Talk:Abingdon Reservoir
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Rename proposal
[edit]The naming of this article is inconsistent with MOS:AT. The proposal is not from Thames Water but from a consortium of three water companies. It is also not the natural name that users would search for. I propose that it is moved to Abingdon reservoir (proposed). Velella Velella Talk 02:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:Oppose suspected COI in proposal. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Murgatroyd49 - Umm? Are you sure ? Please do have a look at my contributions over the last 16 years which have bent over backwards to be fair and impartial to the water industry despite my historical concerns about the whole water privatisation outcomes in England and Wales. Please also review the edits to this article and judge where COI may lie. Regards Velella Velella Talk 09:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, shouldn't edit before I wake up! Was reading the previous edits and thought it was the same editor. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Morning, the same editor. how do I make sure the page represents the true story if my edits get revoked? it is currently stating incorrect details about the company. Please can you review my edits and references provided and update the article? thanks LKraine (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- LKraine - A few things would help. First an appropriate response to the conflict of interest note on your talk page is necessary before you make any further edits here. Secondly, the link that you provided is to the website of the promoters of this scheme. I think that is a no-brainer that they would be in favour of the scheme. This link is not independent and, in my view, is also unreliable since it fails to mention a whole raft of important issues. So, what is needed is balanced additions with independent sources that highlight the perceived benefits, but also flag up the perceived dis benefits. We also need good sources on the water companies performance on leakage control - not how they have done against industry standards but how much water is being lost each year through leaks. In various source there are mentions of Beckton, presumably a reference to re-use of treated sewage effluent. This needs to be discussed rationally with even perhaps a sideways nod to Singapore and its Newater? I can also see no reference to hyporheic flow in the Thames and the magnitude of that contribution to overall flow availability. But first your considered response to the COI notice is needed. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Morning, the same editor. how do I make sure the page represents the true story if my edits get revoked? it is currently stating incorrect details about the company. Please can you review my edits and references provided and update the article? thanks LKraine (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, shouldn't edit before I wake up! Was reading the previous edits and thought it was the same editor. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Murgatroyd49 - Umm? Are you sure ? Please do have a look at my contributions over the last 16 years which have bent over backwards to be fair and impartial to the water industry despite my historical concerns about the whole water privatisation outcomes in England and Wales. Please also review the edits to this article and judge where COI may lie. Regards Velella Velella Talk 09:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)