Talk:Fareway

I added several tags to the article as I felt certain aspects were particularly problematic. Given that the artcile appears to be mostly copy/pasted from the subject's website by Farewaystores, someone may want to revert back to the October 9th, 2011 version of the article. None but shining hours (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

fareway has a New logo that can be added ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnathanaelb (talk • contribs)

Text which was found to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material has been removed from the article. A listing of that text may be found here. .spintendo⋅⋅) 19:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The topic has no use on the page, how am I vandalizing the page? It's not seen as necessary, and it wasn't Fareway's fault, it would be the manufacturer's fault. It's the same thing with cars. If a dealership buys cars from a company, and afterwords the company finds that there is a defect with the series of cars bought, is it the dealerships fault, or the company that produced the car's fault? Just saying. If you still don't see this as useless, please explain to me how its useful and is needed on fareway's wiki page. 3d1t0r82975 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@3d1t0r82975 and 3d1t0r851: You were both edit warring. Both of you: Take this as a formal warning from an admin that further reverts until you come to consensus here will result in a block. Stop it. Treat one another with respect. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I do believe it is necessary. It doesn't matter whether its Fareway's 'fault' or not; its simply an unbiased addition to the historical documentation of the company. You do have a point about the manufacturer being at fault here. But, seeing as Fareway was involved in the lawsuit, the event is related to them, which in my opinion makes it worthy of inclusion. Miraclefynx (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Miraclefynx, I removed it because it lacked proper secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

ok, thank you :) Miraclefynx (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)