Talk:Lowe's/Archive 1

message: Lowe's has no stock symbol. --Patricknoddy 20:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: --- Not true. As it indicates on the main page, the NYSE symbol is "LOW" —Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilancePrime (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stock symbol

message: 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)
replies: text: --- You mean supporting the military - something that Lowe's is very proud to do and as much should be - makes one "rightist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VigilancePrime (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: --- I've worked for Lowe's for three years, in four different stores, and have not seen so much as a generic "Support our troops" poster in the break room, though in one of the four stores, we did have a board for "Our Employees in Uniform" with photos of employees currently deployed. And as far as I've noticed, they've stayed away from mentioning "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays," just things along the lines of "Find all your Holiday needs at Lowe's." It's been my experience that Lowe's stays as politically neutral as possible. They even sent an email corporation-wide about this Immigrants-boycotting-work-day in May, encouraging employees who wanted to do this to use a vacation day. 09:04 22 April, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.11.167 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rightist bent

message: So many points to cover, I'll use bullets (not THAT kind, though I'd like to):
* <B>Spacehiker</B> 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, <I>cited</I>) 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)
replies: text: If I had my way, IP addresses (and maybe red-link users) would be banned from editing, or would have to have their edits cleared first. Of my several thousand edits over a couple of years, I suspect that at least 1/3 of them are reverting junk posted by IP addresses. >:( Wahkeenah 03:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wah, I wholeheartedly agree. It's a subtler form of vandalism, just like good ol' ...35 here. I have said many time over that this article needs work, but aside from you and the occasional drop-in from a couple others, few have done anything but whine and complain and destroy. I know you and I have disagreed (and heatedly at one point), but we worked it out and the article is better for it. I wish that these others could be as constructive or genuine. Thanks for your help. VigilancePrime 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthless Wikipedians (also: Quit Your Fracking Whining) 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lowe's.PNG

message: 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 • contribs) 21:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the above comment, witch was here and also in the article, from the article. It was not sourced first of all. I would assume good faith, however Lowe's as a corporate does not necessarily hire on a set pay scale. It varies with a persons experience, job position and with the local job market. I have no good source for the WP article. But a google search of "lowes payscale" brought up(among other things) the retail worker form site. The fourm user's consensus, witch is composed of many employees and even some mangers, is that their is no payscale.[The form page].R00m c 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to put this in the article then.R00m c (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pay levels leaked

message: An image used in this article, File:MastersBraybrook.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:MastersBraybrook.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Could anyone add the phonetic notation to the sound of "Lowe"? --Roland 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been added. Intelqual (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of "Lowe" 

message: My friend bought a queen bed from Lowe's and has not received it yet supposed to be delivered from NC store she lives at (retracted address) bought it yesterday but not been delivered to her house why I what that happen today  Garypark55 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WIkipedia is written by volunteers, not Lowe's staff. Also, everything you post here is publicly available, so please don't post personally identifiable information. Lowe's customer service can be contacted using the methods listed on https://www.lowes.com/l/contact-us.html. Cheers, Daylen (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  delivery  

message: A number of the brands listed here as "brands sold exclusively at Lowe's Stores" are actually sold at numerous retailers. 
This can be confirmed by visiting the brand's website and searching for stores where the brand's products are sold. 
Though some of the brands in the list are, in fact, Lowe's house brands or brands that Lowes has exclusive distribution rights for, there are numerous errors in the list. I removed Schlage and Levolor, which I confirmed are available at other retailers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.202.84 (talk) 02:09, October 11, 2012‎ (UTC)
:You are right. I am taking that section out for now for a few reasons. The supposed cite is a dead link that really only went to a search result, not any article or book that listed these brands. I have no idea which of these in the list are exclusively Lowe's brands or not. Second, the sentence about being in the top 50 trademark applicants implies that it is in the top 50 of all time, which is not true as far as I can tell. The source provided was from a single year (2007). It really isn't necessary to state a single year's trademark applications unless it somehow marked a high point or turning point in the organization, which that cite would not actually state. The brands that exclusively belong to Lowe's is worth noting, but we need a good reliable source that states this. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brands 

message: It is described at http://careers.lowes.com/areas_corporate_environment.aspx
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Headquarters

message: I had removed the following mention from the article with a reason in my edit summary, but  reverted that removal with no explaination given.  Rather than reverting their revert, I'll bring it up here.
The text in question reads: "Lowe's expanded significantly in 1997, the year it began advertising in publications such as Southern Living."
I have a couple problems with this.  First, the stement of when the expansion takes place has no sources provided for verifiability.  Second, the wording suggests a direct relationship between the advertising and the expansion - this amounts to original reseach, and absolutely requires a source to make such a connection.  And lastly, even if sources can be provided for those two issues, listing a specific publication as an example sets that publication above others - it's best not to mention any specific publication or to list all involved (it adds nothing to the article, so I would say none).
Other opinions on these issues? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning seems solid. Even if sources are provided for the first two issues, the statement should read, "Lowe's expanded significantly in 1997, a year which saw the company begin advertising in ... regional magazines? Southern magazines? Or whatever  is trying to say." 208.118.163.99 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion and connection to advertising 

message: I removed the following link from the EL section.  It may be appropriate as a reference, so I'm mentioning it here for others to work into the article if/where appropriate: Business Week: A Sharper Edge for Lowe's. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I call bullshit on this. If a company decides Wikipedia needs to pay fees to be able to mention their company name, I'll call bullshit on that too. But don't take my word for it, that'd be OR/unsourced. Here's some proper journalism: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120206/03573117666/can-we-count-ways-which-lowes-license-agreement-linking-to-its-site-is-insane.shtml 94.209.137.79 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business week article