Talk:Buck Institute for Research on Aging

message: I'm layering in content, a step at a time, following the article on GTRI as a model.  My "Cite" function is currently broken, so I know I've left things in a somewhat dirty state.  Working entirely from first sources at this point.  Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources do not look independent... look at WP:RS and WP:OR or just find some secondary sources! BO | Talk 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- I'll keep whittling at it -- ResearcherQ (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  content coming in 

message: *An example would be: 
*docs with more examples are at Template:Cite_web. There are templates for books articles etc. BO | Talk 00:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks -- the Template reference was very helpful -- ResearcherQ (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Citation Templates

message: Hi, full disclosure — I work for the organization as a staff member, and I wanted to add content to the article that are accurate (using external references, not just self-sourcing). I have made some edits before, which all got deleted due to a potential conflict of interest although the additions were accurate. What is the best way to bring back those additions? Or am I not allowed to make any changes because of my employment status? Thank you! Irenepark89 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding details to the content 

message: Hi—I'm a staff science writer at the Institute (see my user page), and I have made some changes a couple of months ago that were deleted due to a potential COI conflict. I wanted to see if it seems fit to undo some of the recent deletions? In particular, I wanted to see if we could return the article to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buck_Institute_for_Research_on_Aging&oldid=869874466. I will make sure to change some of the sources so they do not link to the institute's website since information itself I have added in the past is accurate. Thank you so much. Looking forward to working with you on this! Irenepark89 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing wiki article with potential COI issue 

message: * The version you have requested to be restored had several issues with it, many of which would remain unresolved if your edit request here were to be implemented and the page restored.
* My suggestion is that you write a draft version which incorporates all of the changes you've requested but does so by supplying references to reliable, third party sources. This draft would include the references placed within the text as ref tags, in order for the reviewer to easily verify all of the information. 
When ready to proceed with a draft version, please open a new edit request at your earliest convenience.
Regards,  Spintendo  07:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 14-JAN-2019

message: Hello, thank you so much for the suggestion. I have drafted my proposed changes in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Irenepark89/sandbox). For the "History" section, I would like to add a couple of sentences to the section rather than rewriting it myself. For the other sections, I am proposing to replace what is in the current version with what I wrote in the draft. Also, I noticed that the last editor who deleted large parts of this wiki article also got rid of photos, and is there any way those could be restored? I did not upload those photos. Please look over the draft and let me know if there are any issues/concerns. Thank you. Irenepark89 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 16-JAN-2019

message: *For future reference, the list of the COI editor's requested changes are shown in this diff. There are a couple of issues with this request:
# Much of the information appears to already exist on the subject's web portal, buckinstitute.org. Wikipedia ought not to become a mirror of information which is already available elsewhere.
# The sources for the proposed claims are not from reliable, secondary and third party sources. Those types of sources are preferred to ones that are closely related to the subject of the article.
# As far as the deleted image files, they appear to have been pictures of the same facility taken from different angles. One picture of the facility should be sufficient for the article's needs.
Regards,  Spintendo  01:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 16-JAN-2019

message: Can we remove "In 2014, Ultragenyx" at the end of "Laboratories" section? It's an incomplete sentence. Irenepark89 (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Request edit

message: Spintendo  21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 30-JAN-2019

message: Hello — I was wondering what are the necessary steps to remove the "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments"? As I disclosed on my user page, I do work for the institution, but my suggested edits have been reviewed by neutral Wikipedia editors. Irenepark89 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the proper tag to the top of this talk page. The question remains about removing the paid editing tag from the article. I'd say that depends on how much of the content from paid editors remain. Irenepark89 is only the most recent one. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So when it comes to paid editing, it is not just the text added, it is also the material that has been left out. Would require a review of the topic in question to determine if it is justified to be removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank the good Doctor and Anachronist for their input. It's much appreciated.    Spintendo  22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments"? 

message: * It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case  — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them by placing a new message on their talk page. In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the  template's answer parameter to read from  to . Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  21:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the proper tag to the top of this talk page. The question remains about removing the paid editing tag from the article. I'd say that depends on how much of the content from paid editors remain. Irenepark89 is only the most recent one. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So when it comes to paid editing, it is not just the text added, it is also the material that has been left out. Would require a review of the topic in question to determine if it is justified to be removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank the good Doctor and Anachronist for their input. It's much appreciated.    Spintendo  22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 30-JAN-2019