Cheryl Hugle

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Cheryl Hugle/Frances Hugle has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frances Hugle, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Cheryl Hugle, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Frances Hugle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Cheryl Hugle, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

potential conflict of interest

Based on your user name and the name of the article that you have created and been primary editor Frances Hugle,

Hello, Cheryl Hugle. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DR

I have to ask that you remove the name of the other editor that you used on the article from the current dispute (in fact, ask for an admin to scrubb it please). I can only assume you two are familiar with each other but, if it is found that you have devulged personal information not found on Wikipedia you may be blocked. I am going to close that DR/N as not having enough discussion. The two of you have not discussed this at length but simply listed things you don't like that the other has done...and you may wish to review Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living persons in regards to listing the full names and birth dates WP:BLPPRIVACY. I will assume you have reliable sources for those but it is not wise to use.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to assume using that name was a slip up due to familiarity, and will redact if requested, but he is correct, our policies on revealing real world names if they aren't disclosed are pretty strong, so it is actually required that you avoid that to prevent getting yourself in a bind. You and I might use our real names, but others have a right to not do so if they so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am very confused by the foregoing by Amascientist. I have not mentioned the other editor in the article. Mention of the other editor was included in the request for assistance and was asked for in the request form. I am furthermore confused by the statement: "if it is found that you have devulged personal information not found on Wikipedia you will be blocked"

Lhugle and myself are both daughters of Frances Hugle. Is that what is meant? Or are you referring to Lhugle's charge (absolutely false) regarding my motives? or, conversely, expressing my own concerns?

The only personal info I am attempting to share here regards the life and work of Frances.

Granted I am new to Wikipedia so I probably am making numbers of mistakes, for which I do sincerely apologize. I only offer that I am trying to follow the instructions that appear in regard to the topics that seem pertinent such as the instruction to seek assistance in disputes, something I know Lhugle did and received.

Supposedly, the lack of discussion/talk is a criticism of procedure on both our parts?

Nevertheless, this article was written with a serious commitment to provide a neutral point of view, offering only verifiable info or facts I felt were generally known to be true. And, when honest corrections and improvements have been made by Lhugle (and others of course), they were very much appreciated by me and incorporated.

My objections have primarily centered around digressions from that neutrality and verifiability and the expressions of points of view that simply are not factual or even logical.

Is the objection to the use of the name Lhugle? If so, that is a user name, not the person's actual name.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Hi, Cheryl. I am Amadscientist. I should clarify. Your personal relationship with the subject is you right to disclose. It is not your right to dislcose another editor's information, relationships etc.. Regardless of not using the name on the actual article, all BLP policies and guidelines are enforced on even the talkpages and in AN or DR filings. As the Admin said this is obviously a case of familiarity and an accidental slip. As long as the other editor does not mind there is no harm, but you must no longer do so until such times as they declare for themselves the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Amadscientist, Thank you for the clarification. I was pretty lost trying to understand what was at issue. But now that I understand, it makes sense. I am sorry that I did not know this beforehand.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

sourcing

Hello, you recently added a section on education, and while it did have markings for a foot note, there was no actual reference with it. If the content was copied from somewhere else, you need to rewrite it to avoid copyright issues, and provide appropriate sourcing, see WP:CITE -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

All the text that was added was either written by me when the article was first submitted or written today to include more detail on Fran's degrees from the Univ. of Ch. Some changes/deletions were also made to the original text to avoid controversy (until additional documentation is obtained and for which requests have been or are being made.)

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

October 2012

Hello, I'm Stillwaterising. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Frances Hugle, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Stillwaterising (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Frances Hugle with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. O.Koslowski (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your frustation. However, if you notice on the edit page, at the top it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." (emph added). Unfortunately, people often start working on Wikipedia about items and content they have a strong personal and emotional connection too without really understanding how the community process works and then feel abused when the process doesn't match their expectations. It would probably be better if everyone started editing content for which they didnt really care about, other than trying to improve and learn the system. And then their expectations would be better calibrated for what they will be experiencing when they work on items that they have real passion for (or decide that they will take their real passion and work on it outside Wikipedia and just keep working on items where they dont give a fig if someone else comes along and changes a lot of their work.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

If you want to see Frances Hugle, please do not empty the article. Nominate the article for deletion instead. Please see this explanation on how to do so. O.Koslowski (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I will 2nd the above advice. "Blanking" an article is not helpfull, and if done repeatidly can lead to you being blocked, just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already attempted using wiki protocols to get resolution and it does not work. It results in unfair and biased actions and criticisms. Therefore, I have no choice but to remove this text because it is unfair to Frances that she and her work be represented in such a tawdry manner.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

I am somewhat late coming to this issue, but I would like to add my observations, in hopes of improving Cheryl Hugle's opinion of Wikipedia as a place of useful information.

Wikipedia's policies are in place to ensure fair and unbiased coverage of all topics that merit inclusion. Clearly, Frances Hugle has played a significant role in the history of semiconductor electronics, and should be covered in Wikipedia. That being said, it is almost always a bad idea for a close relative of a subject to create or edit articles about those subjects, because it is so very difficult to remain neutral about our loved ones. What a daughter sees as an impressive record of achievement, an outsider sees as a list of patents that offer no insight into Hugle's real career. Better to state that Hugle had over n patents (whatever number n might be), and restrict oneself to listing the truly significant ones. Also, attempts to verify facts in an article by citing Hugle's resume are inappropriate, as one's own resume is never a reliable source.

Cheryl, you claim that the article discusses Frances Hugle in a "tawdry manner". If there are specific omissions that you are aware of, that can be verified by citations to reliable sources, please feel free to discuss those matters on the article's talk page so that an independent editor can review your suggestions and add them to the article as appropriate. However, since the article has already been created, and extensively edited by authors other than yourself, it is not longer yours to delete. You may nominate it for deletion through the articles for deletion process, but based on Frances Hugle's accomplishments, it is unlikely that this article would be deleted. The best you can hope for now is that it can be improved to fairly represent her life's work and accomplishments. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well said. --Malerooster (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

That is sad to hear. We editors don't compete with each other to edit Wikipedia, but we work together to improve it instead. Are you in a dispute with someone? Do tell us your problems at the Teahouse and we can help you. Cheers!

Hydriz (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

Ad hominem.

Your accusations that TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) and I have "young male ego(s)," are "aggressive," that we have "a need to win," or that we represent one of many "immature young men" is not only unconstructive, but it is not appreciated. I have not tried to attack your character in anyway, and I would hope you would refrain from doing the same. Should you continue to attack other editors in this way, you will not be doing yourself any favors. I understand you want to improve the article on Frances Hugle, and I can assure you that I have no intentions to delete it. However, the content you have been adding and other changes you have been making or proposing have not been entirely supported, which is the problem under discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of this and I have been insulted plenty. I really don't appreciate the experience I have been put through. In regard to deleting the article, that is a fact so what is your point in denying it? This is pure dishonesty. It is a waste of my time to bother with those who are insincere (and game playing) in their communications.

"However, the content you have been adding and other changes you have been making or proposing have not been entirely supported, which is the problem under discussion."

Nice euphemisms. But, you don't have majority support and your interpretations of Wiki policies are in dispute. I am seriously beginning to have physical reactions to the two of you and it is starting to affect my ability to even look at Wiki articles. Please go away!

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Your removal of the COI tag

Regarding your edit here. If you continue to remove the COI tag from Frances Hugle before consensus is found that the tag is no longer needed, you may be blocked from editing. I won't leave a longer explanation because you've been here for six months. That is sufficient time for you to have become aware of our policies. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing for two months as elsewhere stated. After the article in question was resubmitted to Afc, I was offline until early September. When I was able to once again check the status of the article, it was mired in problems. I have since stayed involved to address the comments and concerns of the other editors (which apparently is the biggest complaint against me). The person who placed that tag has been placing tags all over the Hugle article and those have primarily been removed by other editors. I consider his behavior to be determined sabotage. After I removed it the first time and it was reapplied, I decided to wait and expect that another editor will remove it though I am sure, it will only result in further tagging behavior with different tags.

Regardless of your attitude toward my contributions (which have been generally constructive and informing), I do not appreciate selective threats and they are certainly not improving my opinion of Wikipedia editorial policies.

I am quite fed up with the heavy handed fault finding even when contributors are clearly acting in accord with stated policies. Block away!! Who could really care at this point?

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Please be aware that I am acting as an admin in leaving you the warning about removing tags. Whether you pay attention or not is your choice, but if you expect your contributions to be accepted and valued here, you should listen to feedback from experienced editors. Accepting feedback in a COI situation is not rocket science, and many COI-affected editors have managed it successfully. You should be able to work your way through this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia content rules - summary

it has been suggested at the COI board that the article talk was missing something like this

Writing Wikipedia articles is different from writing papers for school or an opinion piece for the paper where it is encouraged to pull together facts and information, and connect them in new ways. At Wikipedia that is called "original research" and is not allowed.

Wikipedia articles can only contain content that is verifible as having been previously published in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.

Wikipedia content cannot be the analysis/interpretation of Wikipedia editors, ie if a claim/statement is not specifically and directly made in the reliable source, it cannot be included. Wikipedia editors cannot attempt to establish claims/content by juxtaposing two "facts" togehter in a way to advance a claim or interpretation or connection that is not explicitly made within a single source.

Primary sources (such as patents or resumes) can only be used in very limited manner. " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Again, it can be used only for the direct content in the patent itself. Knowldege that a different patent had been filed at a different time is the unallowable "further, specialized knowledge". And only if its authenticity has been verified by a reliable source, ie not a Wikipedia editor.

I hope this helps explain why other editors are approaching the material and content in the manner in which they are.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have clearly taken all of these guidelines to heart. And your accusations that I have not is unfounded.

The above suggestion that the article was based upon OR is invalid and has been well refuted. Simply because the published record regarding the life and work of Frances, viewed in toto, presents a completely different history (not interpreted, not synthesized, not making claims beyond the published record) than we previously assumed (me included), does not mean that I am engaging in OR, novel synthesis, opinion, etc.

Furthermore, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." is precisely how the Notable invention section was written as I intend to detail shortly.

Discussions betwixt you and me have proven decidedly futile. You are not looking at whether the guidelines you are citing are applicable, you are only insisting they are casting undue concern regarding my contributions.

I find this unethical or minimally, highly biased, irrepsonsible and sloppy.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Is there some reason you deleted Red Pen's signature and part of his message? It makes it look like you wrote this entire section. Also, it'd be better if you signed in to make comments on your own talk page. Also, I'd suggest you try indenting your responses using a : at the beginning of each line, much like this response does. It makes it easier for everyone to read and follow the discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I submitted mine in two parts and I think there was an edit conflict that took out my final paragraph and signature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the missing paragraph from Red Pen's contribution, including his signature. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Frances Hugle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frances Hugle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Hugle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle

Hi Cheryl. I'm really sorry about how you have been treated - in reading the talk page of the article, my impression is not a good one. That said, while I understand your request to delete the article, I voted to keep it. First, because I think Wikipedia is improved by coverage of Frances - she is a significant figure in the history of Silicon Valley, and warrants being remembers. And second because, over time, I hope to see more of the material which you raised come to light in reliable sources, so that it can be used to develop a fuller biography. I don't know how the discussion will go, but I hope that we continue to have coverage of her, and that whatever happens, her contributions are properly acknowledged. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your comments. And, I too would very much like to see greater coverage in modern journals and other publications. But, I am not sure what I can personally do about that.

And, although WP is also in my view improved by the article, the majority of editors do not agree and they are not going to allow it to exist, not in any reasonable (factual) form and not for too long.

But your sensitivity and balanced approach to editing is very much respected and appreciated. And I also have hope that eventually Fran's contributions will receive proper acknowledgement. Thank you for saying that.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Talkback

Hello, Cheryl Hugle. You have new messages at Dcshank's talk page.
Message added 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:- ) Don 01:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Integrated circuit

Your edit to Integrated circuit is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Patents as source for invention claims Jc3s5h (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cheryl Hugle. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs

In a preliminary review of your editing, it appears that you are here to correct a serious misunderstanding about a loved one. While I'm sympathetic to your purpose, Wikipedia is not the place to rewrite history - in fact if you continue in that direction, you will find yourself blocked from editing. I strongly recommend you refrain from editing anything to do with semiconductors or the Hugle family and its legacy. Your recent rants on talk pages have not been constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheryl,

I truly have empathy for the anguish you must feel. I can't imagine the pain you must deal with on a daily basis if your statements are true. However, I'm concerned that where you are right now isn't a good place to be editing Wikipedia from. I truly wish you peace and serenity. Best wishes. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for your concern but I am finding it difficult to reply in a manner both respectful of your compassion and also fair to my actual state of mind, true intentions and what I have so far contributed on Wikipedia.

I understand that you are an administrator so I will address what I understand to be Wiki policies... (paraphrasing) those with COI who wish to make contributions should make them on the Talk page so that other editors without COI may consider them.

Respecting this policy and believing that I had information of potential interest to others editing both the IC article and the Frances Hugle article, I made contributions I feel are valuable.

I think calling my writing a 'rant' is not accurate.

No doubt the info was unwelcome, but if you read with an open mind, I am sure you will understand the importance of the discussion... and note that the other editor does reflect a degree of acceptance and learning.

Finally, I cannot stand against the mindset that is presently well entrenched in regard to the value or lack thereof of my efforts here. As two people have now said (yourself included), I will be blocked. But, it is also not my character to be falsely accused and not attempt some defense.

In this regard, I do not think 'I am in a bad space' and incapable of understanding what is and what is not a positive contribution. Furthermore, when someone says something to me and I do not see it the same way, I generally will try to explain myself or further reveal the facts that have led to my alternate understanding/point of view. This effort though seems to be unwelcome. Why? Isn't that the purpose of the Talk page? to enable 'offline' discussions between editors and others, both querents and commentators?

Finally, I want to suggest a book to you. It is Ten Thousand Sorrows. I suggest this book because it makes clear how individual responses may be and that traumatic personal experiences do not necessarily preclude one from making invaluable contributions to their society (consider holocaust survivors, prisoners of war, other torture victims).

There is an enormous amount of material that is not generally known or widely reported but is yet reliably published and if one knows where to look, it can be found. For the past few months I have been absorbed in understanding the timeline of some of the critical breakthroughs in chemical deposition, solid state physics and crystallography related to the semiconductor industry. I can't say that it will lead to anything I think worth sharing but if it did, I would previously have thought to note it on a relevant Talk page. Now?

Similarly, I recently read a Wikipedia page on a particular virus. I was also reading many other (non-Wikipedia) pages and noted that the info on Wikipedia appeared out of date according to the latest accepted research. I made a mental note to go back and check the Talk page to see if anyone was discussing updating... but now?

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Hello Todd, I would like to say something in reference to the title you gave this section:

I think that the wrong that is being committed is the continuation of a myth. It hurts all of us in many ways that are not fully appreciated. (For instance, are we involved in a predominantly his-story or her-story?, What motivated those involved in the critical breakthroughs? The Jewish question might be a motivational factor considering the recent holocaust. Who funded these developments and why? What projects led to the research resulting in breakthroughs? All of these things may be important to some Wikipedia readers, especially social scientists.)

Yet, I am aware that Wikipedia has a clearly stated anti-truth stand; that what is to be written into articles must fairly represent what is already reflected by majority position in third party sources.

And though Wikipedia has made this distinction clear to editors (somewhat), casual readers are not warned that the information they are receiving is ultimately being edited not with an eye to accuracy but with an eye to accepted majority opinion and even more so, the interpretation of that by a small group of article 'stakeholders'.

It is this condition that is at the root of the resistance to considering conflicting information, even on Talk pages related to subjects of critical historical importance such as the history of the IC and related topics.

This is unfortunate. I think that the Talk pages are misrepresented. And I think the type of information source that Wikipedia seeks to contribute is also being misrepresented. It is not that Wikipedia's policies are necessarily wrong. It is only that they are not as transparent as they could be and should be.

I hope these comments can be considered in the same spirit in which they are being offered.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle