User talk:mxn

Leave a message for Minh Nguyễn

(Vietnamese) Để thảo luận với tôi trong tiếng Việt về Wikipedia, xin vui lòng ghé vào trang thảo luận của tôi ở Wikipedia tiếng Việt.

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

erstwhile dead link (revived once, by Mxn) now dead again -- (I think)

This is in reference to the episode mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mxn/2011#living-or-DEAD-tude_of_link.2C_may_depend_upon_user_privileges

I think the link that you revived (see your comments here) may have (? recently?) had another heart attack or something. I am not sure the link is dead, but if you try footnote no. [1] at SLAC_National_Accelerator_Laboratory I would be surprised if it still works.

Fortunately, footnote no. [2] was provided with a webcite "backup" URL -- (which was apparently not done for [1]). If anyone (you? maybe?) ever gets [1] working again, then I would like to be notified, -- so I could [maybe] modify [1] to provide it with a webcite "backup" URL.

Thanks for your help (in the past), and maybe in the future, Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Mike Schwartz.

Thanks for notifying me that the revived link, after dying a second time, was revived a second time.

> so I could [maybe] modify [1] to provide it with a webcite "backup" URL.

I have now provided footnote [1] (which WORKS again now -- thanks to you!) with a "backup" URL (that is, an "archive" URL), using Webcite.

Resolved

I guess it would not "hurt" if (in the future), someone were to try to keep "alive" the "url" field of footnote [1]. (Kinda like what you have done, twice "so far"). The "url" field of footnote [1] corresponds to the link address for (the hyper-link of) the words "the original" in the part of the footnote that says "Archived from the original on 2012-01-29."

Fortunately now (IMHO), it does not matter "as much" whether that happens or not. Since footnote [1] now has an "archive" URL, thanks to Webcite, if the link in the "url" field of footnote [1] should die again, then the other link, (which goes by the "archiveurl" field, and corresponds to the link address at the very beginning of the footnote as "displayed") should still work OK. (as long as the Webcite web site is still OK, etc. etc.)

By the way, it was actually still 2012-01-28 in "my" time zone ["MST"] (= UTC -0700) when the ["original"] web page accessed via the newly revived link got "Archived from the original". But I decided to use "2012-01-29" as the nominal "archivedate", since that is the date that was shown in the confirmation e-mail message ("Your WebCite archive request was successful") that I received from (("The WebCite Consortium" <do-not-reply@webcitation.org>)).

That reminds me, it seems that the part of footnote [1] that said "|accessdate=2008-10-16" has not been changed. Maybe that is OK. (Is that correct?) (Is it OK for the "accessdate" to be [WAY!] before the "archivedate"?) Whatever...

Thanks again for your help. It is OK with me if you do not answer my questions, (not a big deal); and -- (see above for why this other thing is optional, now!) -- it is also OK with me if, (in the future), no one steps up to keep "alive" the "url" field of footnote [1]. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Mike Schwartz.