User talk:Wimbornestation

Welcome!
Hello, Wimbornestation, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Lady Wimborne Bridge. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\talk 10:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Kinder Reservoir
Thanks for the citations to the section about the filter house at Kinder Reservoir. I still find the wording a bit loaded, though – the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record calls it "notable" (which is rather more muted than your "splendid") and your wording is obviously intended as being critical of "the present owners". I'm not sure it meets WP:NPOV. (For the record, I'm nothing to do with the water company and I too think it's a shame that the building has been vandalised.) Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Dave
 * Thanks for your comments. I'm happy to replace 'spendid' with ' "notable" '. The key point, of course, is that the filter house is not just another old building.
 * I chose my words carefully with regard to the rest of the sentence - not specifically with regard to WP:NOV, just from over four decades' experience dealing with evidence as a professional historian. The clause is entirely 'factual' - United Utilities (of which, it happens, I'm a very minor shareholder!) have allowed the building to deteriorate (which state I'd be happy to confirm photographically when I'm in the area next month), both by failing to repair 'vandalism' or indeed carry out routine maintenance. (I've know this building since the early 1980s.) This is not, in the langauge of WP:NOV, a matter of 'opinion'. On the other hand, I've not commmented on possible reasons for UU's (lack of) action since that could only be speculation. I can find no recent statement from UU about the filter house, and so can't offer a 'balanced' account of the present state of affairs: no doubt UU corporate affairs could explain the company's position, should they so choose. However I do not think that UU's apparent unwillingness to account publicly for its behaviour is sufficient reason for Wikipedia's readers to remain in ignorance of the building's deterioration or of its owner.
 * If you still feel the sentence breaches WP:NOV, I'm prepared to rewrite the second clause to read "the building has been allowed to fall into disrepair". Not that I am ever happy using the passive case - precisely because it obscures agency.
 * Colin 2.102.145.67 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)