Vandals on Wiki busy again.

It looks as though the vandals on Wikipedia, having stuffed the entry with lotsa erroneous information, now wish to have the entire entry deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_tuning

Is this a case of NIH (not invented here), sour grapes, or the name that I have egocentrically added for my development of John Harrison's ideas.

I notice no criticism yet of the validity of the tuning system, although I am sure my initials namesake (C.L.) will be pleased to oblige or add LummaTuning with its own entry.

I agreed with the idea of adding 88edo to the entry, for those who could tolerate lower precision, yet to remove this useful and often visited entry entirely seems a little OTT (over the top) to me.

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

-- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning --

For more information on LucyTuning go to:

http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world) can found at:

http://www.lullabies.co.uk

fwiw, I think that's too bad.

I've been critical of some aspects of your style, but I think you've
got some good ideas, and good music is being made with your tuning.

As for patents, I think no tuning should be patented.

But the information should be out there.

So, I agree with your post.

(caleb ducks, runs away, regrets saying anything, goes back to
lurking, attempts to work ...)

On Jan 28, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> It looks as though the vandals on Wikipedia, having stuffed the
> entry with lotsa erroneous information, now wish to have the entire
> entry deleted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_tuning
>
> Is this a case of NIH (not invented here), sour grapes, or the name
> that I have egocentrically added for my development of John
> Harrison's ideas.
>
> I notice no criticism yet of the validity of the tuning system,
> although I am sure my initials namesake (C.L.) will be pleased to
> oblige or add LummaTuning with its own entry.
>
> I agreed with the idea of adding 88edo to the entry, for those who
> could tolerate lower precision, yet to remove this useful and often
> visited entry entirely seems a little OTT (over the top) to me.
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> -- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning --
>
> For more information on LucyTuning go to:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world) can found at:
>
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>

While I am an inclusionist, and while I had defended this
article against deletion the last time it was nominated for
such, I now agree with the consensus of wikipedia editors
that it one or more of

* non-notable
* vanity / linkspam page
* no good references available

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> It looks as though the vandals on Wikipedia, having stuffed
> the entry with lotsa erroneous information, now wish to have
> the entire entry deleted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_tuning
>
> Is this a case of NIH (not invented here), sour grapes, or the
> name that I have egocentrically added for my development of
> John Harrison's ideas.
>
> I notice no criticism yet of the validity of the tuning system,
> although I am sure my initials namesake (C.L.) will be pleased
> to oblige or add LummaTuning with its own entry.
>
> I agreed with the idea of adding 88edo to the entry, for those
> who could tolerate lower precision, yet to remove this useful
> and often visited entry entirely seems a little OTT (over the
> top) to me.
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...

Charles,

Locking wiki entries is not possible?

It would seem that the entry - or the portion provided - by the subject
matter expert - who is easy to decide here - should have priority.

Chris

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

>
>
> It looks as though the vandals on Wikipedia, having stuffed the entry with
> lotsa erroneous information, now wish to have the entire entry deleted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_tuning
>
> I
>