User talk:Uhoj

July 2025

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my recent message in Talk:List of attacks during the Iran–Israel war. Please stop edit warring and making accusations of vandalism. Uhoj (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply re: AN/I

Thank you for these replies at AN/I. The only reason I put so such much effort (probably wasted) into replying there at such length is it seemed clear to me early on that this was a content dispute at Military–industrial_complex with the accused, and instead of providing the back and forth there that made you so upset two months ago, we are given a bunch of old diffs on articles you never touched trying to get the accused in trouble for something different from your real concern. Plus pinging so many people from long-dead AN/I disputes and diffs that were so old.

What I did not like about it from the start is that impositions of the sanction gives you a big editing advantage if the accused returns to the article. It would make it impossible for the accused to revert you. It reminds me of the kind of problem mentioned in Laches_(equity) where plaintiff delays asserting a claim to try to gain advantage.

Fortunately for you, the accused took the bait, responding with the exact tone the accused is known for and some restriction looks inevitable.

I so much preferred your final statement:

I was steaming mad two months ago. Now I just want this to be over so I can finish working on the article where we collided. When I suggested that you start contributing to the article I was being serious, though not above poking fun at your rhetoric. I'm sure you're pretty mad now. My hope is that eventually you'll embrace collaborative editing, and who knows, maybe we'll work together in a collegial manner some day.

There is a sincere honesty -and- attempt to reconcile that I found lacking in the original complaint. I wish you had started there with the accused before going to AN/I.

I don't know if you have ever been hauled to AN/I before. It is quite unpleasant, especially for newer editors, and especially when they don't know how other editors have collected diffs that will be used to make them look their absolute worst. Unexpectedly having to defend oneself at a forum that may be completely unfamiliar to the accused without any Wiki-legal advice IMHO is not a fair and just process. In your case, the accused definitely--despite having been here for ages--could have used some advice.

Anyway, it's almost always better to try to work things out if you can. So I am glad you ended on that note. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and sorry for talking down to you the other day.

Yes, I imagine it's quite disconcerting to be hauled to ANI. Having now seen it in action, I get why the top of your user page is advice on this topic.

I see what you're saying about laying my hopes of reconciliation on the table months ago, but the way I feel now is not how I felt then, and frankly it changes from moment to moment. Overall it's been a pretty upsetting experience. I've spent the past hour trying to get my thoughts together for you, but it's all a jumble. Uhoj (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off

So lets recap:

• After lenghty discussions about sources and verifiability for each statement in the paragraph and making updates per those discussions, you propose brand new language that re-writes the whole paragraph.
• I leave a good-faith comment expressing concerns that your intent is to re-write every existing sentence in the article and, if so, this will make updating the article and finding consensus much more difficult; I specifically noted that only one sentence hadn't been re-written
• Your reply is My goal is not to rewrite the article, but that is a necessary result due to the nature of the known problems claiming the article having a C rating as sufficient justificaiton. You include this gem: It sounds like you might be feeling overwhelmed by the journey of a thousand miles and end the message with We're bikeshedding now. Barn raising would be more productive and fun.
• You then decide to make a new proposal re-writing the paragraph. This proposal is nearly identical to the one above *except* the one sentence I had mentioned as not being rewritten is now rewritten to state the speech was written 'collaboratively' and then you end your response with this: Thinking about how such a good speech was written collaboratively gives me hope.

The needless attempts at escalation are completely uncalled for. Just to get this out of the way once and for all - I will not rise to the WP:BAIT and will continue to let your own behavior speak for itself. What is so frustrating is, believe it or not, I'm your ally in this but you seem deadset on trying to push me out of the conversation or get me pushed out of the conversation.

Think about it strategically: since July, you have completely re-written this article two times. You are currently the articles top contributor by added bytes (and by a very large margin). Yet none of those edits stand. Do you really think that antagonizing your fellow editors will be a succesful strategy? Sure, it may result in us dropping away from the page for a month or two and you re-writing the entire page again, but someone will come along and just do another roll-back[1][2]... PositivelyUncertain (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PositivelyUncertain Let's focus on content and content policy. I think that will lower the temperature of all this drama.

I'm sorry I was condescending. I'll try to avoid that in the future. Uhoj (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that on the MIC page we should focus on content and content policy...which is why I brought behavioral problems to your talk page.

You already acknowledged being "aggressive" in one response to me and then, even though I hadn't responded to you since your initial reply, an hour later escalated again. You are the one raising the temperature. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PositivelyUncertain that Uhoj's latest rewrite has the problems mentioned. Uhoj seems to be steam-rolling ahead trying to force in his/her preferred version, re-framing, and re-writing of the article despite opposition. Uhoj is showing WP:OWN behaviors like a dog with a bone. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PositivelyUncertain this is a problem as I mentioned at talk page. [3][diffs to be added later] --David Tornheim (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you have a recommendation for a less-controversial approach to proposing changes than posting them to the talk page? Uhoj (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering that while David and I were here you, instead of responding, you posted a new proposed quote and also notified Project Military to that proposal. I interpret that as another escalation and we are now at disruptive editing. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS I consider it disruptive because of your frequent one after the other proposals and now inviting more chaos to the mess. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a mess for reasons you have said. However, I don't see a problem putting a notice on one or all of the connected Wiki-Projects unless the invitation is non-neutral. I considered doing that when I did the revert and pinged in recent and long-term editors. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Slow down and follow the advice mentioned here. Even better, take a break and work on other articles that you aren't so invested in. Reflect on why you are getting so much pushback. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK I'll take a break. I hope you folks will consider my proposals in the meanwhile. Uhoj (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Uhoj - yes, your proposals need to considered. I have started a new section to reorganize and bring those proposals to the forefront so to speak.

  Please continue to take the time you need - I won't make any page edits until you decide to return to the talk page. Also, I think having you in this process will make it a better article. For instance, I really liked the Williams content! It's just about balancing and finding consensus PositivelyUncertain (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for your commitment to civility (including your defense of less-experienced editors), as well as to your own self-introspection and improving the openness of difficult discussions here for all involved parties. I perused the recent AN/I. Cheers! Top5a (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Top5a A nice crispy stroopwafel is just what I needed! Means a lot to me given the ongoing nature of the fiasco.

I enjoyed reading your treatise on bias originating in application of WP:NPOV at the source, rather than topic, level. It crystallizes a facet of the problem in a way that contemporary popular discourse on the subject has failed to do. I'd enthusiastically support its publication as an essay for wider distribution.

While I'm aware of the GREL/DEPS controversy, I haven't encountered it while editing; likely because I have little experience in areas related to current events. However, my brow is known to furrough while reading articles sourced from news media. What are your thoughts on preventing battleground behavior and false balance without resorting to a blacklist/whitelist paradigm? It seems we're faced with the usual dilemmas of governance on the spectrum between mob rule and GodKing.

Point of view forks grace the other side of this coin. Each article in a pair is defended tenaciously by its partisans. Factionalism thus tempts editors away from scholasticism. It is a potentially detrimental form of conflict avoidance in the same way that wider cultural conflicts are denied at the wiki level by deprecating, rather than harmonizing, conflicting sources.

It all seems to boil down to whether a unified epistemology is desirable, or whether we should instead embrace eclecticism. Uhoj (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military-Industrial Complex

On my talk page you said:

Several days ago you told me to start an RfC,[4] but now that I've gone ahead and done it, you push for a speedy close.[5] This is surprising. Another example is objecting to content on the basis of WP:RS,[6] but then reverting anyway when a source is provided.[7]

Please communicate your preferences and reasoning more clearly. Uhoj (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My response here:

I didn't say Consider an RfC if no consensus develops. That was advice from admin. Firefangledfeathers that I shared with you. It says "if no consensus develops." The consensus so far--as I read it--is that you have been wasting editor time. (Diffs: me: [8],[9],[10]; PositivelyUncertain [11],[12],[13], [14]; Apfelmaische [15])

You might have at least told the editors there you were planning to run an RfC. I asked admin Firefangledfeathers for help here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning at Talk:Military–industrial complex

Please do not bludgeon discussions as you have been at Talk:Military-industrial complex. A review of the talk page shows that you have good research and writing skills. Work a bit on your collaboration skills and you'll probably become one of our best community members. Even slight adjustments to the frequency and length of your commenting will go a long way. Now that you have a posted an RfC with a succinct proposal and your reasons for it, I encourage you to let outside editors weigh in with infrequent response from you, unless you're directly addressed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Thanks for the detailed feedback and for encouraging me to improve my behavior.

I realized I was being too argumentative about a week ago, and so switched to making a string of concrete proposals. I take it that this too was inappropriate.

You said the RfC is "definitely not perfectly timed". Do you mean I should have waited longer after the final proposal was rejected, or something else about the timing? Should I have gone through 3O or DRN in addition to all the pinging and inviting that was done by another editor and myself?

Academic sources tell a pretty different story than popular opinion on some subjects. Policy makes it sound like sources prevail, but my experience says it's popular opinion that matters. What's the best way to bridge a gap of that type, hypothetically speaking? Uhoj (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! On the timing: I meant that it would have been better to wait until the final proposal had been considered for a while. We generally want lengthy local discussion before outside dispute resolution is attempted. This applies for RfCs, 3O, and DRN. It can also help to workshop the RfC question with the local dispute participants, though sometimes that meta-discussion itself can get log-jammed and someone just needs to post the damn thing.

On policy v. popular opinion: I'm not sure if you mean popular opinion as in "this is what the general population tends to think" or "this is the view of the majority of editors who've shown up in this dispute". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Thanks for explaining the timing problem.

I guess what I'm asking is: what are best practices for countering unsourced or poorly-sourced arguments? Or, to put it another way, how should something like an RfC be crafted to attract responses rooted in sources rather than preconceptions? Uhoj (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have any mysterious secrets there. As long as you're presenting good quotes from good sources that support your case, and as long as you are able to articulate clearly and briefly how the opposing argument lacks good quotes from good sources, you're probably going to see RfC participants figure out the best path forward. If not, part of working in a volunteer community is taking a loss and moving on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your experience Firefangledfeathers! I really appreciate you taking the time to give me the lay of the land. Uhoj (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Third Opinion: clarification on “erroneous use”

Hi @Uhoj, thank you for taking the time to review the uwu article discussion. I wanted to clarify something: the article itself (and its cited sources) already establish that uwu originates from the furry community, not from anime or Japanese culture. That part isn’t in dispute. The reason I suggested adding a note about its erroneous association with anime is because there’s a clear and widespread misconception among Western fans that uwu is a “Japanese” or “anime” expression. You can see this reflected in numerous anime-themed products and websites using uwu in connection with Japanese or otaku branding (for instance, Uwu Market, Drink Uwu, and Uwuntu OS). This shows the misconception exists, even if it’s not “officially” documented in scholarly sources yet. My intent wasn’t to label anime-associated use as linguistically incorrect, but to briefly note that the association itself is a misunderstanding of its origin — which seems relevant to a section about how the term is used today. Thanks again for your time and input. —Fireaza (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the article talk page Uhoj (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Army References

Hello, thank you for your contribution on 4 October to the United States section of the Standing Army article. There are a couple of references that you've marked as "hackemer" and "cooling-kelly" which don't seem to have any books that they refer to. I've deleted the references for now, but would be perfectly happy to put them back if you could give me the titles of the works. JASpencer (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake! Just added the missing references. Uhoj (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Pursell moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Carroll Pursell. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28 No, actually it doesn't need any more sources to establish notability.

Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable ... 5. The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research

— WP:NACADEMIC

The subject was named Distinguished Professor at two institutions, as verified by citations. The criteria for notability are satisfied. Kindly move it back to main space. Uhoj (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I overlooked this notability guideline (I consulted the general notability guideline and biography notability guideline, but forgot about WP:NACADEMIC).

I’ll move the page back, sorry again for my mistake. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28 Thanks for fixing it! Uhoj (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]