User talk:Docu

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

For more talk, see "Page history".
For bot related questions, see User talk:D6.

Mount Ayles and others

Before you change the scale can you check to see if the map/sat image is viewable? I had change a couple back as most of the links don't give any viewable map. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which map are you trying? If you want the scale of type:state for mountains, please use type:mountain_scale:3000000 rather than type:state. -- User:Docu

I was using map/sats for Google Maps, MapQuest, Yahoo! Maps, Live Search maps, TerraServer, MSN maps and WikiMapia. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are just no maps available. BTW, you may be interested in the discussion at Template_talk:GeoGroupTemplate#Polar_co-ordinates -- User:Docu

Once the scale is changed the maps/sats do show up in a viewable form. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but Greenland shows up too. Is there a resource with higher resolution for the region? -- User:Docu

The only thing that I can think of is Google Earth which had better resolution for some regions in the Arctic/Antarctic than the ones I listed above or Worldwind. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Antarctica, we could make a specific section that displays based on "region:AQ", but if it's just to list Google ... -- User:Docu

Signature

Hi. I was wondering if you'd consider adding a link, to your custom-user-signature, to make it easier for other editors to find out who you are? (The relevant guideline section is at Wikipedia:Sig#Internal links). Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there were some people signing without any reference to their username. Thus some recent addition. I wonder if you had any problems finding my user page. -- User:Docu

I had no problem finding your page, just extra effort (scroll to top of talkpage where name was see

n, click history, find "Docu", click username. That's 3 extra steps).

There were people who would only link their signatures to autograph pages, or special:emailuser, or not include any link because they didn't like interacting with other users. See Wikipedia_talk:Signatures/Archive_3#Underwrought_signatures.3F__.28i.e..2C_Linkless.29 and Wikipedia_talk:Signatures/Archive_5#Recourses and Wikipedia_talk:Signatures/Archive_6#No_links_in_a_signature.

C'mon, set a good example! I won't even mention the lack of timestamp! (Oh, whoops) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think it's preferable to respond directly on a talk page than here .. -- User:Docu

Hi Docu. I came here via a discussion on WPtalk:Signatures to ask you to please provide a link in your signature to at least one of: your user talk page or your user page. This is per the internal links section of the signature guideline, which reads: "At least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." Also, please consider using a timestamp when signing talk pages other than your own; this helps other users to avoid confusion about when you have posted messages. Thanks, Exploding Boy (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why do you consider this important? User page can be accessed quite easily anyways. -- User:Docu

For the reasons already explained, and because the guideline is clear on this: your signature must include, at the very least, a link to either your user or user talk page. I think this is especially important since you're an admin, and therefore more likely to be dealing with inexperienced users. As pointed out above, not having such a link makes it more difficult to access your talk pages and contributions log, and makes it harder to contact you. Additionally, having no link in your signature makes it appear that you're a new or an unregistered user, and having no timestamp, while probably not a problem on your own talk page, can create a lot of confusion on other talk pages, especially busy ones that get many posts. If you reluctance is for aesthetic reasons, you can easily embed a link within your existing signature, by making as little as a single letter of your username link to one of these pages; many users do this. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]