 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Section Suggestion
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi, my name is Dave and I work with Exelixis at a communications company based in Boston. I wanted to make a suggestion for the formatting of the page to (a) reduce the key people in the box on the sidebar to just include the CEO/President and (b) adding a new section with a table that highlights the other key company representatives who may be of interest to Wiki readers learning about the company. If it is agreeable, this table below could make up the section:
| Position | Executive |
|---|---|
| President and CEO | Michael Morrissey |
| President, P Dev., Medical affairs and Chief Medical Officer | Gisela Schwab |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | Christopher J. Senner |
| Executive Vice President, Business Operations | Dana Aftab, Ph.D. |
| SVP of Human Resources | Laura Dillard |
| Executive Vice President and General Counsel | Jeffrey J. Hessekiel, J.D. |
| Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Investor Relations | Susan Hubbard |
| SVP, Commercial | P.J.Haley |
Thank you!
References
Levydr (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Typically, with the way I see this, I don't see the importance of including such a table in the article as much of these positions aren't exactly important enough to establish the subject's notability. I do not know what the specific guideline is for this, however. For example, a table like this is not included in the Big Y article, where I have a COI with that article's subject as a former employee. The reason for this is that the users have decided that the only important information that should be noted include the company's President and CEO. Anything else can be agreed upon by the WikiProject that oversees the article. I would ask you go to a relevant WikiProject for review, but I do not find this addition to be an improvement to the article for the exact reasons I described above. Request declined. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Scratch that. VB implemented this request, but forgot to mark it as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
still to do
editBMS deal, scangos not mentioned at all yet... Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Image update request
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hi, wanted to see if the editors (who have been really helpful in providing information and updates, many thanks!) would be able to update the logo - Exelixis just introduced a new one. Included below, and thanks for helping me navigate the aforementioned COI to make this request.
The new logo is available at http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170907005845/en/Exelixis-Debuts-New-Mission-Driven-Corporate-Branding-Supports
Levydr (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- You can upload that to the commons if you like. Once you do let us know. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Jytdog for the guidance. Uploaded now here:
Levydr (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- OK, done! just fyi, i will not be shocked if people at the commons find something wrong with it, with how you described the copyright/license or the size. I find things opaque over there, and the help pages near useless. But it might get deleted; if it does we can just put the old one back up until it gets worked out. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Improving the article
editHi @Jytdog:, Is it the poor source that you dislike, or is it the attempt to improve the look and usefulness of the article? If I find a better source, since it is pretty undisputed that these are the key people and those are their jobs, will the information remain on the page? Also, why do you object to dividing the LONG paragraph into sub-sections, which adds a TOC, a nicer look, and improved readability? Just curious, as always. Frannyapplebaum2017 (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) PS. Just found a justification for my use of less than stellar sources from time to time here [[1]].
- Trying to justify the use of garbage sources for crassly commercial edits like this is a waste of everybody's time. We all have better stuff to do. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Details
editUser:AlanYoung Would you please explain why you are adding this fine-grained detail to this encyclopedia article? We don't need the exact number of employees in the infobox, nor do we need sub-CEO level people there. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Is it hurting you to have the number 372 instead of 350 show up on a page? Does the name of the CFO trigger your PTSD?
The goal is transparency: I always add the executive positions that the SEC requires public companies to have. I want everyone who visits these pages to know exactly who is associated with which company a.k.a. TRANSPARENCY.
The Exelixis page is barren; there is zero information here. Yet, you feel as if you are the gatekeeper of anything that is added (which is ironic, considering a paid editor like you should maintain it properly). There is word for people like you: shills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanYoung (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)