Talk:Ups and Downs Notation

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is very dead. You can't claim a generic system, let alone protect its page. If you're an innocent visitor, edit User:PiotrGrochowski/Ups and Downs Notation-a instead. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this protected? Keenan Pepper (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because K**e is greedy and wants to claim all the xenharmony that exists! PiotrGrochowski (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, it's fine that it develops its own systems like color, but claiming this system, that is (quoted from User:PiotrGrochowski/Ups and Downs Notation-a-a) "not created by anyone, it's a mathematical miracle, just like the edos" is ridiculous. What's next? Claiming the concept of equal divisions of tritave? PiotrGrochowski (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What? You wrote that!! Mike Battaglia (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
? PiotrGrochowski (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Kite never claimed that the system was "not created by anyone"... Mike Battaglia (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a mathematical fact that ups and downs is a thing. Neither this fact or the notation itself need to be claimed by anyone. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and unprotected it. It seems clear to me that articles in the main namespace should be free to be edited by anyone, any we can work out conflicts (after it becomes clear there *are* conflicts) on talk pages. If you want a personal opinion article that no one else is allowed to edit, it should be a user subpage. —Keenan Pepper (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Birthday unprotection

Did you intentionally make the page unprotect at my 14th birthday (2018-11-08)? PiotrGrochowski (info, talk, contribs) 05:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

About those who work with extremely large EDOs

Hey Kite, I saw your new section, and I must say that while many microtonalists who work with 159edo would be familiar with 53edo, I should point out that in my case, that familiarity is only passing, as when I was searching for a good EDO to use, it was a combination of 3-limit, 5-limit and 11-limit considerations that brought me to 159edo, and as 53edo doesn't have a good 11-limit, I ended up skipping over it, jumping over from 94edo. Not only that, but I'm currently in the process of writing a song that uses an approximation of 159edo as a basis for retunings of other EDOs. Accordingly, you might want to edit your comments on who might work with it... --Aura (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Did I mention that I got my start in microtonality with 24edo of all things? Considering that this means I'm already a significant exception to your presumption due to currently being engaged in a significant share of the pioneering work, and considering the fact I'm trying to make 159edo accessible for people like me who are otherwise more resistant to the idea of detwelvulating, don't be surprised if 159edo eventually proves to be more than just a simple relative of 53edo. --Aura (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I changed "Presumably, anyone" to "Many people".--TallKite (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Aura (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry about being rude... --Aura (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Apology accepted :) --TallKite (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)