Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Just took a quick look over this. Found the registration mark was still here, which we don't do per MOS:TM and there was blatantly promotional content, sourced to statements by the company itself. This needs further review to cleanse it from the company editor who worked extensively on this. Jytdog ( talk) 21:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cellectis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
At least one major contributor to this article has declared a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus has a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{ request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.
Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Justlettersandnumbers: Can we work together to improve this article which is an important article, instead of just reverting edits without any regard for the thought and work that went into them? If there is a specific issue you have, can we discuss it here and come to an agreement together? I removed the phrase "second largest IPO" since you apparently think it is "un-encyclopedic" even though I think it is important and interesting information. I am willing to compromise here. Can you look at each of my changes and evaluate each one for its own worth? I added information and updated the article. Lets work together to make this a good article. Thanks. 174.47.77.6 ( talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of proper Wikipedia editing is that it is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I don't think EVERY ONE of my edits is completely unacceptable, spammy, or "bad quality." If you believe my edits are so terrible, then you owe me an explanation why. Saying that the company is also headquartered in New York is not spammy or bad quality. You must agree that the way the article is now is pretty bad. It is not particularly well-written or up-to-date. Anyone wanting to know something about Cellectis will not find much here. I would like to IMPROVE the article, but it seems you would like to see it stay a low-quality stub. I suggest that we start collaborating on improving the article, instead of your "slash and burn" style of editing. It would be nice if you would answer me here on the Talk page. I appreciate that you explained at least a little that one of the edits fails MEDRS, and I will read the article about this issue carefully and see if I agree with you that it fails. If I disagree, I think you should respect my opinion and EXPLAIN why I am wrong. Thanks for your consideration. I am sincere about trying to fix the page. Are you? 174.47.77.8 ( talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Just finished editing the history section. I believe it is well-written, neutral, well-sourced, and informative. If you disagree, please discuss it HERE. There is nothing on the page now that fails MEDRS. History is just the beginning of the article, there is a lot more to say about a company that is highly covered in the media. Please take some time to add to the article, and not subtract. Thanks, 174.47.77.8 ( talk) 08:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am back with a user name, I hope that helps calm things down here. The hostility coming from @ Jytdog: and @ Justlettersandnumbers: is really unfathomable. Isnt there a Wiki rule not to "bite the newbies?" I can see discussing anything here is useless. I am sorry if I "pasted over" your edits; it was not my intention to hurt your feelings, only to get some INFORMATION on this page. Do we really need a New York Times article in order to affirm that the company now has a headquarters in New York? And is adding the words "New York" poorly written? You are quick to dismiss the sources I used, but if you would even LOOK at and READ the sources that you yourself agree are legitimate, than you would have seen that the correct numbers are as I wrote them "...in 2007, raising €21.2 million." and " In 2011 Cellectis paid €28 million for Cellartis." Here is an exact quote from the very source you seem comfortable with, Philip Hemme "The firm was very successful thanks to its kits sold worldwide to researchers and industrials, which led it to launch its IPO in Paris in September 2007 to raise €21,2M and to acquire the Swedish Biotech Cellartis and its 68 employees for €28M in September 2011." I think this is proof that I want to see the article improved, and you two just want to make sure things are done your way, "dont bother me with the facts." Are only people who work for a company allowed to fight to improve Wikipedia articles? I was sincere about collaborating. And I find your responses insulting and uncalled for. Frannyapplebaum2017 ( talk) 06:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Justlettersandnumbers: Your last reversion not only corrected whatever it is that you feel was not a fair reading of the sources, but also some simple changes that 1. Corrected a grammatical error; 2. Improved the language; 3. Clarified a broad statement to make it more specific; 4.Took out irrelevant information that should not be included in the article. Why do you think you own this page? You still have't answered why you wont improve the page, you just slash other editors attempts to improve it. I am going to guess that you didnt like the change from "laboratories" to "subsidiaries" and leave that the way you seem to prefer it. The other changes are legitimate improvements, not to mention tiny, so I am going to reinstate them. I would appreciate it if you could explain any other reversions, since the way you seem to make edits is not at all helpful to the process us editors are supposed to be engaged in. Thanks, Frannyapplebaum2017 ( talk) 07:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Just took a quick look over this. Found the registration mark was still here, which we don't do per MOS:TM and there was blatantly promotional content, sourced to statements by the company itself. This needs further review to cleanse it from the company editor who worked extensively on this. Jytdog ( talk) 21:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cellectis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
At least one major contributor to this article has declared a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus has a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{ request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.
Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Justlettersandnumbers: Can we work together to improve this article which is an important article, instead of just reverting edits without any regard for the thought and work that went into them? If there is a specific issue you have, can we discuss it here and come to an agreement together? I removed the phrase "second largest IPO" since you apparently think it is "un-encyclopedic" even though I think it is important and interesting information. I am willing to compromise here. Can you look at each of my changes and evaluate each one for its own worth? I added information and updated the article. Lets work together to make this a good article. Thanks. 174.47.77.6 ( talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of proper Wikipedia editing is that it is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I don't think EVERY ONE of my edits is completely unacceptable, spammy, or "bad quality." If you believe my edits are so terrible, then you owe me an explanation why. Saying that the company is also headquartered in New York is not spammy or bad quality. You must agree that the way the article is now is pretty bad. It is not particularly well-written or up-to-date. Anyone wanting to know something about Cellectis will not find much here. I would like to IMPROVE the article, but it seems you would like to see it stay a low-quality stub. I suggest that we start collaborating on improving the article, instead of your "slash and burn" style of editing. It would be nice if you would answer me here on the Talk page. I appreciate that you explained at least a little that one of the edits fails MEDRS, and I will read the article about this issue carefully and see if I agree with you that it fails. If I disagree, I think you should respect my opinion and EXPLAIN why I am wrong. Thanks for your consideration. I am sincere about trying to fix the page. Are you? 174.47.77.8 ( talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Just finished editing the history section. I believe it is well-written, neutral, well-sourced, and informative. If you disagree, please discuss it HERE. There is nothing on the page now that fails MEDRS. History is just the beginning of the article, there is a lot more to say about a company that is highly covered in the media. Please take some time to add to the article, and not subtract. Thanks, 174.47.77.8 ( talk) 08:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am back with a user name, I hope that helps calm things down here. The hostility coming from @ Jytdog: and @ Justlettersandnumbers: is really unfathomable. Isnt there a Wiki rule not to "bite the newbies?" I can see discussing anything here is useless. I am sorry if I "pasted over" your edits; it was not my intention to hurt your feelings, only to get some INFORMATION on this page. Do we really need a New York Times article in order to affirm that the company now has a headquarters in New York? And is adding the words "New York" poorly written? You are quick to dismiss the sources I used, but if you would even LOOK at and READ the sources that you yourself agree are legitimate, than you would have seen that the correct numbers are as I wrote them "...in 2007, raising €21.2 million." and " In 2011 Cellectis paid €28 million for Cellartis." Here is an exact quote from the very source you seem comfortable with, Philip Hemme "The firm was very successful thanks to its kits sold worldwide to researchers and industrials, which led it to launch its IPO in Paris in September 2007 to raise €21,2M and to acquire the Swedish Biotech Cellartis and its 68 employees for €28M in September 2011." I think this is proof that I want to see the article improved, and you two just want to make sure things are done your way, "dont bother me with the facts." Are only people who work for a company allowed to fight to improve Wikipedia articles? I was sincere about collaborating. And I find your responses insulting and uncalled for. Frannyapplebaum2017 ( talk) 06:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Justlettersandnumbers: Your last reversion not only corrected whatever it is that you feel was not a fair reading of the sources, but also some simple changes that 1. Corrected a grammatical error; 2. Improved the language; 3. Clarified a broad statement to make it more specific; 4.Took out irrelevant information that should not be included in the article. Why do you think you own this page? You still have't answered why you wont improve the page, you just slash other editors attempts to improve it. I am going to guess that you didnt like the change from "laboratories" to "subsidiaries" and leave that the way you seem to prefer it. The other changes are legitimate improvements, not to mention tiny, so I am going to reinstate them. I would appreciate it if you could explain any other reversions, since the way you seem to make edits is not at all helpful to the process us editors are supposed to be engaged in. Thanks, Frannyapplebaum2017 ( talk) 07:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)