User talk:Linda Gerdner

Conflict of interest editing

Hello, Linda Gerdner. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Linda Gerdner, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stallone must have submitted with these errors and he says these things need to be handled very cautiously. I waited one week before I made the first changes. I have waited almost a second week before bringing the need for these changes. I gave Stallone the correct information and have all the documents to prove it. It said Wikipedia deleted content and make the errors. He also said I would be deleted if I tried to change them. Basically he said these things needed to be changed over time and not all at once. I said, why can you just correct the error and tell them of the mistakes that were made. Again I will sho you the original documents that I gave him. I don't think he understands the academic world. I have a PhD in nursing, have worked with Dementia patients and someone wrote I was a Geriatrian and added the definition of a geriatrician. I did not do that. Stallone said one of your volunteers did it, he didn't do it. I have respect and integrity and I am going to loose this if I wait for WikicreatorsLLC. Initially they refused to do anything. That is why I made the initial changes. I am not an MD, I have never pretended to be. That came from soneone who did not understand the terminology. I had reference and validation for my accomplishments and I believe Stallone defeated that. Again he says it was wikipedia. I just want it to be done correctly without mistruths. Stallone does not understand why this is a problem. Linda Gerdner (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to say that Stallone says because Wikipedia made these errors and drastically cut content, it us very difficult for him to handle the corrections. I don't know who is telling the truth. Wikipedia supposedly cut my credentials that I am Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing (FAAN). That is the highest honor a nurse can receive, I was inducted in a ceremony in Washington D.C. We were told those credentials should accompany our name during all professional writings. I wanted to include a photo of myself being inducted. Stallone said you would not allow that. You apparently will not even allow be to acknowledge that. I have never encountered anything like this before. I supposedly can not even make sure that the truth is told about me. I remember professors saying students could not use Wikipedia as a citation for papers, I had no idea there were this many problems with the process. Linda Gerdner (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linda, I don't know who Stallone is but I am assuming you have paid someone to create a wikipedia article for you. You should know that paid editing without proper disclosure is against wikipedia's terms of use. I have left a note about this on the talk page of the user who created the article about you because what has been done is a problem.

I am a volunteer contributor, like most editors here. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so there is no entity called "Wikipedia" that has done anything. My guess is that the person you have paid is misleading you in an attempt to get more money from you. You should not be paying any one for this. If you are notable enough to have an encyclopedia article about you, volunteers will write it for free, but please be aware that the article is about you, not owned or controlled by you in anyway. Anyone can edit it, but they should follow certain key guidelines. These include that the subject of an article needs to meet certain notability criteria, that all content must be verifiable by the use of reliable independent secondary sources, and that all content must be written from a neutral point of view.

Can I suggest that you start by reading the Conflict of interest guidelines. Following these, you should not edit the article about yourself, however you are welcome to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to propose changes on the talk page, particularly if there is something in the article that is factually incorrect. I would also recommend reading WP:YOURSELF about why it may not be the best thing to have an article about yourself here.

It may be that the best thing to do is bring this to the conflict of interest noticeboard to get some other experienced editors to look into this and find the best way forward. Thanks Melcous (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tagging Scope creep and Drm310 as two very experienced editors often on the conflict of interest noticeboard in case they might be able to offer advice. Melcous (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do that. I would not object if the information that is being told about me was true. I am not an MD. I was one of three editors for Ethnicity and the Dementias. Someone placed me as the sole author. That is a horrible mistruth, but not one that I created. Stallone is a writer from WikicreatorsLLC. He is telling me that a volunteer from Wikipedia changed the text, which are mistruths. He claims no responsibility for what has happened. I will make a posting on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I just want the information about me to be true. Linda Gerdner (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Linda Gerdner. I'm Drm310, a long-time volunteer editor here. I saw Melcous's tag on this page and I will add a little bit to her excellent assessment of the sitution. First off, I'm sorry that recent events have caused you distress.

My first bit of advice is that you cease dealing with anyone editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment. This particular company has been the subject of discussion in October 2021, and they have been caught violating Wikipedia's rules against the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. I'm willing to bet that is the case with the account that created the article about you. Unfortunately many companies take advantage of people's naiveté about Wikipedia and convince them to pay for services that aren't needed, while making promises that they have no ability or authority to deliver on. These include creating articles for subjects that are inherently not notable enough for inclusion, or guaranteeing that the content of an article will remain at a version that the client prefers.

For academics, the notability guideline for academics is the benchmark of whether an academic figure is notable enough for inclusion. Admittedly, my experience in evaluating academic credentials is limited, so I am probably not the best person to make that judgement. I can try to find other editors who have more experience with these subjects to review the existing article about you.

If you are deemed notable enough for inclusion, then we will probably require some verification of your identity. Wikipedia's username policy allows people to use their real names as their Wikipedia account name; but if that person is a notable person, verifying that person's identity is necessary as a means to prevent damaging impersonation.

After that, I would avoid directly editing the article about you, as we discourage people from doing so. When there are problems in an article about you, making edit requests on the article's talk page is the preferred method to solve them. This is a process that engages uninvolved editors to evaluate your request from a third-party point of view. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, Linda Gerdner, attempted to make the following statement on the conflict of interest page. After writing this I could not find the send button. It appeared that was only for making the actually changes and I do not know how to do that. I guess my purpose to explain that I did not intend to do anything wrong other than to provide correct information where libelous information had been printed by Wikicreators LLC. I just don't understand the system, I guess.

I simply tried to rectify information on my page that was not factual and so in an effort to maintain my integrity. I believe that my accomplishment over the years, as made me a potential candidate for wikipedia page. I hired WikicreatorLLC to create a page. We have been working on this for almost a year. I check and paid for the services in Dec 2021. I wrote an initial draft with valuation and references. Stallone was assigned to this project. He consistly rewrote information with grammatical errors an misinformation. He would not allow a return of my investment. I we went back an forth with corrections. I was primarily concerned about the content and that it was an accurate reflection of my work and contributions. I had given him all the references in the beginning and he had included that information with numerical references and link. Finally, in November we had a draft that I believe was worthy. I still have a copy of what was submitted. What was actually place live online was a drastically cut version of what I had submitted with a lack of validating references. My greatest concern at this point was the errors would destroy my credibility. I contacted Stallone and he told me over the phone that I had received exactly what I had paid for, a wikipedia page. He would not make any corrections basically stating that his job was over. His boss then called me and I explained the problem and he said it would take time to remedy since it was already life. I asked him to call me on the Friday after Thanksgiving to let me know what he was going to do. He did not.

I did take it upon myself to make a few of the most serious errors. The first being that I worked as a Geriatrician at Stanford Unversity. Someone inserted a link define what a Geriatrican is. Basically that is a physician who has receive additional training in elder care. I have a PhD in Nursing of Older Adults with a cognate in Anthropology. I worked at Stanford as a Ethnogeriatric Nurse Specialist.

The second problem was that I had received a BSN, MA, and PhD from Iowa Wesleyan University. I did receive my BSN from there, bt they do not even have an MA and PhD program in nursing. So I felt that needed to be changed.

Shortly thereafter I received an e-mail from Stallone informing me that I should not have made those corrections because the page would be removed and I would be banned from Wikipedia. In my mind, I thought that would be better than my colleagues thinking I was not credible.

I found more significant errors. I was listed as an author on one published manuscript, but Elizabeth Swanson was listed as my co-author. That was wrong. The article actually included two Hmong American authors. Elizabeth Swanson has never worked with the Hmong people and knows nothing about that ethnic group. I tried to make the appropriate recognition of authors, but the best I could do was remove Elizabeth Swanson's name.

The other major problem was a book that I was co-editor on with Drs. Gwen Yeo and Dolores Gallagher Thompson. Many of the chapters were written my physicians and other related staff at Stanford University. They were top notch people in the field. The reference was written as if I were the sole author. There goes my reputation. I had told Stallone but he did not respond. As you know I attempted to make a correction, but it was not as simple as making a simple editorial change.

Stallone did tell me that he did not make any of the erroneous changes that went live on line. He said that was done after he submitted. I asked to see what he had submitted.

This has been the worst nightmare of my career. I still believe that I have made significant contributions to my discipline, both her and abroad. I would like the opportunity to submit the final draft that was submitted. I know this page is listed as an orphan. I was trying to change this links so the content was verifiable. I would like to be given the opportunity to work with someone at Wikipedia to make this dream come try. I am a Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing (FAAN) which was removed from the page. That in itself indicates important contributions that I have made.

I have also received major awards for contributions. Please help me. Linda Gerdner (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To your questions

Hello Linda_Gerdner: I have read some of your comments in various pages. Here's all advice I can give:

Please, try to be concise and not write extremely long comments. We're volunteers, so in many cases, editors might not be inclined to spend 10 minutes reading a single comment.
The page Linda Gerdner is now deleted because it was created by a banned user (Wiki Creators LLC is banned, they are not allowed to edit here). Note that this is about the page, not about you as a user. You are not banned.
Ignore everything "Stallone" says. Wiki Creators LCC uses fake personas, and also impersonates other editors. They are scammers.
You're not going to get blocked just by participating here. However, you should observe the conflict-of-interest policy (I would suggest to take the time to read it, and ask if there is any doubt).
It is unlikely that volunteers will write a page for you. But you can try going to Wikipedia:Requested articles, clicking the link for the most relevant category, and edit it to add your name there. Then maybe, at some point, some volunteer will pick it up. There are no guarantees.
If you are significantly notable by Wikipedia's standard, someone will eventually write an article about you without any request.

My final advice would be: take it easy and forget about pushing for a Wikipedia biography. Best, MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is fair. I do appreciate your help. I feel better having talked to you and others. Just so you know I also reported WikicreatorsLLC to the Federal Trade Commissions. Linda Gerdner Linda Gerdner (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Trade Commissions

Report number: 154299027 Linda Gerdner (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Gerdner: Thank you for reporting it to the FTC. I'm not sure if that will go far (I think they are based in Pakistan), but it's worth trying. You might also want to write to the Wikimedia Foundation legal department (legal@wikimedia.org) and let them know about this. Best, MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward

Hello again. Regretfully, your article has been deleted by an administrator with the reason of having been created by a banned or blocked user. I would highly recommend that you cut off all contact with the people you paid, as they have a proven history of breaking Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing and use of multiple accounts. I'm sorry you got entangled with these unethical users.

Despite all that's happened, I don't want you to despair. If you are a notable academic figure by Wikipedia's definition, then we certainly do wish to have an article about you. It may be possible to salvage some of the content, properly work on it in the draft article space, and then have it reviewed by neutral third-party editors. You can make a request to have the deleted material restored if you have the energy and patience to try again, with the hope of a more positive outcome. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer. I would like to submit what was to suppose to me submitted along with the appropriate references. What was posted online is an embarrassment to me. I have dedicated my career to trying to help people and being an advocate for persons with dementia an their family caregivers. I have also focused on specific ethnic groups an dementia such as Hmong Americans an African Americans or Blacks living in the Arkansas. I have also written about some culture issues of Hmong Americans to promote cultural understanding. You are not always in the spotlight when addressing these types of issues but I do believe I have made some important contributions. I would like to get a review by your volunteers to see if they agree or what I need to do to improve. Thank you. Respectfully, Linda A. Gerdner Linda Gerdner (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Linda Gerdner: I was pinged by @Melcous: several days ago but wasn't able to attend but hopefully I can help now. It is excellent advice offered by both Melcous and @Drm310: above and i'm glad you've followed it. Sometimes when you deal with paid editors, it likes going down a rabbit hole, think of Alice in wonderland, but I think your out of it now. They are generally a waste of time. Eventually everybody who is notable particularly academics will have an article on Wikipedia. I have a lot of experience with creating article on doctors and medical folk. I think your notable, both by the having at least five papers with more than 100 citations + a number of book reviews. I would suggest creating a wee article from scratch as it would have a clean history but if you can get the refunding into draft, I can copyedit it. I think it is probably best to keep what you have, as what you written has a coi. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means a great deal to me. Thank you so very much. I will work toward that goal. Lina Gerdner 97.127.247.34 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means a great deal to me. Thank you so very muuh. I will work toward this goal. Linda Gerdner Linda Gerdner (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on a draft for a possible Wikipage. I have text, references with potential links and notes. I had links highlighted in yellow, but I did not create the links. I wanted to first, submit a draft for review. I tried to validate all information including two TV interviews (one is from CBC TV in Canada and the other is on Vimo but it is an international group. I have also included citations on how my research has been tested in 12 countries. I am just not sure how to submit directly to you. I am trying very hard, but your system is completely new to me. Please advise. Linda Gerdner (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted my draft for a bio wikipedia page. I tried to verify all information with a reference or link. I am sure there are formatting issues that need to be resolved, but I wanted to see what you thought about the text. I tried adding my professional photo, but there was a question about copyright. I will follow your advise on how to proceed. Thank you for your support with this project. You have my full cooperation. This approach is new to me but I am trying. Linda Gerdner (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a second draft that I found with both of our names, that seemed more appropriate. I hope you get it. I will cooperate fully with required changes. The system would not accept my professional photo when I tried to upload. Said there was a problem with copyright. Linda Gerdner (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Linda Gerdner! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 23:11, Sunday, January 8, 2023 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

January 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
a workspace for a draft article
a personal website, blog, or social media site
a space for self-promotion or other advertising
a CV, resumé or lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or create new articles. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep/Linda Gerdner

Hi, why did you copy this article into my user page? There is already an article at Draft:Linda Gerdner which can be worked on. I'm not working on this article as I don't think there is sufficient coverage for the person to be notable. I intend to WP:CSD under G6 under in the next couple of hours. If you need to remove it to your own userspace, now is the time to do it. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Linda Gerdner: It might be worth posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and requesting help to update the draft. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply confused on how to proceed. I saw you name and mine so I thought that was the more appropriate place, I will remove. Are you also saying I do not be the criteria to be notable?? Linda Gerdner (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find the original draft to work from and received a message that it had been deleted. I apparently misunderstood our previous communication, I thought I did meet the criteria for for a bio and that you had agreed to be the editor. I am sorry. Linda Gerdner (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I worked on it over days and unfortunately I couldn't find enough to support an article. I'll drop a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red to see if they can do anything. Some of the editors there are more tenacious at expanding articles. scope_creep^Talk 11:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Linda Gerdner

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Linda Gerdner, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for all the information you posted to the Women in Red page. I am just saying hello in case you have any other questions or concerns. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the edit that was on this person's page prior to the Fox news report was obviously done in an effort to manipulate the press and Fox news to prevent her from being investigated for many people's lives. Anyone who has worked with this organization knows what her job responsibilities are. This is why faculty in academia will not allow students to use Wikipedia as a resource, at least any place I have ever worked Linda Gerdner (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]