Talk:Sherwin-Williams

message: This article has no citations yet makes grandiose claims. "The Sherwin Williams "Cover the Earth" logo and slogan of "Ask How, Ask Now" is one of the most recognizable symbols the world over" had no demonstrated basis in fact.216.93.229.121 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: One of the other wikipedia pages lists SWC as being charged due to lead poisoning by replacing lead paint with... lead paint.  Shouldn't that be mentioned here or at least a redirect to the article?194.105.181.145 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Paint

message: The supporting information for the Idea Center is located on Sherwin-Williams's internal intranet site.  It would be rather difficult for someone to cite it in a way that the general public could see.  The information that the person added on the Idea Center is correct.Cwc2311 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea Center

message: "Sherwin-Williams is the only national paint company."  
What does this even mean?  Ambiguity with "national".  What nation?  If United States, there are other US based paint companies:  Behr (Michigan based), PPG (Pennsylvania based), Valspar (Minnesota based).
Whole section lacks substance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaintMitt (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition 

message: would this fit here: :File:CALIFORNIA-SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA - NARA - 544720.jpg. its historic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: image from 70s

message: I'm sorry about the revocation of my contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherwin-Williams&oldid=prev&diff=795531987. But it seems important to notice how a brand has effect in pop culture. In day to day language in helps perceive the importance of a brand or product. A translator, for instance, may look for what the hell is Sherwin-Williams and find out that in USA it is a brand well known so that a songwriter can just use the name to make a statement. --Joachim~frwiki (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop-Culture

message: I wasn't sure how to get in touch with anyone, so I am starting here.  I just wanted to let whoever is responsible for the Sherwin Williams Paint commercial is an absolute genius. Not only the colors presented but the way the animals were presented were fantastic. I have never seen such beautiful "animation"  or whatever it needs to be called and I just wanted to let y'all know this is the best commercial every placed on television.  2600:8807:9082:31D0:1133:3E2A:C235:2BDC (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherwin Williams commercial 

message: Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, my name is Mira and I am the employee representative for Sherwin-Williams here on Wikipedia. As an employee, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article and related articles directly. My intention is to work with engaged editors that are interested in making constructive improvements. 
A good place to start is the infobox. The number of locations, as well as the number of employees, is outdated. Could we use the most recent Form 10-K to update these numbers? This should also be updated where it's mentioned in the "History" section. 
*Number of employees: 61,111
*Number of locations: 4,758
I was also wondering if editors would be willing to update the "industry" field in the infobox to say "Paint and coating manufacturing" rather than "General building materials" using this source, since it is more specific to what the company produces? 
Please let me know if this is the preferred way for a conflict of interest editor like myself to best collaborate with editors! I welcome your questions and feedback if they arise. Thanks in advance! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Another editor tagged this edit request with  for you. That places it in the queue and improves response times. Best, Altamel (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Altamel, thanks so much for your assistance with this quick update to the article. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

text: It’s common to allow COI editors to make adjustments and updates to financial information in their article’s infoboxes.  Please do feel free to go ahead and make those factual changes yourself. Ferkjl (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Hello Ferkjl, thanks for your review and thoughts shared here. Under your guidance in this instance, I have applied the straightforward updates (proposed above) to the infobox parameters for key people, revenue, income, assets, equity, and number of employees. Updated references are included for reference as well, if you care to check my work. I appreciate your assistance and advice in this case and will avoid further updates to the live article because of my paid conflict of interest and in accordance with the site's policies. Thanks again, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you !  Commercially-related edits are the least pleasant tasks for editors (at least from my perspective, and I do a lot of them), but it's been quite easy and pleasant in your case.  Your requests were sensible, clear and well organized.  Cheers ! Ferkjl (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated infobox data 

message: Hello again editors, I'm back with another request, this time addressing the Competition section as it is seen in the current article. First, I notice right off that this section is entirely unsourced. Secondly, the information included is not an exhaustive list. If editors think it a valuable addition to the article, I'll gladly help by listing sourcing here to help editors complete it. However, it seems to me that information about competing brands is not pertinent to Sherwin-Williams as the article subject and so is unusual to see included in a typical Wikipedia entry for a corporate brand. If the community agrees, are there any reviewing editors who might be willing to remove the existing Competition section and its unsourced contents from the article on my behalf? As with other requests, I will not make changes myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks for any assistance or thoughts you might share. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks CorporateM for your thoughts about this along with your above reply to Consumer brands. Thanks to you, Graywalls, too for your help with removing this section! I noticed your clean up within Awards and recognition and have a few thoughts for further improving that section. Trying to keep things tidy, I'll make a new section/post to that effect, below. In the meantime, thanks again for your help here!  MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition section 

message: Hello editors, I'm back as promised with a few thoughts for improving the Awards and recognition section within the current article. These suggestions are on the heels of this recent adjustment to the section and thoughts above from User:Graywalls and User:CorporateM.  Once again, due to my paid conflict of interest, I will not make changes to the entry myself. I'm providing a list of awards below, along with supportive sourcing, for editors to review and consider for inclusion in the live article, specifically from Forbes: 
*Forbes awards:
**America's Best Employers 2021 (#50)
**Best Employers for Veterans 2020 #106)
**America's Best Employers for New Grads, 2020 (#13)
**America's Best Employers By State 2020 
**Best Employers for Women 2020 (#248)
**Global 2000 2020 (#448)
**Best Employers for Diversity 2020 (#435)
**Top Regarded Companies 2019 (#239)
**America's Largest Public Companies 2018 (#148)
Thanks for any guidance or assistance offered! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia making is not copywriting and it is not an extension social media of a company even though unfortunately many articles are used in such a way. Those are statistics that can be exhibited on your own website. I don't see how any of those have encyclopedic value. The information isn't prohibited if context warrants it but just putting it in is not necessary in my view. Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Graywalls Thanks for this reply and for your input. I'm adding the edit request template above so other editors might review it and weigh in. I welcome collaboration and will defer to the consensus of the community.  Thanks again! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dumping the list into the section is obviously not going to happen, because that is unduly promotional. With that said, your request on how you'd like like all/some of those utilized in the article is not specified and the request is too vague. Please make clearer suggestions. Graywalls (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and recognition 

message: Hello editors, I'm here with what I think is a straightforward request to update parameters within the infobox. In particular, Products and Divisions, as follows: 
*The current list of Products, "paint, wallpaper, flooring", seems to me like a random selection of Sherwin-Williams products that does not truly summarize the company's offerings. I propose replacing this list with: paints, coatings, stains, caulks, sealants and applicators 
*Similarly, the listed Divisions appear arbitrarily selected and not representative of the company's official divisions, as outlined in the body of the article itself. I propose replacing this list with: The America's Group, Consumer Brands Group, and Performance Coatings Group as seen within the article body. 
If editors agree, is there a volunteer willing to help by implementing these recommended changes to the infobox on my behalf? I prefer to remain hands-off, even within the infobox, to respect the site's guidelines for my conflict of interest. Thanks for any feedback or consideration. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again, I'm adding the edit request template above for visibility. Thanks! 72.23.172.228 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Sorry about the delay, there’s an edit request backlog of around 200 articles, and I’ve been going in chronological order.  Saw this because you pinged me, otherwise it’d have to wait until someone got to it.  But this was such a small edit, that it’s not worth to come back. It’s done.  As you said, the infobox should be consistent with the body; it’s now better. Thank you. Ferkijel (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox products and divisions 

message: Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, my name is Mira and I am the employee representative for Sherwin-Williams here on Wikipedia. As an employee, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article and related articles directly. My intention is to work with engaged editors that are interested in making constructive improvements. 
I am wondering if editors would be willing to update the Carbon Footprint section based on new data available from the 2021 Sherwin-Williams Sustainability Report ESG Summary. We are proposing updating the figures on the page now, and also adding a data point for 2021. Please see below for what I believe should be reflected in the table on the page:
*December 2017: Keep as is
*December 2018: Keep as is
*Decebmer 2019: Change to 676
*December 2020: Change to 635
*Please add to the table: December 2021: 621
We will also want the top page updated to reflect the following:
Sherwin-Williams Co reported Total CO2e emissions (Direct + Indirect) for the twelve months ending 31 December 2021 at 621 Kt (-55 /-8.1% y-o-y)[68] and plans to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 from a 2019 base year.
Please let me know if this is the preferred way for a conflict of interest editor like myself to best collaborate with editors! I welcome your questions and feedback if they arise. Thanks in advance! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MiraSherwin-Williams, I believe you posted an incorrect citation for the 2021 ESG report. I've picked it up from the company website and updated the figures. Note that the "(-55 /-8.1% y-o-y)" no longer applies when comparing 2021 vs 2020 emissions. I've fixed this as well. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon Footprint