Talk:Lowe's/Archive 1

Stock symbol
Lowe's has no stock symbol. --Patricknoddy 20:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * --- 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)

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? --The Grza 19:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * --- 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)
 * --- 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)

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 • contribs) 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * --- Not True now. This had been the case in the past, but currently all contractors that do work for Lowe's, including installers, are required to be checked out.
 * Verified the above through district/regional Lowe's personnel; it is also generally available as public knowledge, published in Lowe's flyers, booklets and ads on occasion.
 * VigilancePrime 06:57, 13 February 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 • 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 • contribs) 01:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * --- How do you like it now? ;-) I added and reorganized a ton. I'll add more in the future. Of course, we need others, maybe some people who work for Lowe's perhaps, to also put in their knowledge and experience.
 * --- Side note: That California lawsuit comment needs a citation, like to an LA Times news article or similar. Whoever added that or whoever can substantiate it, please post up the reference. :-)
 * --- VigilancePrime 07:04, 28 August 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)
 * --- There's this urban legend -ish story... that the CEOs of the two companies were married but divorced and so they build their store anywhere the other one does, always in a constant effort to one-up their former spouse. The story has been told in various different versions, but they all center around the seemingness of a HD being built near every Lowe's and a Lowe's being built near every HD.
 * --- In one very interesting case in Oregon, the Lowe's and HD actually SHARE the same parking lot!
 * --- It IS an urban legend (both are CEO-ed by men), but it does strike at the appearance that they build close together. This is in some respects purposeful (how often do you see a McDonald's and there is no Burger King or Wendy's or Carl's Jr. across the street?) and also is a factor of market conditions. If a particular market is a good financial investment area for a HD, it would just as much be for a Lowe's, and vice versa.
 * --- VigilancePrime 21:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought it worth mentioning, except on a road near where I live, There was this Lowe's probably there since "Lowe's the difference" was their slogan, and all of a sudden, a Home Depot pops up. Further down this road (3, 4 miles tops), a new shopping center emerges with Home Depot, and all of a sudden a new Lowe's is built. They're so close I thought the older Lowe's was going to be closed down. The only Lowe's I know of by itself is a little closer to my hometown in Orangeburg. I have yet to see a lonely Home Depot. --Attitude2000 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * --- It IS especially funny, since as you say, "I have yet to see a lonely Home Depot", but HD has many more total stores nationwide than Lowe's. Still, Lowe's is growing faster. This week's issue of BusinessWeek magazine had an interview with the HD CEO, and if you read that, you can gain insight into why HD is sucking it up right now... VigilancePrime 05:15, 18 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 • contribs) 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it up a bit more. Liked your intent but had to modify the actual text. Make sure to punctuate and stuff too. ;-) Also, don't forget to sign your comments!!!
 * One other thing, I added into the Deaths/Injuries part, but I don't like the way it sounds. What I'm saying is good, but I can't figure out the words to use to make it readable and understandable. Please someone help!
 * VigilancePrime 00:09, 8 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 • 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."
 * High positive tone to statement.


 * "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."
 * Again, high praise as if it were a press release.


 * 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.
 * Swipe one, with no sources.


 * "Nonetheless, Lowe's constantly encourages proactive Safety Culture in their stores to prevent even these less serious instances of customer injury."
 * This is starting to sound like it was written by a PR firm hired by Lowe's.


 * "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)."
 * The use of tone and wording in this sentence only furthers my claim.


 * "Lowe's considers themselves to be one of the best companies to work for based largely on their wide-ranging benefits packages."
 * Would be fine, if sourced.


 * "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."
 * Should be changed to something like: "Lowe's offers a 10% discount on purchases made by employees, in contrast to competitor Home Depot, which does not currently offer an employee discount."


 * "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."
 * "Lowe's is not 'anti-union'"? Opinion.

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)
 * EXCELLENT POINTS ALL. For some, I agree to a varying degree and would appreciate assistance in adjusting. In others, there is solid cause. To wit:
 * 1. "Lowe's takes safety very seriously and consistently reiterates safe working practices into its employees." is a statement of fact. Lowe's DOES take Safety very seriously. Lowe's DOES consistently reinforce Safety. Lowe's overhead announcements even reiterate Safety to customers. While perhaps - and that's a "big if" - it is somewhat over-positive, it is nonetheless true.
 * 2. "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." Again, fact. Lowe's has NEVER killed a customer. Lowe's IS very proud of that. Lowe's DOES strive to continue that streak. ALSO, as I said earlier in comments (and nobody has done ANYTHING ABOUT IT): '''"One other thing, I added into the Deaths/Injuries part, but I don't like the way it sounds. What I'm saying is good, but I can't figure out the words to use to make it readable and understandable. Please someone help!"
 * 3. "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." I AGREE, this is not well-worded. It is accurate, but does seem over-contrasting. Dateline NBC, 60 minutes and 20/20 have all done segments that were primarily focused on HD, and talked about Lowe's to varying degrees. Lowe's is NOT necessarily the safest store, but they currently have a better record. How can we, as Wikipedians, illustrate that in a better way? I'm open to suggestions.
 * 4. "Nonetheless, Lowe's constantly encourages proactive Safety Culture in their stores to prevent even these less serious instances of customer injury." This is a fact, though perhaps it could be better worded. Lowe's does make a point to encourage safety culture. Prevention is stressed. It could be said better, but it is still a factual statement.
 * 5. "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)." is something repeated by different people that have worked there; that's hard to cite. Granted, perhaps it's over-posiutive; perhaps it should be reworded. Yes, I agree it sounds a little propagandish, but it's more spin than advertisement.
 * 6. "Lowe's considers themselves to be one of the best companies to work for based largely on their wide-ranging benefits packages." This is a well-known belief told to employees. Lowe's new employee materials are said to say this, but sourcing it online is impossible. Should we reference the various people throughout the US who have contributed to this article, even in the manner of talking to people who do the actual editing? I'm open to better citation methods.
 * 7. "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." FACT. Lowe's gives a 10% (or more in some cases) employee discount, HD does not. Many employees of both stores have backed this up. It's also pretty common knowledge, at least to some of us, that almost all retailers give employee discounts. In fact, I personally had never heard of a retailer that didn't until I heard from two employees that HD didn't (both in the course of about 12 hours). Reword? Maybe, but not necessary.
 * 8. "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." This is a FACT, as defined by Lowe's own publications. Granted, different people may have different beliefs as to what "anti-union" actually means, but Lowe's specifically tells employees - again, by employee accounts of training - that Lowe's corporately is not anti-union. Perhaps this section could be expanded to explain that better, but I thought it was already bigger than it needed to be.
 * AGAIN, I AGREE with much of what you said, and I'll be the first to admit that some of it could be or should be reworded. If you have the answers, please add to the article! In almost every edit of this or other articles I have requested help from others in the know. This article has gotten very little attention. If you have the knowledge or happen to know people who do, please add it in! If you happen to work for Lowe's, PLEASE add! That's really what we need here, Employees with knowledge adding to this article instead of anyone else who has to hear second- or third- hand. VigilancePrime 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your source for the claim that Lowe's is proud no customer has ever died in their stores? That's an absurd claim. It's a sarcastic slap at Lowe's, as if one would expect people to get killed there and somehow it hasn't happened. Find a legitimate source for Lowe's being "proud" of this, or else stop adding it back. Wahkeenah 12:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a GREAT idea for you, Wah: instead of doing your surgeries with a meat cleaver, how about you edit the article constructively? First and secondhand accounts of employees from Lowe's tell of this pride. It's a simple fact that no customer has died in a Lowe's store in their 60-year history. The same cannot be said of Home Depot. Lowe's knows this and makes it a point, at least to employees with whom I've spoken, through their training videos and ongoing training. I'd give you a weblink, but it's not exactly an easy-to-find website-able fact. NOW, IF - and that's a big if - you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to discuss it. Otherwise, please quit being such a jackass about the paragraph. I have tried to be reasonable and agreeable with you. I have explicitly stated that I agree this section could be and needs to be better written. Instead of helping the article in this respect, you rip sections of it out because you personally don't like the fact of the fact. And the whole "or else" webthreat line is really unbecoming of Wiki and Wikipedians. Think about it. Construct rather than destruct. VigilancePrime 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And I have a great idea for you: find where it says Lowe's is "proud" that no one has ever been killed in one of their stores. Your comments betray that this so-called information is "original research", which is against wiki policy. If they are so proud of it, they should mention it on their page, but evidently they don't or you would be able to find it. Maybe they aren't so "proud" of this after all - maybe it's just more anti-Lowe's stuff. You claim it's a "fact". You have to prove it's a fact, by providing a citation. I don't have to "disprove" anything that lacks a citation. That's also wiki policy. When you find an actual source, e.g. a published comment by Lowe's themselves (not some Lowe's worker's opinion), come back here and post it. Wahkeenah 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're blind or stupid... you keep referring to this as anti-Lowe's. It is quite the opposite. But there's no appeasing people with agendas or vendettas, and I'm not sure which one but you seem to be one or the other. To humor you, I'll see what I can find in a more verifiable source... but you DO realize that lack of deaths doesn't make news, right? It's like looking for a news article that says, "nothing happened in Lowe's stores today." I'm not sure if you'll comprehend the concept (it's a bit more abstract than I would like, but I'm at a loss for an understandable way to illustrate the point and I know I can be unclear at times), but I'll humor you and your petty issues and see what more I can find. Till then, ... never mind... I'm TRYING to assume good faith - that's hard to do with you. VigilancePrime 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you need to find someplace where Lowe's (1) says that they have never had a fatality and (2) are boastful about it. And don't worry about humoring me or anyone else; worry about following wikipedia policies, which require citations for facts, not just some editor's statement that he knows something is true because somebody told him so. Another wiki policy, FYI, is about name-calling. But I don't go running to wiki-mommy about stuff like that. Just find a Lowe's source for these claims, in print, and everything will be jake. Wahkeenah 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see you removed all the uncited claims. Excellent. Wahkeenah 04:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And then you put all the uncited stuff back. Screwing around to try to "prove a point" (your words, in fact) is also against wikipedia policy. I've used my 3 reverts for the day, and so have you. Now go find some sources to back up your claims, or I'll have to resume reverting this stuff tomorrow. Wahkeenah 04:18, 28 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)
 * Very petty remark. The statement is fine. Why don't you go spend more time studying up on the wiki policy and leave this article alone. It was much better before you got involved!!! If anyone is trying to "prove a point" it's you. Oh, and by the way, I was the GM of a Lowe's store while finishing my undergrad and Lowe's DOES pride itself on "never having a customer killed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.187.25 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I don't take orders from IP addresses. Second, if I read the comment that way, others might also; if you really care about Lowe's, you should take that possibility into consideration. Third, since you claim to be an insider, maybe you could provide the citation (as per wiki guidelines, which you should read yourself rather than lecturing others about it) since that other user seems to be having trouble finding one. Wahkeenah 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "That other user" (that sounded like a slight) isn't motivated enough to fight Wah incessantly for the point. I have read it/seen it, but don't care to try to go and re-find it right now. Instead, I'm conceeding the issue for now (not the point, just not going to fight anymore). THAT SAID, I grudgingly find some agreement with Wah on this point: an IP addressed user writing the above unsigned doesn't hold a lot of weight. I agree with what he (or she) was trying to say, but I still find agreement with Wah inasmuch as the line can be misread and needs alteration. That said, I cannot count the number of times I have requested help of others, but all I get is Wah and others who will fight me, fight each other, delete, and/or other changes without seeking to fix the problem: a poorly worded paragraph. Alas, so is life. WAH: Please note that I have, here, (again) agreed with you, at least in part, at least in principle. I'm not totally unreasonable. VigilancePrime 05:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there was no intended slight. I just don't do well with names. Since I stumbled across this article, I have learned a few things. (1) There apparently was, indeed, a fatality at a Home Depot store. The original point of this lengthy section was evidently a complaint that there's an implied "Lowe's is better than Home Depot". The complainants have got a valid point. (2) I find no evidence so far that Lowe's makes it a point to say, publicly at least, that "no one has been killed in our stores". Apart from the bad joke aspect of it, it can also be read as "no one has been killed in our stores", which sounds like blatant POV-pushing; besides which, it's inviting trouble. You can never guarantee that someone won't be killed in the future due to some mishap. Any store would be foolish to make such a statement, even if it happened to be true so far. (3) As with any warehouse environment, where mishaps are more likely than, say, at Barnes & Noble, Lowe's does put a strong emphasis on safety, and publicly so. It is fair to cite that. Then I think we could put this extended debate to rest. Do you agree? Wahkeenah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AGREED! :-) VigilancePrime 02:12, 3 October 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 • contribs) 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was ever a claim that Lowe's has never had an employee die while working, the issue that was stated was no customer deaths (in fact it was, IIRC, recognized that employee work-related deaths have occurred). HD has had customers killed as a result of store action or inaction, but thus far Lowe's has not. Does that mean that every Lowe's is safer than every HD? Absolutely not! It means that SO FAR, Lowe's has a better safety record when it comes to catastrophic (meaning lethal) injury, and that itself is noteworthy. VigilancePrime 17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (SIDE NOTE: Since this article has been completely hacked into tiny little pathetically worthless pieces, it's all a moot point. Anti-HD, Anti-Lowe's... it doesn't matter, there's too many petty WikiWannabees that take no joy greater than tearing apart articles without regard for factuality and flat-out refuse to do anything to improve articles. Frackers. This would be why I don't even care anymore, and you won't see me making changes to the main page - most likely.) VigilancePrime 17:32, 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)
 * You can improve it by finding citations for it. And turning to a thoroughly disruptive user like Carfiend does not exactly improve your own credibility. He has been absent for about 10 days now, ever since he lost the POV war over the word "rendezvous", of all things. Wahkeenah 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's FUNNY that you would refer to someone else as "thoroughly disruptive." Other than imposing your pettiness on others to enhance your own self-image, is there a particular reason you're so hell-bent on destroying this article? There are far more, far larger, far more significant articles out there with far more "common knowledge" and uncited lines than this one. I don't understand your motivation. I would like to. VigilancePrime 02:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have NO IDEA what "disruptive" really is. All I ask is that you FIND A CITATION for that statement about Lowe's being proud no one has been killed in their stores... which sounds more and more like a sick joke every time I hear it. "Hey, come to our store! No one's been killed yet!" Wahkeenah 05:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I can at least assume that the rest of the article is fine by your estimation and may be restored, since "all [you] ask" is a citation for the no customer deaths line (and not the no deaths, but the proud of it part), right? VigilancePrime 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of it is uncited. The part about being proud that no one has been killed in their stores yet is merely the most outrageous. You need to read some of the wikipedia policies about citing sources. It's against policy to post something that "someone told you", because that kind of information, even if true, is unverifiable. You need to find somewhere in writing where Lowe's themselves claim this stuff, maybe even a page from a Lowe's policy manual if you can find one. Hearsay doesn't count. That's the issue here. Wahkeenah 16:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So how would you cite a Lowe's policy manual on an online article? Then we get people who will remove it because they can't read it themselves. VigilancePrime 17:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You could say, "In Lowe's policy manual titled-whatever, on page-whatever, it says the following..." That's verifiable, meaning someone else can check it. It doesn't have to be on the internet, it just needs to be verifiable somehow. And stating chapter and verse is much less likely to get deleted than saying "somewhere in this book it says..." In fact, once you state specifically where it is, then the burden of proof is on the one deleting, either to argue that it's not actually there, or that it's "not notable", which would be hard to argue in this case, if they actually do say it and take pride in it. At that point, it still sounds like a sick joke to me, but if Lowe's actually says it, then so be it. Wahkeenah 19:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've toned it down a bit, but how would one verify all this info? Where are you getting it from? Just explain that and we're good. Wahkeenah 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked, actually, because as I tried to smooth this over, I started to add a "references" section, then realized I didn't know the FORMAT for printed materials. Among the stuff I have seen or have been told based on printed materials: Lowe's orientation books and stuff that is said by Lowe's in the recruiting process (especially the benefits sections), the quarterly stockholders report (which I can't find right now, but remember picking one up a week or so ago - or was it online?), and a magazine that Lowe's puts out called the "Lowedown" (get it? cute, huh?) that I had passed on to me, as well as news programs I have seen but hell if I know when they originally aired... ANYWAY, I tried to make it more amenable... it needs some more rewriting, of course
 * I was particularly impressed with the way I completely massaged the main issue, the no-deaths paragraph. I think it reads a lot better now and I believed (hoped!) that you would also agree that it is far better now than in its original forms. (Not saying it's perfect, but at least better.) Yes? Closer? VigilancePrime 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't like the slangy "Lowe's hasn't had anyone die", as if they were trying to. It's better to say "no one has died due to injury"... and then specify an "as of" date, because it could happen tomorrow. Wahkeenah 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that wording better too. Please feel free to make the modification. VigilancePrime 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unions?
I find it odd that this is in the profile
 * "Lowe's employees - either whole stores/distribution centers, departments, or class of employees - are unionized. Wages/salaries are considered confidential and discussion of individual pay is discouraged."

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 • contribs) 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you would have the details on that 11-point scale? I don't ask as a challenge, but because it would be great to add it to the article! As for unions, I don't have the energy right now to re-research this, but as I remember understanding it in the past, some areas, particularly in worker-friendly states like Cali, have some union activity, I seem to recall that distro centers or lumber employees being the ones who are involved somehow. I'll get back to it later. I'm just happier to see a comment with the page change, and that was the point earlier. Thank you. VigilancePrime 18:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With reguards to unionization I'm sure there's been attempts to unionize probably from outside but nothing 100% offical has been anywhere. To note lowes bought out some chain called Eagle in the western states...it's possible maybe some of them were union at the time. It should also be noted that years ago there was a position called "Lowe's Pros" that had real licensed plumbers, electricians etc. It's possible they were union as well but that position dissolved. It wasn't worth the money since they would simply give advice and soley giving advice didn't yield actual money. Why pay for something if you can get free advice?
 * Reguarding the 11 point scale it's in their internal computers at every store. It is what the pay is based on various metro areas of the country. It does NOT mean that there's 11 pay levels. What is considered normal pay in the midwest is far too low for say California or Rhode Island. If someone moves from one region to another the scales would be used to find out what the pay (most likely) would be in that area.
 * Also with reguards in pay there's a policy of no overtime. That means no working over 40 hours within a week. However state laws in some areas have overtime on Sundays and some holidays. Some are listed in the handbook and others might not be. There is some money in special order sales (refered to as SOS inside the store) and spiffs which are commissions on higher ended in stock items (riding lawnmowers, refridgerators, trailers etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdovell (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 November 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 • 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 • 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 • contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your complete agreement MIGHT be worth something if you registered and then constructively approached this article. Fix it (without chopping it apart), provide insight, information, reference, thoughts or ideas here... then you can be in complete agreement with the whiners.
 * What is TRULY FUNNY is that the debate on this article is always about how this article is biased... but some say it is or has been VERY, VERY ANTI-Lowe's and others say it is far too PRO-Lowe's. It is a mostly factual account. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. Is it better than what we started out with only a few short months ago? ABSOLUTELY!
 * Quit your pathetic whining and contribute... and that does NOT mean chopping it apart. VigilancePrime 03:42, 18 December 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 • contribs) 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (Please sign comments. Geez, it's starting to bug me and I used to be one that would forget now and then! The WikiCops are getting to me!!!)
 * Yes, Lowe's is just as Safety-oriented. There is nothing in the article to say they are more or less, just that they do have a focus there. It would be just as appropriate to note the safety programs of other retailers' on their respective entries.
 * Yes, a section regarding the Lowe's focus on women and family would bve good. Go ahead and write it. VigilancePrime 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (see, not that hard!)

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)
 * You sound like a vandal. a Proud one, at the least, so that's a positive.
 * No, I don't work for anyone's PR department, nor have I even seen a Lowe's article like you mention.
 * And your drivel reeks of hatred. That's sad.
 * You flat-out called it an anti-Lowe's site. I didn't even look at it other than to see that it was not a top-level and didn't look anywhere near legit prima facie.
 * You have some chip on your shoulder. Disgruntled employee perhaps? Get over yourself. VigilancePrime 07:26, 25 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)


 * Heya, 63.3.14.1, if you can put a citation for a couple of the statements you added, they'd be fine, but they just screamed out as needing citations. USUALLY I'm not very citation-demanding, but some of them really needed it (like the "Lowe's is seen as..."). Also, I couldn't understand one of the sentences (started out as HD & WM but then just listed HD as a competition or something) - I think it was missing a word, but I'm not sure.
 * Oh yeah, ya'oughtta register too so you're not just showing as IP edits.  :-)
 * VigilancePrime 22:57, 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)


 * A simple series of Google searches would disuade this. There is no reference to Lowe's building in Puerto Rico. Where do ya'all hear all this stuff? VigilancePrime 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

News about new stores coming to PR..--BoricuaPR 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They aren't. Provide a source. If they were, it would be easy to find. I've looked. I would love to hear that they are (I'd love to see HD and Lowe's all across the world), but there is no source - even an uncredible one as far as I can find - that says they are. You're completely not making any sense at all. VigilancePrime 20:36, 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)


 * Do me a favor and READ what I have written. What I don't find credible is an IP posting about information that a long series of Google searches cannot even remotely confirm. How or why you come up with this 3rd-world felgercarb is far beyond me. IF you had read what I have already written, you would see that I have searched for any sort of backup, I have expressed my hope that they would go there, and all I want is some sort of backup to this. VigilancePrime 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are rumors floating all around retail about various things. When you hear rumors about stores opening sometimes they could be true but they could be way way off in terms of time. Zoning laws and construction can delay things for years and years. The trouble with rumors is as it gets spread people think there's more truth to it. It's confirmed Lowes will expand into Canada and now into Mexico. There's rumors they might buy out Rona but that was largely due to ONE stock traders article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdovell (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 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 • contribs) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well not spam here, you are allowed(required) to site sources. However, the link you post might be considered a violation of copy write laws. Its says "Copyright (c) 2007 The San Juan Star" at the bottom, yet I am not reading the Star newspaper. It is ok to make your edits in the main article using the Star as your reference. However, you can not point to that link unless you clear up the copy write problem. (Needs to say "Used with permission from..."or something like that.) It is acceptable to site your source with out the link. It would be great if you could find an online version of this from the publisher.R00m c (talk) 04:11, 7 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)
 * I'll agree with you that Eagle ought have its own page. I also know little about it, so I can't help, but as far as support for a new page, I'm with you on that one. VigilancePrime 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Below is some information about Eagle Hardware & Garden, Inc
 * Merchandising philosophy - "More of Everything"
 * Type: Public company, (Nasdaq NM:EAGL)
 * Address: 981 Powell Avenue Southwest, Renton, Washington 98055, U.S.A.
 * Employees: 3850
 * Incorporated in 1989
 * In 1990, Eagle Hardware opened its first store in Spokane, Wash.
 * David J. Heerensperger - was the Founder of Eagle Hardware and Chairman of the Board; Had previously opened Eagle Electric & Plumbing in 1960, which was merged into Pay'N Pak in 1969. Became chairman of Pay'N Pak, but later resigned in August 1989 to start Eagle Hardware. After the buyout by Lowe's, he founded World Lighting & Design Inc. in March 2000. By June 2002, the company shut down its three stores stating the company "failed to meet sales expectations" and would be returning money to its investors.
 * Richard Takata - was the President and CEO of Eagle Hardware; Remained after the $1.4 billion buyout by Lowe's. Was the president and COO of the Eagle Hardware & Garden division of Lowe's, but resigned on June 1, 1999 to found CornerHardware.com along with co-founder, Peter Hunt, a former investment banker. In June 2001, IFloor.com acquired CornerHardware in an all-stock transaction between the two privately held companies and most of the CornerHardware employees were pink-slipped. Drastic0612 17:30, 3 June 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 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 • contribs) 21:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * There is no reason to put this in the article then.R00m c (talk) 04:32, 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 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 • 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 [] 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. [].

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 • 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 • contribs) 11:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Retail Patriot, I have been trying to help you by showing you the rules. We welcome constructive edits to Wikipedia and I hardly see how adding your personal website is constructive. You reverted your edits at least four times. After the 3rd time your edits became disruptive regardless of weather or not we should included this link or not. I am not just pulling rules out to make you look bad I am only trying to show you why we can not add your site.
 * On aside, I did register again. I feel my posts where constructive as they where merely replies to other peoples topics. I was again blocked from the entire site.
 * Retail Patriot, (encyclopediadramatica is the best place to understand what lulz means, but in short it started as a a plural form of "lol".)(I said I built a credit card reader that you can put on your fingers. I never said I use it to steal. I said that it could be used for that. There is nothing wrong with building such devices. I work part-time for a security consultant company. We have all all kinds of cool stuff like that in the office.)R00m c (talk) 20:37, 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

Pronunciation of "Lowe"
Could anyone add the phonetic notation to the sound of "Lowe"? --Roland 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been added. Intelqual (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

delivery
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)
 * 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)

Brands
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)

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

Expansion and connection to advertising
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)


 * 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)

Business week article
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)


 * 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)