as "Waltzing Matilda" or "Zero Tolerance" or even the forthcoming "Relentless". Adding material here skews the article where there is one small para about one activity while there is no more scope of expanding here for others. Imho its time to hive off a few articles and keep summaries here so that the overall article reads better. That is what I plan to do beginning with "Zero Tolerance". Comments are welcome. AshLin (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society operations. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society_operations/Archive_1&oldid=1137177571"