User talk:Fitzpatrickjm

Welcome

Hello Fitzpatrickjm,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Community Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like the Australia Portal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, assuming you're an Adelaidean, have you considered participating in WikiProject Adelaide? Help is always needed!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Preferably, use four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome.--cj | talk 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a Matador?

Thanks for your edits to the American Motors article. I have no issue with the information you provide about the Matador’s popularity as a police vehicle. There is a section on that topic in the AMC Matador page. Please add more specific information about police use on that page, and not in the article about the entire company. The specific POV issue is with the statements you have added concerning the Matador's lack of success in its first year and thus making AMC use the advertising line "What's a Matador?". That is POV. If you have a source for this, then please provide it and the objections will be withdrawn. Moreover, your claim that "Ultimately, Matador became a steady seller- particularly to several police departments." is also false. Once again, any "steady" sales of the Matador were not mainly due to government orders. Another problem is with the paragraph that starts: "Interestingly, Matador relied on parts supplied by competitors ..." This is because AMC's strategy was to outsource many of its components. Please read further down and under the "Continuing business legacy" section you will find "Innovative strategies" where the following sentence details your "interestingly" comment: "... An essential strategy practiced by AMC was to rely on outside vendors to supply components in which they had differential advantages. This has finally been accepted in the US auto industry, but only after each of the Big Three experienced the failure of attempting to be self-sufficient..." Furthermore, AMC corporate strategy of sourcing components from outside vendors was not limited to the Matador's carburetor, steering column, etc. It was true for all of its automobiles and Jeeps as well. This was an integral approach from the inception of the firm -- look at the Nashs designed by someone else (Pininfarina) or built overseas (Nash Metropolitan) -- and continuing right through the very end of the AMC. Thank you for pointing out the value of your contribution, but I hope that you will now see why I reverted your edits the first time. Thank you, CZmarlin 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you comments. I was disappointed with the tone and substance of your comments. However, I am concerned that engaging in any further debate at this time would be a futile exercise. Hence. I suggest that the best resolution at this time is to leave the disagreement on the record, so that it can be noted by future researchers, who would be able to make their own inquiries.

In that regard, for the record, I stand by the material which I have presented.Fitzpatrickjm 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Swanky on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kim Dent-Brown 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kim

Please note that I am in the course of creating the page. Fitzpatrickjm 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroofe

Please note the following

It does no harm to be civil
Threatening me is unlikely to achieve anything
I am perfectly entitled to delete instantly articles like yours which were unsourced and read like an advertisement.
Repeating links from the text to a "see also" is unnecessary and does not amount to providing reference.
Your article is full of unsourced advertisement type statements

As a compromise I'll give you time to properly reference the article and remove the spam. I'll even do some for you. jimfbleak 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, and for reinstating the article.

For the record:

I have no connection with Woodroofe or Cadbury Schweppes (the current owner of the brand) other than as a consumer of their products.
Your actions were inappropriate and high handed, as evidenced by reinstating the article. Woodroofe is a well known regional brand with a long history.
I have not made any threats- I pointed out the action which would be necessary in reponse to apparently uninformed editing.
The balance of your comments read like "sour grapes".Fitzpatrickjm 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the meaning of your last posting on my talk page, it wasn't me who restored the page - not of any great importance though. jimfbleak 05:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have removed the citation tag from the flavours section, but I can't see where you have sourced it. Have I overlooked something, or should the tag be restored? jimfbleak 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rude and unwarranted deletion of a serious article

I am placing on the record my complaint regarding your capricious, ignorant and high handed deletion of an article about an industry of major importance to South Australia.

Kindly refrain from interfering with this article, otherwise I will take appropriate action.Fitzpatrickjm 11:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:CIVIL. A previous editor had already redirected the article, and another had pointed out the blatant POV. Your comment of "I will take appropriate action" looks like a personal attack. Please keep your comments friendly and we might be able to resolve the issue. Thanks. Pedro | Chat 11:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about your behaviour. you have been uncivil to me, which I'm not bothered about, but I note your uncivil and threatening comments to Pedro above. Please read WP:CIVIL for guidance, and WP:OWN with regard to the right of any contributor to make valid edits to any article. In essence it says that creating an article does not give you ownership. Please also note that threatening or lack of civility to other uses can be grounds for having an account blocked; so far you only seem to have made minor threats to a couple of people, but I have concerns about a pattern developing as others attempt to edit articles you feel that you own. Thanks, Jimfbleak.^{Talk to me.}07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beerenberg Farm

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Beerenberg Farm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn/^talk 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Beerenberg Farm is a significant South Australian producer of food products, and I believe that it is a valid subject for inclusion. Nonetheless, I am happy for consideration of various points of view to occur.Fitzpatrickjm 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left on article talk page. I have withdrawn the PROD notice but I am still concerned the article is not independently sourced. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Please note that I have no connection with Beerenberg Farm other than a purchaser and consumer of their products. I believe they have developed a reputation as a unique supplier of South Australian products. Fitzpatrickjm 12:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what comment relating to this article? If you're referring to an edit summary then this is an automatically generated entry from Twinkle that outlines what action is being taken so how this could be seen as patronising is beyond even my own advanced understanding. Anyone involved with the Australian projects knows full well that i'm on a massive article clean-up drive for all those listed within Category:Companies of Australia, of which the first stage is removing all the corpcruft (articles that are blatent spam and/or do not meet WP:CORP, and correctly categorising those which should remain in preparation for further improvements. The article didn't meet the relevant criteria, was nominated for CSD, and was dispatched with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewinchester (talk • contribs)

Another user has just pointed out what you could have possibly been referring too. It was an incorrect selection while I was processing the article for AfD, so apologies for any offence caused (And forgetting to sign my above talk post too). Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of South Australian food and drink

Hi. Perhaps you'd like to use the articles talk page so we can work on tidying the article up and removing the POV ? Pedro | Chat 11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

categories and state pride

Hi Fitzpatrickjm. I see you've created a number of articles lately, and added Category:South Australia to quite a few more. In general, articles don't need that category if either they are already in a subcategory of it, or if the South Australian connection is only incidental to the subject of the article. If there's already a suitable subcategory, please use it rather than just the top SA category.

Also, if you create (or find) articles relating to South Australia, you can mark them on their talk page with {{WP Australia}} or {{WP Australia |Adelaide=yes}} if they specifically relate to Adelaide. There are a number of other WikiProject Australia parameters to mark it for other subprojects, too. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Harris Scarfe

At 11:15 UTC on May 28, 2007, you added the category of Companies of Australia to the article on Harris Scarfe. I am leaving a message to inform you that this both unnecessary and creates duplication. The article is already a member of Category:Retail companies of Australia which is a subcategory of Companies of Australia.

If you've been watching the Australia wikiproject, you will know that the Companies of Australia category is the subject of a major cleanup. Additionally, the big notice at the top of the category is there to remind you to think before placing articles at the top level, and instead find an appropriate sub-category to put them in. Sorry if I sound a little annoyed, but in the weeks I do get to pursue the category cleanup, there's usually 50 articles placed back there by editors who've not got the first clue what they're doing, or are simply ignorant and lazy. Please feel free to drop by my talkpage for any future guidance or assistance on this matter. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Beerenberg Farm on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beale Piano

Hi, I read your message on my talk page. First, I must ask you to remain civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors, as these are basic Wikipedia ground rules.

As far as the article in question is concerned, almost all of your sentences were copied from the other article, with a couple of words changed here or there. For example, the first 9 words of your "history" section is identical to the first 9 words of the source article. You slightly paraphrased the first sentence of the second paragraph from the first sentence of the second paragraph of the other article. The next sentence was copied verbatim from the other article. The next sentence is another paraphrase, and the one after that is copied directly from a clause in the other article. The only thing not copied was the final sentence of the section, which I would have left, but it didn't make sense as the only sentence in the "history" section.

Since you insist that this section is not a copyright violation, what I'm going to do is mark it as a possible copyright violation, blank it per WP:CP and let a neutral editor make the determination. I hope this will be acceptable to you, as Wikipedia's copyright policies require strict avoidance of copyright infringement. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think there's another option, unless you're willing to rewrite the article using your own words. Also, I know you're new here, but the civility thing isn't an option -- it's a policy -- and you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating it. (Please don't take that as a threat but as friendly advice!) On the other hand, your suggestion that my identification of your contribution as copyright infringement might be defamatory suggests a legal threat, which is another type of conduct that will get you blocked from editing. In any case, truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation, and there is no question that your contribution constituted copyright infringement. I urge you to read the policies linked above, as I sincerely believe your experience here will be more pleasant if you understand them. Have a nice day! --Butseriouslyfolks 07:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't post the article from the other website anywhere at Wikipedia. (I'm sure you didn't realize what you were doing when you copied it to Talk:Beale Piano.) As for the material I have challenged, please do not repost it until somebody else has a chance to determine whether it is a violation. I have removed both from the talk page but replaced them with links so readers can follow what you are talking about. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What do you mean I didn't reply to your post on my talk page? I certainly did, about a half hour later, and it's two paragraphs above this message. Here's the diff. --Butseriouslyfolks 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot emphasize the need for civility here, as well as the importance of avoiding personal attacks. Calling people ignorant and pigheaded will only get you blocked. And besides, it's mean.

As for the article, if you're in contact with the copyright holder, why don't you just ask him or her to license the material under the GFDL so it can be used here without restriction? (The procedure is outlined here. I sincerely think that would be a more productive use of your time than continuing on your present course. -- But|seriously|folks 03:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue on Trend drinks

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Trend drinks. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked again at the article, and I stand on my position. What you did was taking the text from the history page, reworded it a bit and put it into Wikipedia. Something like 80% of the text I removed from the article is from the source page. While I assume that was done in good faith, this is not acceptable under Copyright laws. Following your second comment, I did not say anything on the merits of the subject of the article by itself, just that in its present form, it was a copyright violation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong! I have been in communication with the proprietor of the website, and they have confirmed:

1. The material I have presented is a matter of historical fact; and

2. They do not claim copyright in historical facts.

Accordingly, there is no basis to your allegations.

In the circumstances, I believe it is fair for you to provide an apology and to retract your erroneous (and serious) allegation.

Needless to say, I will be reinstating trhe factual material so that Wikipedia can present the facts!

Also, for the record, I note that you have not presented any evidence of qualifications in the field of copyright law.

Fitzpatrickjm 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you clearly do not understand Wikipedia's copyright policies and copyright law in general. You are half right, in that the facts themselves are not protected by copyright. What you are missing is that a narrative that recites the historical facts is protected, just like any other original work of authorship. In other words, you can use historical facts someone else has gathered, but you have to do so in your own words, or you're violating their copyright.

Please do not post any more articles until you read WP:C and Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ. Thank you and good luck. --Butseriouslyfolks 15:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing on the record that I consider your response to be insulting, patronising and ignorant. Furthermore, the conduct in deleting the article was contrary to Wikipedia policy. May I suggest you read the policy carefully yourself, and that you take into account the facts, including the FACT that the person whose "copyright" you allege I am "violating" does not assert copyright!

I would be interested to see your qualifications in copyright law.

I await an apology, although I suspect I will be kept waiting for a considerable period of time.

In the meantime, my comments stand.

Fitzpatrickjm 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overs Pianos

Please be polite, I don't need to be an expert to be concerned by the use of Wikipedia for advertising. I didn't nominate it for deletion as spam, but as it stood (from memory) it did not explain its notability or quote reliable sources and it could have be deleted at any time.--Grahamec 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened to the article yet, but Wikipedia is not for advertising and if the article isn't given any content or third-party references to suggest that it is not adverstising it is vulnerable to deletion. There is nothing to stop you advertising your product on your own web site.--Grahamec 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please stop making personal attacks on my talk page. I note that at least three other editors have felt the need to comment on your lack of civility. If you are looking for a place to engage in namecalling and be otherwise combative, there are plenty of them elsewhere on the Internet. Such conduct is prohibited here. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 09:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs where I have made a personal attack on you. Or on anybody, for that matter. I'm fairly certain no one here has ever accused me of that before. -- But|seriously|folks 09:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Beerenberg Farm

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Beerenberg Farm meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerenberg Farm. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start on the references for this article. You now need to get it in line with the WP:MOS for the references, by including those references inline. The reflist template has just been added to the article, so go and read Template:Cite web for information on how to do the inline referencing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Cheers, Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just letting you know I've added a few more references to the article, and by coincidence placed them "inline" just as this conversation was going on, and done some rewriting to make it a bit more neutral. --Canley 04:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Santa Clara County Supervisors

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Santa Clara County Supervisors meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Supervisors (2nd nomination). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FitzGeralds stores

Hi there, I've added a couple of details to your great page on the FitzGeralds department stores, mostly the closure of the New Norfolk and Eastlands branches. The mention that the New Norfolk store was previously a hotel wasn't quite right (that was across the street) so I added a little there too. I will confirm the date of the Eastlands closure & add that later. All the best, Journo70 04:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swanky beer

Hi Fitzpatrickjm. I've just come upon your Swanky beer article. I'm interested in this beer - I have an interest in beer and beer styles. I've had a look for it on the internet and I can see that there is brewery in Australia which makes a beer branded Swanky, and I can find a recipe for home-brewing what appears to be a standard beer which goes under the name Swanky beer in Cornwall, but I don't see where it is a distinctive beer style. In what way does the Cornish Swanky beer differ from other home-brews? And how does the branded beer relate to the Cornish home-brew - other than using the same name? I'd really like this to be a rare and unique beer style, but I suspect it's just a local name variation, much like Scrumpy for cider. Would you be able to provide more information: User talk:SilkTork Regards SilkTork 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this message (reproduced for information):

Thanks for your message. Swanky beer is a traditional Cornish beer, which is well known in Cornwall.

I believe it is a distinctive style of beer.

Swanky originally was brewed in Cornwall in the manner which I have described in the article.

In Australia, it has been brewed for the biennial Kernewek Lowender Cornish Festival in South Australia for many years. Various brewers have made the beer over the years. The Swanky for the 2005 and 2007 festivals was brewed by Copper Coast Wines.

Since it was originally home brewed, I suspect that there was a significant amount of variation between the recipes of individual brewers, as well as between individual batches of brews!

Also, I suspect that the Swanky style may have been overlooked in categorising the major beer styles, since it comes from one regional area in the UK. Most likely, it is properly categorised as a regional style of ale.

Swanky definitely is a distinct style of beer, rather than merely being a "brand" name or a local regional term for beer or ale.

I hope these comments are helpful. If you find out any more information, I would be delighted if you could share it!

Regards

Fitzpatrickjm 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SilkTork"

My suggestion is that the product Swanky is redirected to the company Copper Coast Wines, and the section is rewritten to show that it is a beer produced by Copper Coast Wines which uses the name of a Cornish homebrew. There is no evidence I can find which would support it as being based on a type of style of beer. SilkTork 15:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. As we cannot agree, I will put the article forward for discussion. SilkTork 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swanky beer SilkTork 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian food and drink

Hi Fitzpatrickjm. On Wiki we work by using existing guidelines and consensus. The guidelines and consensus does indicate that South Australian food and drink should be merged with Cuisine of Australia. I feel that you have a lot of energy and enthusiasm that can be used for the benefit of Wiki. I also feel that you haven't yet fully got into the cooperative and consensual nature of how Wiki works. If you have an objection to the merge then call for assistance. Take a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Undoing a merge that has been agreed by consensus, can be seen as disruptive, and may even lead to an edit war. At this stage you really do need to get some support for your actions. As some consolation, just because there is consensus doesn't mean the majority are right - consensus can change. Your view may be the right one, and I and the others may be wrong. However, you'll need to get some support for your position before continuing to undo edits that are currently consensual. Any questions, please let me know. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Tags

Please do not remove maintenance tags (like proposed merge templates) from articles while the discussions are ongoing. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 03:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not remove content from articles, such as Copper Coast Wines. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, welcome back. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Beerenberg Farm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beerenberg Farm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beerenberg Farm (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vanasan (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Copper Coast Wines for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Copper Coast Wines is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper Coast Wines until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scott Davis ^Talk 01:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holden FAR

I have nominated Holden for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]