# User talk:UU

Welcome!

Hello UU, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Izehar (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

## Editing

Just to let you know that it is considered impolite to edit other people's comments on talk pages eg [1]. Stephen B Streater 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi QQ, thanks for the invitation to talk I've replied on Talk:Exclusive disjunction. Paul August 16:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

## 10000000000 (number) and others

I made all of those into redirects to Orders of magnitude (numbers), as they are not worthy their own articles. If you are interested in numbers, I suggest you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. Some reading on that page may be helpful in explaining why not every number has to have its own article.

If you disagree, you can reply on this page, I will keep it on my watchlist. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you already signed up, that's enough. :) So, if you have any questions about numbers, you can ask at its talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the project, QQ. I recommend that you write your user page (a couple of lines or a hundred paragraphs, just as long as your username doesn't show up in red in edit histories). After that, it might be a good idea to put 12 (number) on your watchlist (that's the project's flagship article). Anton Mravcek 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

## RSA

With regard to your recent edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RSA&curid=25385&diff=177398108&oldid=175563176

Would you happen to have a reference? Although the article might benefit from such a citation, I ask for my own curiosity.

Thank you sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippydo (talkcontribs) 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that correcting some important number in an article is not preferable, but my correction is not wrong. However, I don`t know how to give a reference for this. And I will explain why I do the correction.
First, the public key exponent $e$ should be prime. If $e$ is not prime (e.g. 35 = binary 100011), then it may NOT be coprime with $\phi (n)$. That means, the private key exponent $d$ cannot be obtained.
Second, $e$ could be a number that only have leading and trailing one in its binary representation (like 17 = binary 10001, 257 = binary 100000001), so that the chance of having Timing attack might not be increased by Exponentiation by squaring.
You are welcome to see Talk:List of prime numbers, if you are interested. QQ (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

## power of one

1. The main section is about integer powers, so noninteger real powers and infinite powers are outside the scope.
2. The convention 1x=1 for real exponents is trivial. The alternative convention 1x=e2 π i x is useful, albeit not common.

Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

## February 2008

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Imroy may be offensive or unwelcome. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. SMS Talk 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have found the term "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." and "The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so." in Wikipedia:User page, so next time I may ask him to correct...QQ (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well i didn't know your intention of editing that userpage, as it is avoided to edit someone else userpage in normal practice. After reading you response I think that link should be like this GLEW. --SMS Talk 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello QQ, I see you've been editing a lot of articles with the comment "correct redirect". Have you seen WP:R#NOTBROKEN? There are some arguments there you may want to consider. Melchoir (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to ask you to stop now, or at least pause for a minute and take the time to explain what you're doing. Melchoir (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking the links that are not correct in CONTEXT by looking whether it is ALSO redirect. The links that name is derivative of its redirect target are also considered not correct in context. QQ (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we both agree that if article A links to redirect B, which points to article C, and C is not the right concept intended by A, then the link to the redirect should be considered incorrect and it should be changed. However, I am concerned that some of your edits have the opposite effect. For example, with respect to [2], Singular simplex redirects to Simplex. This is a good link target because:
You changed the link to point to Mathematical singularity, which does not explain what relationship (if any) it has to simplices.
Also, about links where the "name is derivative of its redirect target": the logic of WP:R#NOTBROKEN applies to these too. It is better to link to simplices than to write out "[[simplex|simplices]]"; as the guideline states, "Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." Of course, the guideline is only a guideline, but the fact that other editors prefer that convention makes it inappropriate to edit hundreds of articles to conform to your own preference.
I do see that you've been making many content improvements at the same time, for which I say, thank you! So could you possibly focus on content and leave the redirect link style the way it is? Melchoir (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For the edit I made in cup product, I would like to apologize. I did read cup product, but regretfully I made some mistake. However, even I violate the guideline by editing non-broken link in singly and doubly even, it does NOT mean that the revert [3] is good. I think the main purpose is to alert me, but the message shown in my user talk is ENOUGH to alert me. I can focus on content and leave the non-broken link as unchanged. But if the content AND the non-broken link are not good in the SAME article, I will correct BOTH of them in that article! In addition, I am NOT going to swear a harsh oath because I cannot guarantee that I will not made the same violation forever, but I am welcome for complaining my improper edits. QQ (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology for the edit to Cup product. One of the reasons why it's dangerous to edit so many different articles so quickly is that it's easy to overlook details that make the situation different from what you expect. Mistakes are hard to avoid, and they cost effort on the part of other editors.
Speaking of effort, I did not perform the revert [4] just to alert you. The pages Oriented manifold and Orientable manifold currently redirect to Orientability, which is primarily about oriented surfaces of dimension 2, whereas the concept Singly and doubly even intends to link to is oriented manifords of higher dimension (4 mod 8). Currently Orientability has a section Orientability#Orientability of manifolds, which describes the concept for higher dimensions. Now, it is possible that eventually, someone will turn the pair Oriented manifold/Orientable manifold into a new article, one page redirecting to another. This could happen by creating a stub, or it could occur organically if the section in the parent article becomes so large that it needs to be split out as per Wikipedia:Summary style. So this is why linking to the redirects helps:
• The decision on whether and when to make a new article will be informed in part by demand for the article. Today, one can browse Special:Whatlinkshere/Orientability and see which articles link to the redirects. By doing this, I count 13 articles that would benefit. But if these articles were linked directly to Orientability, then there would be no way of knowing how many there are.
• After the new article is made, other articles that are already linked to the redirects will automatically point to the new article without further effort. However, if other articles link directly to Orientability, then there is no way of telling which ones need to be relinked. One would have to browse through all incoming links, one by one, looking for "fixes" like the one you made, and undo them.
Given the above, would you still say that articles linking to Oriented manifold and Orientable manifold should be "fixed" given the opportunity, and that such "fixes" should not be reverted? Melchoir (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry for the length of my replies. I guess the main point is that "fixing" non-broken links to redirects isn't just unnecessary, it's actually harmful and worth undoing.) Melchoir (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: I said "worth undoing" above, but I think I should assure you that I have no intention of systematically reverting your other edits. So, you don't have to worry about that. Melchoir (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

### WP:REDIRECT

Please stop changing links to redirects, such as [[simplices]], to piped links, such as [[simplex|simplices]], as you did in these edits [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].

According to WP:REDIRECT: Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. The redirects that you changed are not broken, and should not be changed to piped links. Thanks, Neparis (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not like your action (because you action is also VERY bad), I will not revert back since I do not want to be directed. QQ (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

## UU

My talk for partial usurpation: UU (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi UU, the local account on nlwiki has been renamed, so you can now login with your global account. If there are more projects where you want to request renaming, check m:Steward requests/SUL requests/burnote. It lists the pages where you can request usurpation for a number of projects. --Erwin85 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

## MythBusters

I'd like to suggest that you read a little bit more and ask some questions before moving episodes around and deleting valid statements.

• All of the special episodes at List of MythBusters episodes are clearly marked with "Note: This was a special episode." so this edit is peculiar, especially since, out of the six seasons with special episodes that are marked as such, you only found one season where you apparently missed the notes.
• List of MythBusters special episodes clearly states "Special episodes listed here were aired separately to the normal season episodes and special episodes" and, for the "Young Scientists Special" clearly indicates thet the "episode aired first on Science Channel, as opposed to the show's regular home of Discovery Channel." It was a separate episode, outside of the 2008 season that aired on a different channnel. It isn't even shown in the 2008 episode guide.[24]
• This edit deleted a valid notice. In my reversion of the removal I clearly stated that the show had been advertised both before and during the episode as a special episode,[25] yet you reverted that change with the rather strange question, "rv why reverting my adding of "Note: This was a special episode" is not allowed???"[26] You didn't add the note, you removed it.

Quite a deal of effort has been made to get episodes into the correct order, in an appropriate season, and make everything consistent. By all means improve the articles but several of your edits have been far less than constructive. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

## 1138 Aleppo earthquake

Dear UU, 1138 Aleppo earthquake has recent changes. 2 are obvious vandalism, but then I reverted the ranking because I thought vandalism as well. Now I realise that the problem is deeper. Ranking 5th (before my revert) quoted USGS as source but there it is 3rd. Now there is a wiki template which puts it at 5th place, but the additional soureces are not referenced. Do you want to look into the consistency? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

## sidereal/stellar time/day/period

Hi UU!

I noticed you making changes to several Wikies in different languages. I think, your edits might relate to the minor differences between the definitions of the stellar/sidereal day (relative to ICRF and relative to vernal equinox).

Please, could you give me a hint about what you are trying to accomplish?

--Pyrometer (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)