Talk:Citrix Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Marketing[edit]

This article reads like a page on a company's marketing website, rather than a factual Wikipedia article. 71.127.90.34 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you be able to be more specific about which elements you feel are marketing rather than factual? I'd be keen to make any further edits to ensure this fits within the guidelines --Richard Botley (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Days[edit]

I am a long term Citrix employee that would like to see the history of Citrix be captured as accurately as possible. I have dedicated much time on my blog to write about specific aspects of Citrix history but have been wary of putting the information into Wikipedia. Obviously I need someone that is fairly Citrix neutral and a better writer to make sure the right things happen.

Please review my blog entries relevant to Citrix history [3]. I'm sure that most are not relevant to submission to Wikipedia but I could not reliably tell you which ones are of the most interest.

Jeffrey.muir 11:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Citrix Ready[edit]

This section is obviously written by a salesperson or someone with similar marketing bias. It needs to be deleted or rewritten.Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

General[edit]

Citrix products are now widely used in both public and private sectors, although they are often deployed as a tactical rather than a strategic choice (achieving specific objectives or solving a specific problem rather than as part of a systematic plan).

I disagree with this assertion. We see a very large number of clients who use Citrix as a strategic approach to software deployment and delivery. I would restate this as follows:

Citrix products are now widely used in both public and private sectors. A company might select Citrix for its short term tactical advantages, or for its long term strategic benefits. (Of course, this will vary from company to company depending on each specific company's needs.)

"A company might select Citrix for its short term tactical advantages, or for its long term strategic benefits." ........such as?Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I undertook a substantial rewrite of this article, partly to eliminate the narrative style of much of the article, and to clean up sloppy grammar. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and there is a dearth of information about the early years of the company available on the web; their own website does not contain any reports or press releases prior to 2000, and the company history is limited to milestones such as acquisitions and product releases. The original creator of this article was apparently someone connected with the company early on, as there is a lot of "inside-player" information about the relationship between one of the founders and the board of directors, but there is no sourcing for any of the information, and it may need to be flagged as such. Horologium 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone is trying to sell shares[edit]

it sounds more like someone is trying to sell shares rather explain what the company is about what are they making ?? who uses there products ? those are the kind of question i want answered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.175.3 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I'm reverting one EL edit because it: (a) replaced what appears to be an independent citrix employee community site with a link to the citrix domain (which is already linked), for a page that's linked right on the citrix home page; (b) broke the good link to dabcc.com; (c) added two commercial links that may be relevant but would need more than that to belong here. --Rich Janis (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some discussion of which independent support sites should be listed here. As I see it, none of them is essential to the article, but most important is that the list not proliferate arbitrarily. Rich Janis (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
None of them being essential, according to a loose interpretation of one of the points at WP:EL, is a good reason for removing them. It says, "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is a basic argument against all third-party community sites, since they fall under the category of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. The encyclopedia should link to the official site, or to ones that provide relevant encyclopedic information.
I think we should remove citrite.org for these reasons, and also because it's closed. I'm not seeing the relevance of Frameworkx.com either – I don't see how the blog of these two Microsoft employees is relevant to the article, even if one of them does work for Citrix. Am I missing something here? It's just that last time I tried to clean up a load of external links I got told off for it (virtually all the links were eventually removed, though). Dabcc.com says it's a Citrix partner, so per "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any", it sounds like we should link to them, though it seems to be a fairly useless and spammy sort of site (my personal opinion). Ideally, I reckon the only link that should stay in this case is the official web site. • Anakin (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

re: General[edit]

Citrix does not specialize in "thin clients". This statement is incorrect. Citrix does not even sell thin clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.60.50 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavy POV in Layoffs section[edit]

I'm fully removing GregorB's recently-contributed "Layoffs" section; it cites no sources and has a clearly non-neutral tone. If anyone can pick out the facts, find citations, and re-integrate them into the article, please do. The text of Gregor's contribution is below. -- Control.valve (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to mismanagement, Citrix has laid off 10% of its employees world-wide. The "global" figure deliberately under-represents the severity of the downsizing. Citrix has over the past 10 years, outsourced most of its jobs to India. During the great downsizing of 2009, Citrix did not cut one of it's Indian jobs, which pay less than 10% of the USA/UK positions. In actuality, Citrix eliminated 25% of its US and UK employees.

Ironically, the total salaries of all employees fired is a tiny fraction of the money Citrix spent acquiring each of the companies listed in the "Acquisitions" section of this Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the mass firings occurred a few months after CEO Mark Templeton bragged about his new Tesla Roadster, a car that costs more than most of his employees make in a year, by producing this YouTube video and sending an email to all employees about it. Thus leading Citrix employees to ask, "Hey Mark, how's that Roadster of yours? Still runs good?" Before the layoffs, Citrix executives repeatedly told employees during "all hands" meetings that Citrix was in good financial standing and could weather the storm. After the layoffs, remaining employees wondered how many other "white lies" executives told during those meetings.

Despite the layoffs, Citrix stock continues to nose dive as the company fails to keep up with its prime competitor, VMWare. Citrix recently scrapped its plans to implement a three-tiered database architecture for its platform in order to play catch up with VMWare. Citrix has a site license to the VMWare platform and often tests Citrix software within VMWare images.

Despite the massive layoffs, Citrix must port all of its code from private Microsoft APIs to public ones before their license agreement expires at the end of the year. Much of this work might now have to be done in India.

--98.203.124.155 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC) It seems to me that the author of this piece is probably part of the 10% and besides the fact that the text is non-neutral it might actually contain confidential information, for which this person (if indeed an ex-employee) can be prosecuted.

why we use citrix softwares[edit]

I want to know what is reason behind using the citrix softwares/systems

I want to what is the specialization in citrix


Thank & regards sanjay Gupta e-mail:mails.sanjay@yahoo.com

why we use II[edit]

I too would like to know what the big deal is? This article totally fails to explain to me what if any use Citrix's gear is. Their aquisition of Xen I am fully across, but virtual machines are a whole subject domain unto themselves. As far as I can glean.....(1) they have some kind of improved desktop transmitter (ie. the stuff that X could do in 1980 or that you can more or less do with VNC)....(2) I have seen Citrix used in a workplace to 'lock down' a windows system - perhaps providing a decent security model by heavily modifying windows' own woefully inadquate one? I DONT KNOW. And this article hasn't helped me know. 118.209.16.17 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is "Citrix"?[edit]

What is a "Citrix" specialist? (Quite a bunch of job offers seem to include a term like that.) Does he mostly do, what a VMware specialist does: hypervisor? Or does he maybe mostly do thin client (terminal server?) stuff? The article seems not clear to me ... is it not the company, who puts the focus on their currently main area of business, but the public perception -> so is it alright not to be included in an article about the company? But then, where might it be OK, to be included in a wikipedia source of information? --Alien4 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Working to improve this article[edit]

Hi there, I wanted to introduce myself to any editors watching this page: working on behalf of Citrix I'll be offering some suggestions here to help improve this article. My main focus will be getting the article in line with the guidelines at WikiProject Companies. In particular, I'm hoping to add up-to-date information on the corporate organization and making sure the Products section is written up into prose and updated. To be clear, I won't be making any direct edits to the article due to my financial conflict of interest, but instead will prepare drafts and share them for editors to review and take live, if they look ok.

To begin with, I'm working on a draft for a more developed History section, since this is currently quite short and sparse on information about the company's major developments. Also, I think that it might be best to roll the Microsoft relationship information into this section, rather than it having its own section. I welcome any comments or additional suggestions editors might have. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of things. In "Rise in popularity" the article says "license Citrix technology for Windows NT Server 4.0, which resulted in Windows Terminal Server Edition in 1998" but none of the three references say anything about Windows Terminal Server Edition. I am interested in something authoritive stating that Windows Terminal Server Edition is Citrix. Also, "Early history" says "Microsoft announced they would be switching from OS/2 to Windows". Switching what? What does "switching" mean in that context? I see no reference explaining it. I know that IBM wanted Microsoft to help develop OS/2 and Microsoft did much less than what IBM wanted and then Microsoft decided they would develop NT but that does not sound like "switching" to me. Sam Tomato (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sam Tomato, happy to help answer your questions.
  • Re: Terminal Server Edition, the third citation listed says "Citrix signed a 5-year marketing and research and development agreement with the software giant. The two companies agreed to work together to develop Windows Terminal Server. ... The fruits of the arrangement ripened last month at PC Expo, when Microsoft and Citrix made simultaneous announcements: Windows NT Server 4.0 Terminal Server Edition (formerly code-named Hydra), and Citrix MetaFrame (formerly code-named Picasso)."
  • Re: "switching from OS/2 to Windows" the first citation listed says "Microsoft announced that it would drop OS/2 in favor of its new operating system, Windows". The wording seems clear enough to me, but if there's a better way you'd put it, feel free to make a change. Be bold!
Hope these notes clarify things for you! Cheers, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Well I searched the pages for "Terminal Server Edition" and I obviously missed finding it. As for the difference between switching and dropping, I think there is a difference. I know that Microsoft always was very reluctant about OS/2 and the Microsoft announcement of dropping it is a nice way to say they finally decided to go the direction they always wanted to. The hard part is finding appropriate references and wording. For what it is worth, I remember the day IBM announced SAA and the intent to develop OS/2. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposing new draft for History[edit]

Hi again. As promised some months ago, I have returned with a proposed new draft for the History section of the article. As you might be able to tell from my absence here, this took a bit longer than expected to finish! The section is fairly lengthy, so I've placed it in my user space for editors to review:

Most of the current section content is retained, although I did reword a few things for clarity and to make sure they were accurate and true to the sources. To help the article flow and place things into their historical context, I incorporated the details from the Microsoft relationship section into the History section. Other than what was in that section, the years from 1995 to present were spotty (to say the least), so I've greatly expanded on that time period, including major events, acquisitions, and new products the company developed.

I appreciate any time editors can spend looking over my proposed draft. As stated previously, I'm hoping another editor can take this live if it looks ok. I'm open to any suggestions or changes to make it ready to move to the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
Overall, I think the draft looks pretty good. I have just a couple of thoughts.
  • There are a couple of times the CITRIX blog is used as a source. Is it possible to find a newspaper, magazine, book, or other reliable, secondary source in those cases?
  • There are three links to disambiguation pages: Chevron, server, and telecom. It would be nice if they linked to the direct intended articles.
I'll do a bit more spot-checking of sources to content, but so far it's looking good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carole! Thanks so much for taking a look at the draft! I'm looking again into finding alternate sources for the information that the blog is used to support, although I'd tried hard to only use the blog in cases where it was difficult to find a more reliable source and the information felt important to include. Meantime, I'll make sure to fix those disambig links, thanks for spotting those! And it's a good reminder to me to check each link in the draft once I upload to user space. I'll ping back here once I've updated the links and have any news on the sourcing. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
16912_Rhiannon, Thanks for checking in, looking forward to seeing the updates!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Carole, an update here to let you know that I have:
  • Replaced / removed the two instances where the source Citrix Blogger was used. In one case, I was able to find a new source to support the info (the origins of the Citrix name) and in the other, I've tweaked the wording about WinView so that it can be supported solely by the other source I had there
  • Fixed the disambig links you mentioned above
  • Made a couple of other small tweaks to the wording / paragraph breaks to help improve flow
With regards to the one place where I'd used the Citrix blog to support the announcement of a partnership with Google, that was to support that the partnership began in 2010 (rather than 2014 per news articles I was finding). What I did there was phrased the sentence as "Citrix announced in 2010" (which is what the blog supports) and then included an independent news source from 2015 to support everything else about the deal. Since the source is supporting just the date and the other details are backed up by an independent source, what do you think about keeping this one instance? Thanks again for looking at this! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Great job,16912_Rhiannon! I've updated the History section in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! The History section looks really great now. I'll be back soon with some infobox updates, and then I'll have another section draft... Hope you can help with those, but no worries if you get busy elsewhere. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I realized right as I posted this, that I meant to ask: Carole, would you be able to remove the Microsoft relationship section? This material is now all included within the History. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, 16912_Rhiannon regarding upcoming changes! I removed the Microsoft section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Carole! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure, 16912_Rhiannon, the article looks good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Updates for infobox[edit]


Just a quick note to see if someone would be able to update the article's infobox. As mentioned in previous messages here, I am suggesting edits on the behalf of Citrix and am avoiding making any changes to the article myself. I have the new financials from the end of 2014 below, which can be added to the infobox. They can all be sourced to the company's latest 10-K:

  • Revenue: Increase US$ 3,142.856 million (2014)
  • Operating income: Decrease US$ 302.311 million (2014)
  • Net income: Decrease US$ 251.723 million (2014)
  • Total assets: Increase US$ 5,512.007 (2014)
  • Total equity: Decrease US$ 2,173,645 (2014)

Citation for the above: <ref name=10K2014>{{cite web |url=http://investors.citrix.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=877890-15-16&CIK=877890 |title=Citrix Form 10-K Annual Report |author= |date=31 December 2014 |work=investors.citrix.com |publisher=Citrix Systems Inc. |accessdate=30 March 2015}}</ref>

In addition, I'd like to request a few other updates to the infobox:

  • Add CFO David Henshall to Key people
    • This can be supported by the company's Bloomberg profile
    • Citation: <ref name=Bloomberg15>{{cite web |url=http://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/CTXS:US-citrix-systems-inc |title=Citrix Systems Inc |author= |date= |work=[[Bloomberg Business]] |publisher=Bloomberg |accessdate=30 March 2015}}</ref>
  • Add SaaS, DaaS, cloud, and networking to Products, based on the existing product list in the article (please note: I'm working on an updated draft for this section as a suggested replacement for the lengthy bullet point lists)
  • Update the photo to the company's larger Santa Clara HQ. I've uploaded the file here: File:Citrix Santa Clara HQ 2015.png

I'd also suggest removing 2012's numbers, for the sake of not having the infobox cluttered, but if other editors prefer then I'd be totally fine with leaving them. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edits you suggest. They are not controversial. I've marked your request as approved. Thank you! Wilipino (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Wilipino, and I'm sorry to be such a pain, but I follow the "bright line" (per Jimbo Wales' interview in The Signpost) and don't edit articles where I have a COI. Would you mind making this update using the prepped version below? Understood totally if you feel I should go ahead and do it, it's just that I've always avoided doing so before. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Citrix Systems Inc". Bloomberg Business. Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 March 2015. 
  2. ^ a b c d e "Citrix Form 10-K Annual Report". investors.citrix.com. Citrix Systems Inc. 31 December 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2015. 
  3. ^ "Citrix Systems, Form 10-K, Annual Report, Filing Date Feb 19, 2015". 
  4. ^ "Company Profile for Citrix Systems Inc (CTXS)". Retrieved 2008-10-23. 
@16912 Rhiannon and Wilipino: I went ahead and took care of it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CaroleHenson! And I'm embarassed to ask, but can you adjust the revenue? I missed the "3" at the start of the figure when I pasted it over. It should be 3,142.856 million. Apologies! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new draft for Products[edit]

Hi again to anyone watching this page! Per my previous notes above, I'm here on behalf of Citrix to suggest some updates for this article. This time around, I'd like to focus on updates that can be made to the Products section. Below, I've linked to a draft I've prepared in my user space, which I believe improves what's currently in the article with more details and a new structure. I've revised the entire section to be in prose, rather than a bulleted list, and included a brief description of each of the company's offerings. For readability and organization, I've structured the section around the main areas that Citrix products are grouped. Here's a link to the draft:

You'll see that I'm proposing removing entirely the Discontinued products subsection, and haven't mentioned those products currently listed under this heading. I did this for two reasons. First, unlike product launches, which are often written about in the press, products tend to be discontinued quietly making it difficult to source such a section and keep it accurate and current. Second, none of the products seem particularly noteworthy, let alone notable. Only WinFrame has its own article (and this product is already discussed within the History section). Without any additional information or context, the listing of names of products that have been discontinued did not appear to have much value. Of course, if others have a different perspective, I'd be interested to hear and definitely open to including something.

As always, I look forward to feedback from other editors. If the draft looks ok, and others feel it is an improvement over the current Products section, I hope that an editor will move the draft live for me. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The draft looks good.  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new Operations section[edit]


Hi there. I'm back again, this time to propose adding a whole new section titled Operations. As it stands, the current article's introduction gives a brief overview of the company's operational information, but these details do not currently appear anywhere in the body of the article. The section I'm suggesting discusses what the company does, how it is organized, and its locations, leadership, and financial information. Essentially, the standard operations information you'd expect to see in a company article.

In my userspace, I've posted a proposed draft for the section that covers the key operational details about Citrix. I'd appreciate it if others could take a look and, barring any feedback or changes, move it to the live article. You can review the draft here:

In addition to proposing the addition of this draft, I wanted to see what editors thought about the Layoffs section. I notice that there was a previous highly POV iteration of this section that was discussed before and was removed at the time, then the section was re-added more recently with new, more neutral text. The text itself now seems fine, though it is unusual to have a section focusing on this type of information in an article about a large company. Do others think it should be left as a standalone section or integrated into either the History or Operations sections? Interested to hear what folks feel would be best to do with this material.

Just in case anyone reading this is new to the page, as I mentioned in my notes above, I'm working on behalf of Citrix as a paid consultant. Due to this financial COI, I will not make any edits to the article, instead hoping to discuss changes here. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks neutral and informative to me, expect for the ending. I feel like the Forbes stuff is informative, but the way it is written currently seems like an advertisement. Tune the wording a bit and you are good. Good job with the references! Just a question though: can some of this information only be mentioned in the infobox, or do you find the duplication beneficial?  Done JC713 (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this, JC713! Re: the ending of the section, are you referring just to the final sentence: "In 2014, the company ranked 741 on the Fortune 1000 and 1,793 on Forbes Global 2000." Since I've written this in what I hoped was a very straightforward way, I'm struggling with how to make it sound less promotional. Any thoughts? Is it the word "ranked" that's the issue?
In terms of duplication with the infobox, so far as I'm aware the details can be in two places within the article and it's fairly common to have Corporate affairs or Operations sections that expand upon basic details in the infobox. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
After looking at it a few more times, I think it is actually fine. I think you are good to go! JC713 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks, JC713. Due to my COI, I'd prefer not to edit the article directly (I follow the "bright line"): would you mind adding this new section into the article? I was thinking it could go below History. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Done! JC713 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks again, JC713! Would you be able to update the section heading by removing one level of = signs? As it is, Operations currently looks like a subsection of History rather than its own section.

Also curious to see if you'd had a chance to give any thought to my other question, about the Layoffs section. As I said above, I'm not necessarily opposed to the content of the section, just the placement. Do you see a reason that it should be its own section or do you think it makes more sense to incorporate it into either History or Operations? I'm going to bring it up again in my next message and invite others to weigh in as well. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My bad! I misinterpreted your "place under history" request. I think Layoffs is more appropriate under history because it is like "on x day, Citrix announced y layoffs" more than talking about its operation in the company.JC713 (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a problem, JC713. I appreciate your help. Just one more thought: how would you feel about splitting up the Layoffs information chronologically, so that it's integrated into the History section rather appearing under its own subsection? I think all three details would fall somewhere in the Expansion subsection. There's no hard and fast rule on this, but I think it makes sense to put in the context of everything else happening at those times. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you think is good. When you figure out the positioning of the information, tell me and I can place it! JC713 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JC713! What I've done is updated the draft in my userspace with where I think the information should go. As I suspected above, all three layoffs are in the Expansion subsection, in the second, fourth, and last paragraphs. (You'll see I've shown the additions in green using the {{xt}} template.) Take a look and let me know what you think! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Done! Thanks! JC713 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposing new Corporate responsibility section[edit]

Hello, I'm back once more with another new draft for this article. This time, I'm looking at revising and expanding the existing Corporate philanthropy section. The current version has just two sentences and both are sourced to materials produced by Citrix. I've kept all the information in my draft, but rewritten it based on independent sources I found. My draft also includes more of the company's philanthropic activities, as well details about technology donations Citrix has made—though I've aimed to keep the section relatively short. I've also renamed the section Corporate responsibility, as it contains more than just philanthropic efforts. You can review the draft in my userspace here:

Noting as always, I'm working on behalf of Citrix, and so have a financial COI. I won't make any direct edits to the article, but rather hope another another editor will be able to make the changes. If there's any feedback, or adjustments needed, do let me know--I'm always happy to work with other editors on my proposed changes in order to get them ready to be placed in the live article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

With thanks to JC713, this section has been reviewed and moved into the article in place of the Corporate philanthropy section. For full transparency, here is our discussion of the draft from my Talk page:

Hey Rihiannon, I read over your proposed Corporate Responsibility section and think it is fine. Just make sure it doesn't sound too much like an advertisement: "Citrix offers its employees". Maybe instead state "Citrix encourages its employees to participate in the community" or something like that. More neutral and less direct. JC713 (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JC713! I've made some adjustments based on your feedback, would you mind taking another look and moving this into the live article if everything is ok? Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rhiannon, I made some changes to the draft. Check them out to see if you like them! I made the wording flow a bit better and made it seem less like marketing (even though that is not the original intent). JC713 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks great to me, thanks JC713! If you think it's ready to go, would you mind adding it into the article in place of the current Corporate philanthropy section? I think it could even appear lower down in the article than that section is currently, perhaps below the Products section. What do you think? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That positioning change definitely makes sense! I am glad you like my improvements :). Thanks for doing this and being a responsible Wikipedian (respecting COI)! JC713 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
— User talk:16912 Rhiannon

Thanks to anyone else who looked at this request. I'll be back soon with a further (and hopefully final for now!) request for this article, a few small updates to the introduction. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating the introduction[edit]

Hi all. Now that the main sections of the entry have been updated, I'd like to bring attention to two smaller items. First, how do others feel about the Acquisitions table in the article? It's quite an exhaustive list and the majority of the companies do not have their own articles. Since all the major acquisitions the company has made are covered in the History section, it seems to make sense to remove it, but I'd like to hear from others to see if there's a good reason to keep it.

In addition to that section, I'd like to propose updating the introduction, per the following draft version:

As you can see, there aren't too many changes from what is currently in the article. I've added a summary of the company's history in the second paragraph and a sentence noting that Mark Templeton is the company's president and CEO.

I do want to point out that I've removed the information about Xen open-source products. While the company does sell products based on Xen, they have evolved significantly since the acquisition and the call out could be confusing without further explanation. I also removed "Following the acquisition of XenSource, Inc. in October 2007, Citrix started spearheading the Xen open-source hypervisor project", since that effort is now led by the Linux Foundation.

Looking forward to hearing what other editors think about the Acquisitions section and this suggested update for the introduction. Just as a quick note in case editors haven't seen my previous requests here, I'm working as a consultant to Citrix and making these suggestions on their behalf, so I do have a COI that should be taken into account. If these changes seem appropriate, I'd appreciate if someone could make them in the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've re-opened this request, since it looks like there's no edits made and I haven't spotted any comments from Joseph2302. Joseph, let me know if I missed something or if you have any thoughts! Pinging CaroleHenson, Wilipino and JC713 who've reviewed requests here previously, do any of you have any thoughts on the Acquisitions section or on my updates for the introduction? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the intro revision is quite informative!JC713 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, glad to hear it! If there's no objections from anyone, would you mind moving it into the live article, JC713? Also, any thoughts about the Acquisitions section? This information tends to be dealt with in so many different ways in company articles, so I'm curious as to whether folks think it's best to retain the table or if the details included in the History are adequate. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the Acquisitions section and chart should stay. I say that because if I was a user looking at Wikipedia for quick acquisition information about Citrix, I would not want to look through a block of words to find it. While it may make the page cleaner, I thinking remembering the reader's perspective is important. Cheers, JC713 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for adding in the intro text, JC713! Sorry I missed this til now. Totally understood on the Acquisitions section. I think what I'll do is take a close look through and make sure it's fully up-to-date. And perhaps there are some improvements we can make to make it even clearer. I'll have a think. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating and splitting off Acquisitions[edit]

Hi again to anyone watching this page, I'm back with some further thoughts on the Acquisitions section. Per discussion above with JC713, I went back to take a look at the acquisitions that Citrix Systems has made and worked to put together an updated, cleaned up version of the existing table. The updated table is modeled on others I've seen, including these featured list articles List of mergers and acquisitions by Google and List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft, and most closely models List of mergers and acquisitions by Yahoo! which seemed to be a nice concise style that works well.

The result is here in my user space: User:16912_Rhiannon/Citrix_Acquisitions

What I realized on updating this table is that 1. it is now even longer and would take up a lot of space in the article, 2. it seems very typical to split acquisition lists off into their own articles. (I found similar size companies to Citrix whose acquisitions have been split off, as well as the above huge corporations.) I'm wondering if it would be the right approach to take in this case? If it is, then I'd be happy to prep an introduction to go with this drafted table, or if it's best to keep in this article then, could someone use the updated table to replace the existing one? I'm really curious to hear what others think about this. As a note to anyone new to this page, I am working as a paid consultant to Citrix so will not make any edits to the article myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rhiannon, sorry for the late response, I have been traveling overseas over the past few weeks. I think drafting a new article is a better idea. I don't think many people would want to come to a Citrix page and see a giant table, but rather they want quick access to information. If they were curious about aquisitions, they can head to the seperate article. That is my opinion though. Great job on the table by the way! JC713 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JC713! Since you're in favor and there are no dissenting voices popping up, I'm working on introduction language and all the trappings to turn the table into a draft article. When that's done, what do you think would be simplest here: should I take it to WP:AfC or simply bring back here and invite folks to review and split off the section if everyone is comfortable with that? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
AfC may work better. Sorry for the late response, I have been quite busy lately.JC713 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting summary for Acquisitions[edit]

After submitting a new article for the list of Citrix acquisitions to AfC, the article is now live and I'm returning to see about updating the section in this article. Per WP:Summary Style, what normally happens is that a {{main}} template is added at the top of the section, and the content should present a short summary of what's in the main article. Using the introduction of the main article as a base, I've put together a suggestion for the Acquisitions section in this article:

JC713 or any other editors who may be watching this page, would this wording work to summarize the existing Acquisitions section? As mentioned in previous requests above, I am working as a paid consultant to Citrix and hope that editors can help review and make these changes if they're appropriate. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it sounds neutral. JC713 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Pinging here to see if any other editors have had a chance to review this? I'd like to invite 75.108.94.227 who looked over the drafted updated acquisitions table in my userspace, and also Onel5969 who reviewed the List of mergers and acquisitions by Citrix article, to see if they'd be interested to look over this and move it live if it looks good. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JC713, I can't see anything with the edit which could be called into question as a POV or advertising issue. It's brief, sets the tone, and allows the long list to be referenced to its own article, which it should be per MOS:LIST and WP:STAND. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks JC713 and Onel5969, would one of you mind making the edits in the article? Due to my COI I prefer not to edit articles directly (I follow the "bright line"). Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done - Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks so much! Also, if either you or JC713 is able to take a peek at the request below, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction and thoughts for Decline[edit]


Though typically, I'll try to only have one request here at a time, I wanted to see if it would be possible to address a couple of issues in the History section. Specifically, in the newly-added Decline section there's one correction required and I'd also like to open a discussion about the final sentence and the heading of the section.

  • First, the section notes that "Mark Templeton retired in July 2015". This is not correct. Templeton announced his upcoming retirement back in July, but various reliable sources state that he is remaining on in his role until a successor can be found. Can this be corrected?
  • Second, the final sentence of the section states "As of September, 2015, the company is making a final attempt to sell itself as a whole before it embarks on asset sales". The source for this detail is a Reuters piece that attributes this insight to anonymous sources; the company has not come out and said this is what is happening, neither is this something that is established beyond a shadow of a doubt otherwise. I'd like to ask editors what they think about adjusting this wording to be clearer about its attribution. For example, would something like the following work: "According to sources consulted by Reuters, the company is making an attempt to sell itself as a whole..."
  • Finally, the section heading of Decline seems a bit over-the-top or premature at this stage, especially given the mixed press about the company's finances etc (see for instance this WSJ piece that notes an increased revenue and earnings per share compared with a year ago). Would editors be open to an alternate heading for the section?

As mentioned in previous notes on this page, I do have a COI here as I am working as a paid consultant on Wikipedia for Citrix Systems. I won't make any changes in the article and welcome editors' thoughts on these requests. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Rhiannon, if you can draft up the changes, I would be happy to apply them. Any corrections to misinformation should be addressed ASAP, so no conflict there :).
Appreciate it! I'm pulling some sources together and will hopefully be able to provide some drafted language later today. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience while I got this ready. As I was looking at the sourcing, I felt that with the Reuters source being so clearly speculative, and the fact that other sources contradict it, it might be best not to include. With that said, the updated language that I'd like to propose adds some more details and clarifies the involvement of Elliot Management, corrects the mention of Templeton's retirement, and includes some suggested wording about the company's plans to potentially sell off it's GoTo products. I've also suggested renaming the section Recent history. Let me know what you think!
Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Slight adjustment to the above drafted wording, following the announcement this week of a new interim CEO for the company. Also, pinging JC713 who replied above previously. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
When would you like me to post it? JC713 (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, just realized my note above was a little ambiguous: I've alreay made the change to the drafted wording to include the new interim CEO, so this is ready for you (or any other editors watching) to review whenever you have a moment, JC713. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Where would you like me to post it and/or what would you want me to replace/update?JC713 (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks, JC713. My suggestion is that this replace the existing Decline section, if this is appropriate. Also, I don't think that the title of that section is neutral and Recent history would be my suggested replacement. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to JC713 for making this edit. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick edit request: add Citrix Receiver link[edit]


An article has recently been created for Citrix Receiver. Would someone be able to add a inline link to it where it is mentioned in the Products section and also add it to the company directory at the bottom of the article? While these are small, uncontroversial changes, I still would prefer if another editor made them because of my financial conflict of interest as I am working as a consultant for Citrix. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done, although I have to say I think Citrix Receiver needs some improvement. Although it was accepted at AfC, and didn't have any issues with promotional wordings, it still has some problems with balance. When I read a Wikipedia article on a product, I expect to be told of both the benefits and shortcomings of the software, so I added the perspectives of a couple of reviews. Even though there is nothing explicitly promotional about the article, the mentions of several other products sold by the same company (named by their proper name, rather than the generic category), along with the inclusion of industry-specific awards, are all red flags that make the article stick out. The article just sounds too "official". It is good that you are following the COI disclosure policy. But at least this article had some minor NPOV issues—just a thought to keep in mind. Altamel (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Altamel, appreciate your help and the feedback on Receiver, which I've passed along to my colleague who wrote that article. It's interesting that you note about wanting to know "benefits and shortcomings" based on reviews, I'll keep that in mind for future product articles. Looking at your additions on Receiver, what you added there looks great. I was wondering if you'd add dates for the details; as technology changes fast and reviews can be version-specific, dating the review info would help readers in the future. What do you think? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, one of the reviews was not dated so that will not be possible. Altamel (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I looked around to see if I could figure out the date of that one review, but sadly wasn't able to find anything to attach a date to it. For the other reviews, though, it does look like they're dated. What do you think about including dates for those details? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quick edit request: fix plagiarism in new Citrix CEO wording[edit]

Hi all! Citrix announced in late January that a new CEO has been named. I see that this fact has already been added to the article, but, unfortunately, it appears the wording has been taken directly from a Citrix press release on the appointment. Would it be possible to replace the current language, in the Recent history section, with what I've drafted below? You'll note that I linked Kirill Tatarinov's name even though there is no article, yet. I've started researching one and I'm hoping there will be an entry in the near future.

In January 2015, Kirill Tatarinov, a former Microsoft executive, was named the president and CEO of Citrix and joined the company's board. Calderoni remained executive chairman of the board.[1]

Even though this change is uncontroversial, I would like another editor to make the edit, since I have a financial conflict of interest; I am making this request on behalf of Citrix as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging here to see if JC713 or Altamel who have looked at my edit requests here previously might have a couple of minutes to review this one. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Rhiannon, I would be happy to take a look! Would you like me to replace this whole paragraph: "On January 20, 2016, Citrix announced the appointment of Kirill Tatarinov as President and CEO, effective January 25, 2016. A veteran Microsoft executive, Mr. Tatarinov also joined the Citrix Board as a director on January 25, 2016. Interim President and CEO Robert Calderoni will continue his role as Executive Chairman on the Citrix Board of Directors, focused on driving execution of the strategic plan for operational excellence, capital structure and portfolio simplification.[2]"? Thanks. JC713 (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, JC713! Yes. So far as I see, all of that existing paragraph seems to be taken directly from the Citrix press release. Based on that, I'd propose replacing with the wording I've suggested, though of course if you have any edits those are welcome! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey Rhiannon, so just a clarification, do you want me to delete the whole recent history section in favor of that sentence? Or just replace the second paragraph in the recent history section regarding Kirill?
Just the second paragraph of that section, the one regarding Kirill and Calderoni. Thanks, JC713! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Done! JC713 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you so much, JC713! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Argh! I've only just noticed a bone-headed typo in the wording I proposed above: it should be January 2016 not 2015. I'm sorry to be a pain, but would you mind updating that in the article, JC713? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Marcia Heroux Pounds (20 January 2016). "Citrix names former Microsoft executive as CEO". Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved 5 February 2016. 
  2. ^ "Citrix Appoints Kirill Tatarinov as President and CEO". Citrix.com. Retrieved 2016-02-01. 

Recent tagging[edit]

Hi all, following the recent addition of the {{newsrelease}} template to this article, I wanted to see if the user who added this had any specific feedback on edits needed to the article? 203.5.137.75: Can you identify any specific details that you feel are too promotional and should be addressed? Per WP:TAGGING it would be helpful to editors who've worked on developing this article if you can offer any thoughts on information that needs to be addressed.

Also pinging recent editors to this page, FoCuSandLeArN, JC713, Altamel and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for their thoughts on the tag.

As I've mentioned previously on this page, I am a consultant to Citrix via my employer Beutler Ink, so I have a conflict of interest with this article. Thanks in advance for your input. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: hello there, Rhiannon. It looks like a) the article has been significantly expanded since my last visit and b) there seems to be plenty of disruptive IP activity of late. I'll look over the article once again and see what can be done. I await other editors' comments as well. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, FoCuS. No notes yet from the IP editor, so it looks like it's down to others to figure out what, if anything, needs addressing. If there's anything I can assist with, please let me know! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@16912 Rhiannon: Hello again! OK, so I've gone over the article, and even though I removed the tag (I did not find anything that would have merited that template) I will provide you with some pointers on how to improve the article somewhat. The article is in fine condition, so note these are just "squeaky-clean" edits:

  1. The lede could use with an expansion. I feel as if a big chunk of information should be included, ranging from hard facts (employees, revenue, etc) to a brief overview of the company's history. Remember the lede is what most people will read without even scrolling down.
  2. Generally, it feels as if the article's structure is a bit out of whack. For example, the Expansion subsection cuts off in the middle to describe several acquisitions (specifically, between 2005-12), to then come back to 2007, which then of course leaves the proper Acquisitions section wholly separate from the rest (farther down). The structure and flow just leave me feeling as if it could be improved and ordered differently.
  3. I would tweak the language slightly, for instance the Rise in popularity subsection could be rephrased (point in question is we can't really gauge the company's popularity, and interpret this objectively enough to include it as a title.
  4. The Operations section includes an introduction which reads as repetitive when you've read the rest of the article.

Overall, the facts seem to be substantiated with appropriate references and the language is generally correct vis-à-vis tone and pertinence. These are just some issues that could be looked at when moving forward with improving the article. You might not agree with me, and they do not need to be acted upon, but these are my two cents nonetheless. I hope this helps, and as always you are free to contact me should you seek further assistance. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you taking such a thorough look at the article, FoCuS! I'm glad to hear that there's no concern re: the article sounding like an ad. Your thoughts on how to strengthen the article are really interesting—I'll need to take a close look at these aspects of the article again and see what I think might work. At the least, I'm sure after some thought I can put together an expanded lede and offer a new option for the Rise in popularity section heading. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of introduction and updating figures[edit]


Following my requests above, I'd like to request some additional updates to the article, primarily the infobox and introduction. The infobox edits are very straightforward and seek to update a few small details that have become outdated. For the introduction, in the previous discussion above, FoCuSandLeArN noted that the lede of the article could be expanded to give a better overview of the article content, so I'd like to put forward a suggestion. Once again, I am here on behalf of Citrix as part of my work at Beutler Ink so I won't make any edits myself.

Infobox updates

The below updated version of the infobox provides updated financials and number of employees. I'm providing the whole infobox markup to help make this a hopefully easy copy and paste edit:

Expanded introduction

Per my note above, I'm also proposing an expanded and updated introduction. The aim here is to give more detail in the lede, so that readers get a full overview of the article's content. Any new details here have citations, but the majority of information is mentioned and sourced within the article:

Updating figures in History and Operations

As I was putting together the updated introduction, I noted that there are a couple of other sections that need small updates to reflect recent figures:

  • In the Expansion section, the following update can be made:
Replace The company has 10,081 employees as of February 2015.
with The company had 10,081 employees as of February 2015.[5] In December 2015, Citrix employed approximately 9,500 people, but noted that its November restructure was due to eliminate nearly 700 full-time jobs.[2]
  • In the Operations section, the following update can be made:
Replace The company's revenue in 2014 equaled US$3.14 billion, an increase from $2.91 billion in 2013 and $2.59 billion in 2012.[6] In 2014, the company ranked 741 on the Fortune 1000 and 1,793 on Forbes Global 2000.[7][8]
with In 2014, the company ranked 741 on the Fortune 1000 and 1,793 on Forbes Global 2000.[7][8] Citrix’s revenue in 2015 equaled US$3.28 billion,[2] an increase from $3.14 billion in 2014 and $2.91 billion in 2013.[6]

None of these updates should be controversial, but as always I would prefer not to make edits to the article directly given my conflict of interest. Can someone make these changes on my behalf? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Citrix Systems Inc". Bloomberg Business. Bloomberg. Retrieved 30 March 2016. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h "Citrix Form 10-K Annual Report". investors.citrix.com. Citrix Systems Inc. 18 February 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2016. 
  3. ^ "Company Profile for Citrix Systems Inc (CTXS)". Retrieved 2008-10-23. 
  4. ^ [2] "Citrix company profile" Reuters
  5. ^ Citrix (February 19, 2015). "Form 10-K Annual Report: Citrix Systems Inc.". Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 12 March 2015. 
  6. ^ a b Zack Whittaker (January 29, 2015). "Citrix Q4: Strong earnings; 700 staff cut in restructuring". ZDNet. Retrieved 11 March 2015. 
  7. ^ a b "Citrix Systems". Forbes. May 2014. Retrieved 11 March 2015. 
  8. ^ a b "Citrix Systems, Inc.". Fortune. June 2014. Retrieved 11 March 2015. 
 Done —  crh 23  (Talk) 07:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much! This all looks great. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating re: GoTo products sale[edit]


Hello! I'd like to suggest several updates to reflect the completion of LogMeIn's acquisition of the GoTo product line. I am still working on behalf of Citrix as part of my work at Beutler Ink, so I'll outline these changes below for editors to review and make the edits, and not make them myself due to my conflict of interest. Here are my suggestions, organized by article section:

Introduction

  • In the lede, the 2016 announcement about the merger can be updated with details about the completed transaction.
Replace: In 2016, Citrix and LogMeIn announced a $1.8 billion product deal that would spin off Citrix's GoTo products into a new business entity, entitled GetGo, which would combine with LogMeIn's products.
with: In 2016, as part of a $1.8 billion product deal with LogMeIn, Citrix spun off the GoTo product line into a new business entity, entitled GetGo. In 2017, Citrix completed the merger of GetGo with LogMeIn's products.

Recent history

  • Under Recent history the 2015 details about Citrix considering the spinoff should be replaced with material about the spinoff and merger being completed.
Replace: As of October 2015, Citrix announced that it is reviewing potential spinoff or sale options for its GoTo products, which include GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, GoToWebcast, GoToTraining, GoToAssist and GoToMyPC
with: In July 2016, as part of a deal with Boston-based SaaS company LogMeIn, Citrix announced it had spun off its GoTo product line, which included GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, GoToWebcast, GoToTraining, GoToAssist and GoToMyPC, into a wholly owned subsidiary called GetGo.[1] In February 2017, Citrix completed a merger through which GetGo became a subsidiary of LogMeIn. The transaction was valued at approximately $1.8 billion.[2]

Products

  • Citrix also provides GoToMyPC, which is an online service for remote desktop access should be removed from Desktops and apps.
  • The list of GoTo products can be removed from Software as a Service: GoToAssist for remote IT support; GoToTraining, which supports online training; GoToMeeting, which facilitates online meetings; GoToWebinar for webinars and online conferencing;

As always, my aim with these suggestions is to make sure this article is accurate and I hope this will help editors quickly edit the article to bring it up-to-date. Can someone review the changes and then make them in the article on my behalf if they look ok? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tiernan Ray (July 26, 2016). "Citrix Q2 Earnings Beat, Spins off GoToMeeting; LogMeIn Surges 19%". Barron's. Retrieved 7 March 2017. 
  2. ^ Lauren K. Ohnesorge (February 1, 2017). "What LogMeIn's merger with Citrix's GoTo business means for Raleigh". Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved 7 March 2017. 
 Done Timtempleton (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Timtempleton! Appreciate your help. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating re: New CEO[edit]

Hello! Continuing on my work above, I am submitting a request to update this article on behalf of Citrix Systems as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

Kirill Tatarinov was replaced by David Henshall as president and CEO Citrix Systems, per this source and source, among others. Can someone please update the article's prose and infobox accordingly?

The following places will need to be adjusted in the article:

  • Infobox: Tatarinov can be deleted, and Henshall's title updated to CEO
  • Final sentence of the introduction can be deleted or updated as follows:
    • Former text to remove: Former Microsoft executive Kirill Tatarinov became its CEO in January 2016.
    • Proposed new text: David Henshall became the company's CEO in July 2017.
  • Mention in Recent history: I suggest adding a new sentence based on the Fortune source such as Tatarinov was replaced as CEO by David Henshall, formerly the company's former CFO, in July 2017.

Below is a formatted citation for the Fortune article, to make it easier to add:

<ref name=Fortune17>{{cite news |title=Citrix Just Replaced Its CEO—Again |author=Jonathan Vanian |url= |work=[[Fortune (magazine)]] |date=July 10, 2017 |accessdate=July 11, 2017}}</ref>

@Timtempleton: As you helped most recently with an update here, I hope you might be able to help with this one. Let me know if I can assist or if there are any questions. I've also posted a short request on Tatarinov's article to update that, too. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I made the changes - an IP editor already added him to the infobox but also left him there with his old position.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Tim! Appreciate you looking at this and sorry I'd missed you'd done this til now. Also, I realized that the Chairman is outdated in the infobox and should be Bob Calderoni not Thomas F. Bogan -- would you be able to make that quick correction, too? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done I also found and added a source. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Tim! Much appreciated. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Updating re: Employee number post-GoTo spinoff[edit]

Hi again! Similar to requests made above, I am submitting a request to update this article on behalf of Citrix Systems as part of my work with Beutler Ink.

Recently, Ejpsingh made an edit regarding the number of employees, noting that the company had 9,600 employees as of December 2016, minus 1,700 GoToMeeting employees. While this does update the details, I wonder if it might be confusing to readers and open to misinterpretation. As of December 31, 2016, per the company annual report its total number of employees was 9,600 "including approximately 1,700 employees related to the GoTo Business"; the GoTo Business was then completely separated from Citrix on January 31, 2017 (again confirmed by the annual report -- p7 of the full document / p3 of the 10K), so the 1,700 employees are now no longer part of the total.

Could the article be updated using the 2016 Annual Report as the source, to confirm that the total number of Citrix employees since February 2017 is approximately 7,900?

As I've noted here previously, since I do have a financial COI, I will not edit the article directly and hope that an editor will review this request and make the update as appropriate. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging this request to also note that there's a small formatting error that was introduced in the Recent history section, which has broken the wikilink to GoToMeeting such that the text appears as "[[4]]". If not already fixed, I wonder if editors can also look at fixing this when reviewing my edit request. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the link. Found a more recent source confirming that Citrix has 8,071 employees – thank goodness for annual proxy statements. Altamel (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Altamel! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Detours[edit]

Years ago I learned about Microsoft Detours, a Microsoft Research project. At the time I read something somewhere implying that desktop virtualization software such as that developed by Citrix Systems used Detours. If it is true that Citrix Systems uses (or did use) Detours in their software then that would be interesting to know. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)