User talk:Gb009761

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Gb009761, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC

Cape Wrath[edit]

Hello Gb009761. Regarding your edits to Cape Wrath, John & Kay Ure missing their first Christmas together in over 35 years[1] does not seem to play a significant role in the history of Cape Wrath. However, there appears to enough reliable source material about Ozone Cafe to justify its own article.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The Cape Wrath article probably could have some information about the Ozone Cafe tea shop in the historic lighthouse at Cape Wrath. However, please try to limit what you add to the Cape Wrath about the Ozone Cafe to that which is in the above linked articles and then only as it relates to Cape Wrath. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Wrath reply[edit]

Hi Gb009761. I'll respond to your post here below by putting your comment first and my response after that:

>"whilst I did consider adding a totally new section for the Ozone Cafe, I didn't think it'd justify it (obviously, you do). "--> I think there could be a stand alone article on Ozone Cafe; I do not think there should be a totally new sub-section for the Ozone Cafe in the Cape Wrath article. That would give it too much weight in the Cape Wrath article. Remember, the topic Cape Wrath is about something that is millions of years old and Ozone Cafe merely a blip in that.

>"What I fear though, is that the user 'QuintusPetillius' will deem any page devoted to the Ozone Cafe as 'advertising' "-->That won't happen if you limit what is in an Ozone Cafe article to only major facts/details which are included in Wikipedia reliable sources that are independent of the Cape Wrath subject. When you add phone numbers, hours of operations, mentioning that food/drink/souveniers, etc, that's advertising. http://www.capewrath.org.uk/10_Ozone_Cafe.htm would be allowed in an Ozone Cafe article as an Official Website.

>"What I'm primarily interested in, is introducing people to the area around Cape Wrath and it's remoteness - but, at the same time, attempting to provide some means of emergency help when they're there (there's no mobile signal coverage once you lose sight of the Kyle of Durness, and combined with the potential of old/spent MOD ordinance and the danger of the highest cliffs in the UK), does, in my view, justify the Ozone Cafe's telephone number being included." -->Within Wikipedia, there are multiple reasons this line of thinking is inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals. Your primary interest should be in writing a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, not introducing people to the area around Cape Wrath. As for using Wikipedia as a help service, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.

>"When I was last over there, I did ask about first aid/emergencies - primarily for the Ure's own sake, but he reassured me that they were able to get assistance there quickly, and that they were also able to provide first aid to others if need be (if I remember correctly, John did say that Kay used to be a nurse, but as to how long ago/whether her skills are fully up-to-date, I don't know (I suspect not) - thus, I didn't feel that it was right to mention this on the page)." A reason you can't add Kay's nurse information to the Cape Wrath page is because that information is not contained in Wikipedia reliable sources that are independent of the Cape Wrath subject. See WP:GNG. Other reasons you can't add such information to the article are set out in WP:NOT.

>"If you agree with me, then perhaps the user QuintusPetillius will have less objection to you editing the page in some way to highlight the emergency angle/remoteness of the place." -->I think you are missing the point of the article. The topic Cape Wrath is about something that is millions of years old and the difficulty of humans to get emergency services there is not relevant to that geographic topic.

>"I'm attempting to come from. Obviously, I have no idea as to whether you or, indeed QuintusPetillius has ever been to Cape Wrath - although I do speak from personal experience." --> A last thing Wikipedia needs is editors using their personal experience to add to an an article because that may lead to WP:POV and WP:OR problems. Wikipedia's article formula is very simple: 1. gather all information about Cape Wrath from Wikipedia reliable sources that are independent of the Cape Wrath and then 2. boil that down into a thorough and representative survey of that relevant literature. That's it. The goal is to work towards and move the article towards meeting the WP:FA criteria. Reaching FA status does not happen for most articles, but it still is the path each article needs to be on. Introducing people to the area, emergency services, etc. are all secondary to Wikipedia's article goals.

Wikipedia is not typical of the rest of the Internet. Please try to edit a variety of articles and participate in some of its processes (e.g., WP:AFD, WP:NPOVN, etc.) and you will begin to see the differeces. I hope the above helps. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gb009761. Than you for your message here. The research you have need only be published in a Wikipedia reliable source rather than requiring you to be called upon in a court of law to testify as to its reliableness. Wikipedia has a No original research policy and contributing original research is what QuintusPetillius and I sought to discourage while encouraging you towards using material from Wikipedia reliable sources. You mentioned that whatever is published on the Internet can be viewed as being authoritative. However, most internet Websites are not Wikipedia reliable sources so the material from them is not helpful to develop Wikipedia articles. (Wikipedia's thinking is opposite in this area from what new contributors to Wikipedia expect.) Your sources do not need to be published in an electronic format to be a Wikipedia reliable sources. Also, the requirement is not that a source be 'independently verifiable'. Rather, the source needs to be reliable as set out in WP:RS and secondly the source needs to be independent of the topic. (There also is a Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement) As for the Cape Wrath Range notices, those are not independent of the Cape Wrath topic because they are from the Cape Wrath Range, so they would not be beneficial to the Wikipedia Cape Wrath article. (Here too, Wikipedia's thinking is opposite in this area from what new contributors to Wikipedia expect.) I was unable to find the 12th of October 2002 London Evening Standard story you mentioned. However, I did find a December 12, 2002 write up by the Daily Mail,[10] which also was covered December 10, 2002 in a The Evening Standard article about Margaret Davies dying at the Kervaig Bothy shelter at Cape Wrath.[11] The Daily Telegraph also did a write up on the story.[12] The topic was mentioned three years later here. There is a very detailed write up of the event at -- Helen Weathers (December 20, 2002), "A Haunting Way To Die", Daily Mail, p. 3233 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help), which is not on the Friday 20 December 2002 News Archive page of the Daily Mail. While some of that information might add to the Cape Wrath article, the topic might be better covered in a Death of Margaret Davies Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]