Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Stock symbol
Lowe's has no stock symbol. --Patricknoddy 20:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lowes Background Check Video
Rightist bent
Anyone have any information about a right wing slant of Lowe's? Specifically, strongly supporting the War in Iraq, and their current "Merry Christmas" stand? --TheGrza 19:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Background checks ?? not required for contractors
Lowes does not require the contractors they hire to do background checks on installers and workmen they send into your home. They require liability insurance to protect Lowes , auto ins , but do not require installer companies to run background checks. You go to Lowes and purchase product, pay Lowes, and rely on Lowes not to send predators or felons into your home ---but they dont do it, and at this time have no intention of changing that policy.
Anyone else heard of this happening to anyone? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.218.204.105 (talk o contribs) 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that in the Boston area there was a incident with HD [Home Depot] that involved one that fell though the cracks. It was a sex offender that did a install. Needless to say it created a spark in the media and I'm sure that no one forgets to pull that stuff now. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdovell (talk o contribs) 20:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Overhauled
I am disappointed with the amount of information on Lowes compared with Home Depot. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.145.231 (talk o contribs) 01:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Lowe's/Home Depot Proximity
Where I live, it seems as though everywhere you see a Lowe's, a Home Depot is not far by, most of the time within viewing distance. Is this common anywhere else?--Attitude2000 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Training videos
The videos arent being used anymore for training. Part timers must work for 90 days before recieving benifts other than employee discounts and while lowes is proud of the fact they havent killed anyone its fair to mention that they have severly injured a few. Along with this i added some info about orginzed labor disputes, i couldnt site a source online. Ill keep looking though. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.170.102 (talk o contribs) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure who posted that but videos are CLEARLY used for training. Lowes like many other companies uses satellite communications to broadcast video to other stores (just like Muzak is piped in). Much of these are training videos some of which are live. These are recorded and used for traning directly from the corporation. All employees have the stock purchase plan from day one (although there's two periods in the year for everyone to get it. Many employers have people work 90 days for full benifits this is not alien to major corporations on the planet. Injuries and accidents do happen but there are safety changes that keep improving it. Just keep in mind in terms of safety it's easy to have someone dispute a mistake being made and someone maybe hurting themselves...however once you have a death then there's NO excuse. No one should ever die at work due to someones mistake or someone elses mistake. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdovell (talk o contribs) 00:28,15 November 2006 (UTC)
Anti... Home Depot?
Now, I never really thought I would be citing WP:NPOV on an article like this, but the text of this article seems very biased, and dare I say... anti-Home Depot? Examples:
- "Lowe's takes safety very seriously and consistently reiterates safe working practices into its employees."
- "Lowe's has never had a customer killed in one of their stores, a fact of which the company is very proud, and through their continuous training and emphasis on safety culture, Lowe's strives to continue that record of safe shopping."
- Serious customer injuries have ocurred, but none so serious as the deaths that have been the spotlight of "investigative journalism" TV shows which primarily direct their focus on Home Depot.
- "Nonetheless, Lowe's constantly encourages proactive Safety Culture in their stores to prevent even these less serious instances of customer injury."
- "Lowe's is completely focused on serving customers as its top priority (after safety, which is itself incorporated into customer service: "keeping our store and customers safe is great customer service," so to speak)."
- "Lowe's considers themselves to be one of the best companies to work for based largely on their wide-ranging benefits packages."
- "Unlike Home Depot, which gives its employees no discount on store merchandise purchases, Lowe's grants all employees a 10% discount, like many other (if not most) other retaillers."
- "While Lowe's is not "anti-union," the company believes that organizing employee unions would be detrimental to workers and the company alike. Senior managers are given specific guidance for how to handle possible unionization legally and ethically while protecting the company and employee rights. In some areas of the country, Lowe's employees - either whole stores/distribution centers, departments, or class of employees - are unionized. Wages/salaries are confidential and discussion of individual pay is discouraged."
WP:NPOV specifically prohibits both Advertising and Corporate bias. WP:VERIFY specifically requires sources, and prohibits original resource - which many of these sections employ (such as training videos that cannot be correctly sourced). These are just a few issues with the article in question. --Mrmiscellanious 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Another oddity: The phrasing "Lowe's has never had a customer killed in one of their stores." "Have someone killed" is a slangy way to say this, and it literally means to murder someone. So you're saying that other stores routinely murder their customers? Wahkeenah 12:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting back to the claim about death(s) there's a number of ways that someone can report this. Let's get some facts straight here...no employer wants deaths of either their own workers or of customers. If someone implied that somehow they are wrong. Secondly if we establishing a safety record we must understand that people can die anywhere and just because there was a death in a given area doesn't imply that it was caused by it. If someone has a heart attack and dies in a store it's not the stores fault (reguardless if it's a customer or employee).
Also it should also be noted that injuries could be minor (cuts) to major (arms legs cut off etc) Having said that it should be noted that many chains do not want to release their injury reports. Due to a FOIA request some of them have been
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/dart
Lowes offically claims they haven't had any customers or employees die due to accidents however there was a fall recently that might be their first one.
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/states/kentucky/counties/jessamine/16235654.htm
http://www.johnsonsfuneralhome.com/cgi-bin/CompanyInternal?stdout+116+johnsonsfuneralhome.com+102+4+1446
One might argue that maybe he had a complication (heart, brain etc) that caused him to fall but that hasn't been made public yet. If the death was soley based on the fall then yes this would be the first Lowes fatality. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdovell (talk o contribs) 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
so-called anti-Lowe's POV
Answer me this, WAH: How can this paragraph be rephrased so you don't see it as anti-Lowe's? I had up until you came along been worried that it sounded too anti-HD or too pro-Lowe's. You have an odd view of this part, but I want your input to IMPROVE the article (rather than continue the Revert War or have you just gut it instead of, collectively, improving the article altogether. Let me know. VigilancePrime 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Unions?
I find it odd that this is in the profile
There are NO unions at lowes....none. If there is one would someone kindly post as to what one(s). Unions in retail are extreamly rare and if lowes was union we would have heard about things with contracts and such by now. There's no mensioning of any unionization on any of it's message boards.
Also wages and salary aren't exactly confidential but it does vary as to the part of the country. Lowes uses a 11 point scale that one can determine how low or higher a salary might be. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdovell (talk o contribs) 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As a Lowe's employee, i can say that wages are NOT considered confidential. However, it is recommended that you keep that information to yourself, simply because there is a difference in pay between a new team member and someone in an elevated position(as is the case almost everywhere). I would like to add that Lowe's as a company strives to promote from within; what better than a supervisor or manager that really knows the ins-and-outs of the daily processes? As far as Unions go, we have thrived thus far without one; Lowe's takes remarkable care of their employees. Perks include discounted stock, an excellent 401K with 300% match on an employee's three year anniversary, not to mention a baseline match based upon your contribution up to that point. The wages are dependent upon what part of the country in which you reside, whether you work at a store, distribution center, customer service center, or the corporate office. I myslef have never heard of an eleven point scale... There is an earning cap for most employess, and a raise is typically given every six months, regardless of performance; this can be viewed as both a burden AND a blessing, as you might imagine. Both full- and part-time employess rae entitled to benefits, for which there is much to be said. My understanding is that most large corporations, i.e. WalMart and others, only allow full-time employees to take advantage of a benefits package. This is all fom the horse's mouth; though I prefer to be thought of as a thoroughbred, thank you kindly. :) HLB --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.148.28 (talk o contribs) 01:55, 31 October 2006(UTC)
Here's an anti-union training movie from lowe's. I think their stance should be mentioned in the article with a reference to this video if you think it fits. http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/8559953/ Scrdcow (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Extreme Bias
This article show extreme bias, and in fact reads like an advertisement for Lowes. It is not an encyclopedia entry at all. There are far too many examples to cite, they are everywhere, anyone can see that. This article needs to either be scrapped or completely rewritten. Everywhere you look you can see extremely cheap and transparent marketing tricks. Here are some of the best examples: "Lowe's primary focus is on serving customers", "Lowe's considers themselves to be one of the best companies to work for", "Safety is the number one priority at each and every Lowe's store". Not to mention the cheap comparisons to other "hardware" stores. Shame on the author. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacehiker (talk o contribs) 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC
I'm in complete agreement with the above comment. The Lowe's Wiki page is more like a marketing tool for Lowes rather than an encyclpedia entry --Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.18.17.211 (talk o contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Worthless Wikipedians (also: Quit Your Fracking Whining)
So many points to cover, I'll use bullets (not THAT kind, though I'd like to):
- Spacehiker It is unfortunate and unbelievably obvious that you have not looked at this talk page except to leave your whine. This page here is wrought with requests for help with this article. If you want to help, please do. If you're just going to whine and complain and be petty and attacking toward those who actually have written into this, then please leave. If you want to help the article, then please stay, but stay and HELP the article.
- Spacehiker also accuses this article of reading like a marketing tool. I find that humorous on a number of levels. Firstly, it reeks of a personal bias, as some factual statements are legitimate, even if positive (Lowe's primary focus, safety, customer service), as they are strongly documented. Of course, this has already been hashed out on this talk page AT LENGTH, but one would have to read it first.
- Spacehiker also seems to think that this page is strictly a pro-Lowe's page, which flies in the face of the most recent mega-controversy on this page... Of course, this is also so-well documented./ Anyway, most recently this page was accused of being the very OPPOSITE! It was claimed that this page is ANTI-LOWE'S! Anyway, I found that funny.
- Now for another: 69.146.148.28, if you're a Lowe's employee, you really lessen our holding for them in the way you wrote your text. I would like to point out that "considered confidential" and "is recommended that you keep that information to yourself" are not far apart by any stretch. I think you simply mistyped on the 300% match, so no foul there. I would recommend breaking your answers up into paragraphs, though.
- Also, 69.146.148.28, how about you register with Wiki (it's free!) and help with this article? There's no reason you'd even need to tell us who you are or where you work for Lowe's, and we and this article could certainly use some first-hand (though, as others are properly want to point out to me, cited) information? I think that this article still needs a LOT of work (right, Spacehiker, we agree on that fact?) and you sound like someone who could help us out.
- Look at that, here I am begging for help again. I'm SO sick and tired of people whining and complaining without even reading the talk page... anyone, PLEASE, care to help with this article so it can be improved?
Many thanks. VigilancePrime 05:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article has been chopped again by IP addresses. I will be reverting it. Most of what was removed was very worthwhile... websites, contact information, and even some policy/procedural. After looking through the history, nothing significant has been added that I could see. If I missed something, please forgive me and re-add it. All I ask is that the number-spammer (IP addresses with no concept of Wiki) quit hacking the article. If Wahkeenah wants to exact whole parts of it, fine. He is entitled as he is a true Wikipedian and understands Wiki and this article... and he and I have already had our differences but managed to work them our to the betterment of the article (BTW: Thanks!!!). IP surgeons with their meat cleavers do nothing but waste our time fixing their borderline-vandalism. Carry on. VigilancePrime 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Corporate Safety and Focus
It should be noted that Lowe's is just as "safety oriented" as any other big box retailer. Having worked for Home Depot, Lowe's, and Target, I can tell you they're all just as crazy on safety. Lowe's has never had a CUSTOMER die in a Lowe's store; employees, however, HAVE died in Lowe's stores. So this isn't particularly noteworthy.
For focus on their business, it might be worth saying that Lowe's is targetting women, and young family-oriented women in particular, in their business, having mostly eschewed contractors as anything more than an add-on to the business. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks64q2 (talk o contribs) 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't copy/paste the Lowe's corporate brochure and call it a wikipedia article
As many others have complained, your version is basically a bunch of marketing fluff devoid of any real content. I've cut it down to only the actual information somebody reading an encyclopedia article would care about. You obviously work for the PR department at Lowe's as you even remove the link to the anti-lowe's forum I've included to provide an opposing viewpoint. Please only edit the page if you can contribute worthwhile information, not a stack of pro-lowe's propoganda. 216.223.173.45 05:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Expansion
Does anybody know if Lowes wants to expand to Puerto Rico or the USVI?--BoricuaPR 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As early as 2000, the Lowe's international expansion plan talked about Canada and Mexico, even the UK in Europe, was scrapped due to threats by Home Depot and local home improvement retailers. It's possibly true that Lowe's is going to Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and some report, Guam and the Northern Marianas in Asia's doorstep. The Home Depot attempted to expand in South America (9 stores in Chile and Argentina in 1997-2002), decidedly bailed out of Europe and Japan in favor of China and Mexico, and got into debates or conflicts of interest in some US states and Canadian provinces over the "lack of" and inadequate employee benefits programs. + 63.3.14.1 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I heard Lowes is gonna open its first store in Puerto Rico early 2008...--BoricuaPR 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
News about new stores coming to PR..--BoricuaPR 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I can't find the link right now,but why don't you believe me?
Do you think Puerto Rico is a third world country,you know we're part of the US and many American retail companies have their top performing stores here.--BoricuaPR 03:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
I have found a link to the information both of you are discussing. Guess where? The news was broke on Lowe's Red Apron, the site that ROOm c wants removed from wikipedia. I would post the information on the Lowe's wiki but I know that ROOm c would accuse me of posting spam. Below is the link to the news articled posted on Lowe's Red Apron:
http://groups.msn.com/LowesRedApron/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=1175&LastModified=0&ID_Topic=
Thanks, Retail Patriot --Preceding unsigned comment added by Retailpatriot (talk o contribs) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Eagle Hardware and Garden
Does anyone have any information on Eagle? It's History. Founders? The eagle page redirects to Lowe's, yet the only mention of Eagle is the buyout. I personally think the Eagle page should be about Eagle, and not redirect to Lowes. I would change it myself, but I know nothing about Eagle. 71.213.81.130 02:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Lowe's.PNG
Image:Lowe's.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 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 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC) and 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Pay levels leaked
Recently the pay levels of lowes have been leaked on the internet. As of yet there's no comment from corporate (press releases etc). It is hard to say exactly where it came from but it appears to be a scan from corporates papers. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdovell (talk o contribs) 21:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually there IS a pay scale as all stores are rated between a 1 and a 5 (five being the highest pay) it features bands that determine the least and the most. How a store is determined on a given level is the amount of competition in a given locality. These are probably still floating around on a photo sharing site. It is also under lock and key in any HR's office in the stores. There IS a minimum and there IS a maximum that each person can get paid hourly. Granted it doesn't include commissions or if state laws (blue laws) mandate given days if worked as overtime. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.24.45 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We need a reliable source still. A forum site is far from being reliable. Has this issue been published else where? If we can find at least one reliable source that was willing to report on this matter then it might be acceptable for inclusion.R00m c (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It probably won't be published due to some obvious reasons
1) for the company to admit to something it would have to actually accept it was true
2) in order for this to happen it would have to be hosted
3) if it's hosted it risks a DMCA violation and would be flagged and probably shut down by the company
In other words it's like the old government response of "We can neither confirm nor deny...." --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.24.45 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
about the link Lowe's Red Apron
I have notified the editor who posts the Red Apron Employee Forum link about why this link can not be added. I would like to add the reasons here too so all other editors have a fair chance at discusing this as well as preventing the issue from happing again. The link in question is Lowe's Red Apron Employee Forum. The link should not be added per [1] to the article. Furthermore, I signed up for the sites message board. After making a post about the Wikipedia Lowe's article, I was banned from the site. I read over the groups rules and found no violation on my part. This site is not a very good site for Wikipedia readers due to the site owners personal(and unpublished) policy about Wikipedia reader/editors. Due to the inaccessibility some users might face this site should not be allowed to exist on the Lowes Wikipedia article.R00m c (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
'''Retail Patriot's Response to the lies by ROOm c:'''
Listen, I am the editor. It is an informational site. Everything posted has a direct link to the source with the exception of a small message board that is barely utilized. It is a great site for anyone wanting information on Lowe's especially college students and researchers.
ROOm c is the manager/moderator of the anti- Lowe's union site www.retailworker.com, ROOm c is biased. ROOm c wants to promote his/her political agenda by silencing other sites. Lowe's Red Apron has no commercial interests. I don't make a dime from the site. You are a vandal.
Anyone can read and access infomation on Lowe's Red Apron. You need to join to post on the message board only.
Since ROOm c was trolling on Lowe's Red Apron's message board and had one message removed by the mods for being inflammatory, he/she now has a vendetta against the site. He/She is not banned from the site, they can reaaply for membership. We had to temporarily put his/her account in a holding status to prevent further troll like (melt down) behavior. ROOm c is welcome to post on the message board as long as they respect board rules and guidelines.
If ROOm c continues to remove our link from wikipedia, I can assure you I will appeal this matter to the highest levels at wikipedia. I will also print out ROOm c's defamatory and libelous statements about me and the site and turn the matter over to my attorney and their private investigators.
One last thing, I noticed your original complaint about the link was you felt it was spam. When you realized that didn't really apply, you now say we deny access to wikipedias. Totally false.
We want wikipedians to visit and utilize our site. Our rules clearly state that the Lowe's message board is not the proper forum ROOm c (A disruptive troll on our website) to discuss his/her hatred of the site. ROOm c's references to people's sexual orientation has no place on our forum as well. I intend to report his/her abuse and vandalism of wikipedia and our site to the appropriate people. I will also take the time to review every edit ROOm c has initiated on wikipedia to determine if his/her inappropriate actions are a pattern.
Respectfully,
Retail Patriot
BTW, I added the link again. I ask other editors to visit the site and make their own conclusions and judgements. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Retailpatriot (talk o contribs) 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Im going to just let other editors desided what to do about this matter. Thats why I brought posted the issue here.
Retail Patriot has COI and I do not wish an edit war. In this above comment he has asserted his COI becasue that he owns the site.
In my defence of the above claims, I have been to both retailworker and Red Apron forum sites. I do not hold an account on retailworker though. I am not a maniger or mod of that site. I have no interest in that site what so ever. the retailworker site should also be excluded from the article. My orgnial reason for removle becasue of spam is still the case. It is a form/group site and [[2]] number 11 clearly states that this is agenst the rules. My personal experince with this site only furthers the need to exclusion. I would now like to add that Retail Patriot's COI offers even more weight for the need to exclude this site.
Retail Patriot, making leagal threats is not going to help you here. [[3]].
And finally I am not r00m C on Retail Patriot's site. I have never used the name r00m C any where but in Wikipedia, so to say that r00m C is a troll on Retail Patriot's site is a false claim(but mabey Retail Patriot just said the wrong words. Witch is no big deal). I also fail to see how bringing up this issue and encorging others to check out the Lowes Wikiepida is hardly trolling. I see the comunity as a tool we could use to get some reliable sources.(If thats trolling on your site, again Retail Patriot's site is not made for Wikipedia reader/editors and should, again, be excluded.)
Retail Patriot, Im not attacking you or your company or your site. Im just tring to help wikipedia in maintain its quility of standerds. I am not saying your site does not have any thing to offer the canon of knolage about Lowes. I am only saying that your site does not follow the guildlines. Please stop with all this non sence, as you are embarsing both your self as an editor and your site.R00m c (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Retail Patriot's follow up response and offer of Olive Branch:
Dear ROOm c,
You keep saying that we (our site) isn't a good site for wikipedians and wiki editors. That is your deranged opinion. Pretzel logic on your part. This vendetta and argument is for this discussion board, not one for discussing Lowe's matters. But if it's that important to you. Go to our site, log in, post whatever you want about the subject (I give up) since that is what you are complaining about now. First we were spam, then it was we are a group, now it's our alledge denial of access to wikipedians. Nonsense to the spam and the denial of access. oh, now the latest "legal threats"... So keep reading all the wiki rules until you find the exact one that fits the situation. Plain and simple, this is an issue for you and you want to deny us inclusion as an external link. And now you have declared war on the matter. You did register an id on our site, the id was the same and you have previously acknowledged you posted comments with on our site regarding this matter. On our site, you also directed others to this discussion page, that is how I found about your opposition to our site. So another lie from you. I will take this matter to who ever if you continue. The lawyer issue you now bring up, when you post lies about someone with the intent of inflciting damages, well sometimes that will get you in some hot water. Stop lying and mis-stating the facts and let's join together. I am offering the olive branch here. I use wikipedia as a resource. I encourage others to do the same. I understand wiki has rules. I am new. Help me figure out a way to fit within your rules, so I too can be a contributor to wikipedia and you and I can stop this stupid back and forth. For the last time ALL WIKIPEDIANS AND EDITORS ARE WELCOME AT Lowe's Red Apron!
Respectfully,
Retail Patriot --Preceding unsigned comment added by Retailpatriot (talk o contribs) 10:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE
Someone has registered a new name (Mookedout) and claims to be you (ROOm c) they also made two references to lulz. One was how they built a credit card reader to steal customer's data for "the lulz". If that is not you, I apologize. Anyway, let's see what the other editors say and do with this discussion and issue.
Retail Patriot --Preceding unsigned comment added by Retailpatriot (talk o contribs) 11:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You really are at each others throat here, aren't you. First off: R00m c, "I intend to report his/her abuse and vandalism of wikipedia and our site to the appropriate people." does not constitute a legal threat. [I didn't read this properly. It actually can be construed as a legal threat.] Retailpatriot, "I will also take the time to review every edit ROOm c has initiated on wikipedia to determine if his/her inappropriate actions are a pattern." is something I strongly recommend against in the current situation. And please consider your considerable conflict of interest regarding the page. Further, I urge you both to stop editing the article for now. Remember that Wikipedia and this article won't go away anytime soon, so there's no need to lose you cool and risk a WP:3RR block. Personally, as an outsider, I find the "not-affiliated with Lowe's" disclaimer at the MSN site really doubtful. Even if there's no money involved, it's rather obvious that they are not neutral observers. That said, I would recommend against including the link. Salvage the useful links it has to offer, e.g. the source links provided in the articles at their history subpage and link to those instead. The forums are really not interesting here and offer no reliable information. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 20:56, December 6, 2007
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon