Hello, Hugetim! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 14:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Let me respond to each of your four complaints.

1. I only added information about the National Prayer Breakfast on the basis of information already contained in main article. If you dispute this information please take it up on the National Prayer Breakfast Talk page. Otherwise I will dispute reversions.

2. I have deleted the whole sentence not only because it is completely incoherent as written but also because it contains advertising. I also will dispute reversions.

3. I am afraid that, yes, on the basis of the reference (the Washington Post) the statement can only be considered alleged give that the Washington post does not directly quote Laura Bush and does not provide reliable sources that Laura Bush really said this. Also, the award, again as referenced, can only be considered minor. Please show it to be otherwise, that for example, the award is somehow like the Pulitzer. Will dispute reversions again.

4. Regarding the Christophers, whatever they are, the reference clearly points to evangelical christianity. Please do not revert change without explaining why reference is incorrect. Also then please provide new reference. Mfhiller (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

On 1, I misunderstood. I thought you were claiming to use information from the WaPo article given as a reference, not the Wikipedia article. That makes sense now. On these other points, I respect your zeal for the truth about Bonhoeffer and for opposing advertising on Wikipedia. I stand be my concerns though and will continue to discuss particular points as time allows. Hugetim ^(talk) 13:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for editing the Metaxas page. I agree that the tone is less negative. Mfhiller (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

Thanks so much. I'm really happy with the result of our editing. This is the sort of article I was looking for when I first came across Metaxas and was looking for some NPOV info about him (and found the old article deleted, understandably). Hugetim ^(talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh Hugetim, just wondering, what does it mean to say, "I am a Catholic and an economist"? Is this some kind of Catholic joke, or is it an economist joke? Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. I intend this to be a statement of potential conflicts of interest. It would be simpler to say "Catholic economist" but then that sounds like I am a particular kind of economist because I am Catholic, which may be misleading. I feel there is a great potential for jokes here, but I'm usually only good for self-conscious ramblings. Hugetim ^(talk) 12:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. You've answered a joke with another joke. Maybe your "self-conscious ramblings" are not so nearly "self-conscious." Let me interject another joke: Freud allegedly smoked as many as twenty cigars a day; he also spit and hacked a lot. His spitting and hacking purportedly caused one of his patients during analysis to interrupt, complaining about the spitting and hacking. Freud simply replied, "You are lucky then. I could have farted." Funny, dowantuthink? Mfhiller (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

There's a difference between being self-conscious and self-aware. I'm too self-conscious to ever claim the latter. Warm regards. Hugetim ^(talk) 15:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I am in your debt. Let me know if I can ever be of service to you. – Lionel (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, my first barnstar! I'm really happy to receive this. Yet, consider yourself to have no debt other to love (which I take to be St. Paul's advice in Romans 13:8). Hugetim ^(talk) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Hugetim. Are u huge? Whatever. I am concerned that the Eric Metaxas article is going to continue to be a problem, as there are several editors who persist in contributing, in my view, mere advertising. In particular the references to Barnett and Greene have been deleted several times. I'm trying to be fair enough, respect wikipedia standards, etc. but this is really frustrating given that the scholarly consensus about Metaxas's version of Bonhoeffer is intentionally being deleted from the article by people who want to whitewash Metaxas. Metaxas is an empty-headed charlatan. I can't say that on WP but at the very least it should be stated that Metaxas's work on Bonhoeffer is widely acknowledged in the field of Bonhoeffer studies to be a revisionist concoction. And where Metaxas is correct, he has mostly outright plagiarised Bethge's research. And so what am I to do regarding this empty-headed charlatan plagiarist? I have over the last six months tried to create a more balanced representation of Metaxas, as per persistent complaints on the talk page about advertising etc., that now seems to be continually attacked and vandalised. I agree that the article should not be deleted, but I won't have much choice but to bring it to AFD if Metaxas's peeps keep brown-nosing. Mfhiller (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

I've started a sock puppet investigation here. Interesting that Jaredbaragar has already admitted that JonGraham is an "alias." Mfhiller (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi both me and Thargor got blocked because of 3RR. Anyways it seems obvious that the only tag that should stay in the article is the Undue tag per the dispute resolution. If you could remove the others it would be appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. He cannot make an edit for you. That would be a violation of WP:MEAT. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God bless us everyone. -Hugetim ^(talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you aware that "conservative" is not in the source? Your revert fails WP:BURDEN and you are in violation of WP:BRD. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From WP:BURDEN: "...consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." From WP:BRD: "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." Otherwise, it's a fair question whether "conservative" should be there, a question more appropriate for the talk page. -Hugetim ^(talk) 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Hugetim for the Barnstar - my first one. There are four accounts now that have been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhillerReply[reply]

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 December you reverted an anonymous edit made on 17 December. The 17 December edit was correct, inasmuch as The Legion of Christ is, indeed, a movement of pontifical right. The term "pontifical rite" has no meaning in the Catholic Church, which does not use it - whether with reference to religious institutes or movements, or otherwise. Don't, of course, take my word for it, but check out the incorrectly-glossed link Congregation of pontifical rite. There you will find the phrase of pontifical right, and no mention whatever of "pontifical rite" (see the last para. of the article, with a link to a relevant provision of the Code of Canon Law) .

In fact, the phrase "of pontifical right" occurs at several places in the Code of Canon Law, see: canon 589, canon 593, canon 968, and canon 969.

I therefore invite you (when you have digested this) to revert your own edit. Thanks Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Will do. ---Hugetim ^(talk) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Aeq. Second Prize
	For an amazing effort on Philosophy of science, you've come equal second in the Mach 2014 Core Contest! Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed! Actually History of art is pretty crappy when you look at it, though nothing like as deplorable as Indian art, which has been on my to-do list for a long time, and seems to get more views. H of A starts off ok, I think as a translation from Spanish, but doesn't keep it up. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	When I saw in the Signpost that you'd been recognized for your work on philosophy of science, I had to take a closer look. It's one of those articles I've periodically looked at and thought, 'wow, this is bad', but it also just seemed like too big a project to wade into. You've done a great job with it! ragesoss (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! It was a labor of love. -hugeTim ^(talk) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

philosophy of science
Thank you, editor too self-conscious to claim to be self-aware, for your labor of love Philosophy of science, including cleanup, moving literature to more specific articles, pruning, all with helpful edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How beautiful! Thank you for your detailed attention to my work. (You even read my talk page, bringing back a fun memory for me.) Thank you so much! -hugeTim ^(talk) 12:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 841st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 841 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BodyTalk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Hugetim, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 01:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence Lessig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aaron Schwartz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Philosophy of Science at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 10 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Philosophy of science, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that distinguishing science from non-science is an unsolved problem in the philosophy of science, so an "I know it when I see it" standard is sometimes used to recognize pseudoscience? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hugetim. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "BodyTalk".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hugetim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philosophy of science has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]