Jump to content

Talk:MS Moby Zazà

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

12 March 2009 auction

[edit]
This discussion was located at User talk:Kjet#Julia ferry article, but I have moved it here for clarity. — Kjet

Hi Kjet. You have not quoted a source for your "story" about the auction yesterday. If you do wish to write about a commercial transaction which is ongoing then you need to have very good sources otherwise it merely looks like you are the mouthpiece of one side of the transaction. Your piece is factually incorrect and yes I am from Ireland and on the other side of the deal. Please re-instate my edits or provide sources for the incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opplock (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The YLE article (http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/03/matkustaja-autolautta_ms_julian_huutokauppa_peruuntui_609941.html) covers every detail in the three sentences I placed before it, including the parts about the money not transferring from Ireland due to unknown causes. The article in question even directly quotes Frank Allen of B&I saing that the money was transferred from Ireland but for some reason it did not appear on the destination account in Finland. I admit that since the source I used is in Finnish it will be very difficult for you to verify this information. Never the less a source was included. In fact following your edits the article texts is not entirely in keeping with the source, as the YLE article clearly states that the ship would have been sold to B&I had the 1,5 million initial payment reached Finland. In any case, as this information is clearly disputed I will refrain from making any changes to this particular section of the article until some kind of a concensus will be reached. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your source, the newspaper article, is that is factually incorrect and I suspect from the tone of the article which I have read in part in English the article deliberately seeks to discredit the Irish bid. Ask yourself two questions, do you seriously think that anyone including those who don't have the money are allowed to bid at these auctions? Are the Finnish authorities so stupid as to allow someone to be the highest bidder without checking whether they have the money or not. In fact the money was never physically transferred but an undertaking was given by the Irish lawyers which was accepted by the Finnish authorities. The €6m bid WAS NOT accepted as it did not meet the reserve price. Therefore at no time was a deposit payable. The article implies that the Irish were bidding against themselves as the other bidders dropped out after the second highest bid from the Irish. Again a "spin" on the correct story. Th Irish upped their bid because they were told the amount that was acceptable to the sellers. As you agree there is a dispute on the facts I believe my version should prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opplock (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a source that supports your claim then fine. At the moment, despite any reservations you might have, the YLE article fullfills both the relibility and verifiablity guidelines of Wikipedia. I have also discovered a second source (http://www.kaupunkilehtiankkuri.fi/showFlashPaper.php?id=135, page 7; completely independent of the YLE article) which gives fuller level of detail and fully corroborates the YLE article. As things stand, all you have to support your claims is speculation. Unless you can provide several reliable, verifiable sources that make it clear beyond any doubt the YLE and Ankkuri articles are wrong, the info based on the said two articles is what this Wikipedia article should display. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have changed the sentence fragment which seems to have caused the edit-war to a more neutral stance. And whilst I accept the Kjet has provided refs, I have merely adopted a stance which I hope is more acceptable to both parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niall1798 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is perhaps a bit vague, but I'm ready to live with it. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable compromise. Thanks to you both. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opplock (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deal has been agreed by the West Cork Tourism Co-operative not by B and I Line. The Co-operative is not headed by Capt. Allen. The deal will be presented to the shareholders of the co-operative on Tuesday night 7th April and after it has been ratified a new ferry company will be created with the co-operative as the majority shareholder. The new ferry company will not be called B & I Line. - Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opplock (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for correcting that - my mistake. I have noticed that the deal has now been agreed on the Finnish side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.42.120 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No buy in 2009... or ever?

[edit]

Hello,

In media is said that purchase of Julia is postponed. Is it 100% sure that they will however purchase the Julia ship 2010? I say NO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Following the sale, the ship will enter service in 2010. The sale has already been agreed in principle, but the Finnish court system has the final say on when it will actually be completed. You can say 'yes'/'no' or whatever else you want this will not change the conditions of the sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.148.51 (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Ship

[edit]

No decision has been made on the name of the ship. There is nothing in the article cited which mentions the ship's name. the decision will be made by Fastnet Line Ltd. following the acquisition of the ship at the end of August. Opplock (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the name isn't mentioned in the article itself, but it does read "The new 'Innisfallen' - 2009 - let's make this happen" next to a picture of the Christian IV on the top of the page hosting the article. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name change to Innisfallen is also mentioned in the Kymen Sanomat article which I just added as a ref—I did refrain from restoring the info until we have discussed this however. I would like to ask you how you know with so much certainty that the decision of the name has not been made? If you can provide a source for this it would be hugely appriciated, as we now have two different sources citing Innisfallen as the planned name for the ship (also note that "planned" was also what read in this article after my initial edit. I didn't at any point in the text I added state the name Innisfallen as being certain). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your two "sources" are the same - a great example of the power of the internet. Someone puts something on an internet page and therefore that "fact" gets picked up and quoted by other media and before you know it you have two "sources". The internet site www.bringbacktheswanseacorkferry.com is run by a private individual passionately interested in restoring the ferry service. He is not on the Board of the Co-Op or of Fastnet Line Ltd. "Innisfallen" is what he would like it called. Ultimately that is a decision for the ferry company. No decision or announcement regarding the name has been made. That is a true fact. Opplock (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was labouring under the misconception that the bringbacktheswanseacorkferry website was associated with Fastnet, hence the misunderstanding on my part (presumably this also explain the incorrect claim in the Finnish newspaper). — Kjet (talk · contribs) 09:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are associated and have been very strong supporters including keeping interest alive and even hosting the Fastnetline.com webpage. But they are not the official website which has yet to be created. Opplock (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MS Moby Zazà. 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}}).

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) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MS Moby Zazà. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MS_Moby_Zazà&oldid=1213138416"