Talk:United Utilities

message: :Image:UnitedUtilities.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UnitedUtilities.png

message: :Image:UnitedUtilities.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UnitedUtilities.png

message: An editor or editors keeps adding unsourced comments to the effect of "In 2012 Barton WwTW Preston was named the centre of effluent excellence". In practice I can find no record of any such award having been made by any recognised environmental body. On the contary a simple google search reveals the fact that the company has a highly unsatisfactory environmental record e.g. £170,000 fine in June 2011, £20,000 fine in November 2011  and £27,000 fine in November 2011. I can only assume that these edits are by company employees who are trying to white wash the company's image. Dormskirk (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Record 

message: Why remove so many of the critical details? This is an usual episode that has cost the company millions of pounds. There is an ongoing criminal investigation, with talk of deliberate sabotage. The event needs to be recorded properly. 217.38.133.29 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The important details remain. When these things are documented they can be added. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or place to find out about compensation. The company has a website for such things. Not everything that is said on the news needs to be in the article. J3Mrs (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all documented. If you need more sources, they can be easily found. The press coverage has extended far beyond the company website - to BBC national news, for example. I'm really not sure why are attempting this damage limitation exercise. Maybe you are a company employee. "An encyclopedia is not a newspaper"? How ridiculous. 217.38.133.29 (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No an encyclopedia is not a newspaper and I have no WP:COI or any other axe to grind. J3Mrs (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. The ridiculous part is you suggesting that a few relevant details make the article look like a newspaper. Everything that was there was wholly relevant. 217.38.133.29 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to what is really a small incident.  These things are newsworthy for a while but not necessarily encyclopedic. J3Mrs (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A small incident?! 300,000 households for up to four weeks? Some people driven out of business. This is a major incident and people are angry. It's importance can't simply be dismissed out of hand. It's not over yet as there has been no explanation of why it occurred. Your high-handed approach is quite deplorable. 217.38.133.29 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you were affected but its hardly of global significance.  When there is an explanation it could be added. It's news not encyclopedic content. J3Mrs (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you have a major problem with any of this information. Back on 13 August you dumped out the whole section was because it was "UNDUE": . You seem biased against it. It does not have to be "of global significance" to be useful in this article. 217.38.156.149 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:J3Mrs is probably right about this. For a company with a net profit last year of £739.4m, a cost of £15m is not that big a concern - that's only about 2%? The section should be kept, but doesn't need to be very big. Some editors who have experienced the crisis personally may feel aggrieved, but that's no good reason to have too much detail added to this section. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contamination