Talk:ANT catalog/Archive 1

Archive 1

5+7 missing pages

Why are only 38 listed? I have copies of 43 of the 50. I uploaded them to commons. (Some were deleted as dupes I hadn't found with searches.) --Elvey (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, even more are missing. I have copies of 48 of them. - all but 2. --Elvey (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Some missing ones:

• 
  File:Nsa-ant-genesis.jpg
• 
  File:Nsa-ant-ebsr.jpg
• 

Hmm - genesis and ebsr wont' display!?! --Elvey (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's try it like this:

(works. gallery bug?)--Elvey (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Journalist's source: Snowden?

So, I noticed that these documents, which one might assume came to light thanks to Edward Snowden are not from a source that the media that broke the story identified. I have seen sources stating that Snowden is the source [1] but wonder if this is an unwarranted assumption. Has Snowden taken credit for them? PS off to check why that URL is blocked by the blacklist. If it's a RS, It's time to write DEITYBOUNCE --Elvey (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

numbering

I changed the numbers in the list to bullets ("don't number a list that is not a ranking or sequence"). Elvey reverted, saying, "Add numbers -to keep aware of the missing pages." How does that work exactly? The first line of the article says the doc has 48 pages, and the list has (now) 49 entries. —Tamfang (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the edit history. It's 50 pages, per the article that is reference #1. So there's apparently a page or two that haven't been made public. I uploaded a bunch of them to commons, and some of them were deleted including 1 that was not a duplicate, but it's since been restored. We're getting closer; in April, this article had only 38 entries. I warned the user who replaced 50 with 48, but it seems I didn't revert... till now. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained Acronyms

The article refers to ANT & DNT but doesn't explain these acronyms. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony999 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Cite error: Invalid ref tag name "Kirk" defined multiple times with different content"

Please remove or resolve this problem in the citation list. 86.143.138.166 (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.138.166 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WEIRD STUFF WITH ref tag name "Kirk"

I think that's been addressed, but there are other issues with strangeness with this citation.

This edit, by User:LLarson, replaced two working links:

1. https://archive.is/20140101203813/http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9245064/The_NSA_intercepts_computer_deliveries_to_plant_spyware%7Carchivedate=2014-01-01 (works now that it's been un-munged) and
2. http://www.webarchive.org.uk/mementos/search/http%3A//www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9245064/The_NSA_intercepts_computer_deliveries_to_plant_spyware?referrer= (link does bring up the article content with a click)

with one non-working link:

1. http://timetravel.mementoweb.org/memento/20140101203813/www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9245064/The_NSA_intercepts_computer_deliveries_to_plant_spyware ! (link does not bring up the article content)

Here's the link as it currently stands, for the record:

<ref name="Kirk">{{cite web|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9245064/The_NSA_intercepts_computer_deliveries_to_plant_spyware|title=The NSA intercepts computer deliveries to plant spyware|first=Jeremy|last=Kirk|work=Computerworld|issn=0010-4841|date=December 30, 2013|accessdate=9 September 2014|archive-url=http://timetravel.mementoweb.org/memento/20140101203813/www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9245064/The_NSA_intercepts_computer_deliveries_to_plant_spyware|archivedate=2014-01-01}} WARNING: SOMEONE IS FUCKING WITH THIS REFERENCE. [http://archive.is/wz1tT THIS IS A WORKING ARCHIVE OF THE ARTICLE CONTENT.] The other archiveURL link does not bring up the article content. </ref>

I AGF; things were different at the time of the edit - archive.is was blacklisted, and perhaps the added link was working when it was added.

I think we should have two working archive links: the ones in place prior to LLarson's edit. Making it so. --Elvey^(t•c) 19:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Thank you for AGF. I guess I futzed the ref names, but when I made the edit, the Mementos service was automatically redirecting to the closest match it had, and, as this was during the bad old days, the ultimate destination was served from an archive.is URL. —LLarson (said & done) 20:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AGF - it's not just policy; it's a good idea.™  :-) --Elvey^(t•c) 22:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)