User talk:Mostly Zen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Mostly Zen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GfloresTalk 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S., you can find more userboxes here... WP:UBX. GfloresTalk 17:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neurofunk

Well, I'm back... sorry for my tardiness, but university and studies take priority over online bickering on Wikipedia. In any event, since I definitely agree with some of your points, I'll address you first as opposed to Kridian who I can see has been hard at work continuing to make the article his own in my absence. (Something that will soon change, as I've been rewriting the entirety of the article every weekend for the past month from a Wikipedia-accepted NPOV standpoint, which will subsequently be incorporated under a subcategory of the Techstep article.)

As you correctly pointed out on the Neurofunk discussion page, citing the definition of "funk," this was the main crux of my argument against 84.44/Kridian all along. Because there are so many "funk" elements incorporated into Drum & Bass as a whole -- spanning a plethora of subgenres -- to say that "funk elements" or even "dark funk elements" are the defining characteristic of "Neurofunk" is beyond ludicrous. Being a producer and a DJ since the term started to stake its claim, exacerbated particularly by the old neurofunk.com site (now gone), I've heard and continue to hear just about every Drum & Bass track that hits the shelves and if not via vinyl, then via download or online samples on sites like Chemical Records, Red-Eye, Breakbeat Science, etc. I make it my business to listen to as many tracks per day/week/month as possible. I'm a head, and I love Drum & Bass as a whole -- it is and always will be my favorite musical genre, despite the downward turn it's taken these last few years and vinyl all but dying out -- so like any other good aficionado of something I keep up with it all the time. Now while I can't claim to have heard every single track from every artist, I can claim to have heard almost every track by all the artists named in the discussion here. And I can say unequivocally that I've definitely heard enough to get a solidified idea of their typical sounds and style -- and own just about every single, EP and LP put out by the main "Neurofunk artists" in question/contention within this discussion (Ed Rush & Optical, Ryme Tyme, Matrix, Stakka & Skynet, Kemal & Rob Data, etc., etc., and can take pictures to prove it). That said, I'll now touch on what you said last, "Drum and Bass has always been a small underground musical style, and has evolved as a mixture of different styles. As a result, you will always have considerable overlap between different genres."

The problem at hand in this fight lies in the separation of two styles purportedly different, when they really aren't. The only true difference is one (Techstep) existed long before the other style (if you consider it that, which I really don't) and the twain essentially have no real discernible, definable difference that isn't arbitrary or subjective depending on who you ask. We know how the term originated, but as I say below: how it originated, and the track used to typify said sound of the paradigm of Neurofunk in Simon Reynold's eyes (the proclaimed originator of the term), Source Direct's "The Cult," sounds NOTHING like what would be called Neurofunk today -- nor does its remix. In fact, it sounds nothing like any Ed Rush & Optical track I've ever heard.

This is where the line begins to blur and where new heads who fancy the term, or new-age producers who want to fall into a niche that separates them from "Techstep" start using it just to use it. On that note, I'll address what you said about people on DOA using the term. Well, yeah, some do... though the consensus view on DOA is that most Dogs actually don't accept the term as legitimate, as shown in another link in some of the previous discussion logs. However, those that DO claim it's a style can nary muster the ability to actually define it with anything substantial or agreeable. The "funk elements" argument obviously is invalid, since all DnB, by its very virtue, in every single genre, contains lots of funk elements. The only other real believable argument is it's "more danceable." Okay, well, that may be -- but that still goes against the original definition of the "term" Neurofunk, since The Cult isn't funky or very danceable at all. Thus, you could coin it as "neo-Neurofunk" if you want to somehow link it to the original (though I personally can't see the minutest connection in sounds from The Cult to The Creeps), but that would also mean Ed Rush and optical didn't pioneer anything. I mean, okay, take this as another example: Desimal termed /classified his personal style as "Biofunk," not Neurofunk, all right? Does that make it a legitimate style just because he used that term to describe his work? Absolutely not. I could call my style "Dibbiwawafunk" and heads all over the world could subsequently start using that term to describe a style they feel represents that, but that doesn't make it a valid term just because misinformed fans think it is and use it as such.

A style becomes a style (or substyle, in this case) when it clearly breaks away and evolves from another style, having its own unique sound that, from that point on, characterizes it. Case-in-point, Techstep can be CLEARLY defined juxtaposed to, say, Jump-up or Intelligent or even Hardstep. But when it comes to Techstep versus proclaimed "Neurofunk," this is where this blurry veil of obfuscation starts to enshroud the argument and definitions become solely subjective. What does that tell you?

It tells you that it really doesn't have any recognizable traits that truly distinguish it from Techstep on the level that other separate, valid subgenres of DnB do (Jump, Jungle, Intelligent) other than "danceability," and to me that isn't enough. Plus, to some people who feel that Neurofunk is a real style, like Kridian, "danceability" isn't what separates it. There's no consensus view in the community on it, and even those who accept it don't see eye-to-eye. In NO other genre is this a big issue (save maybe Liquid Funk/Intelligent for the same reason). To me, that signals that nobody knows what the bloody hell Neurofunk is. You don't see Intelligent fans disputing what's Intelligent and what's Techstep because it's obvious which is which. There's cross-over in all genres, yes, because some breaks and other samples are used in all genres -- but not so much so that it wholly muddles one sound in contrast to another -- e.g. you can still tell the difference between an Intelligent track using an Amen Break and a Techstep track using an Amen Break. When it does that, it's the same sound. Which is why I say Neurofunk = Techstep and Techstep = Neurofunk. Is there danceable Techstep and non-Danceable Techstep? Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't still Techstep in the end.

Bakemono 01:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Game

I noticed on your user page that you're annoyed The Game (game) was deleted. Just wanted to let you know that the article has been recreated, but of course some people want to get rid of it again. Oh yeah, and I just lost! Timrem 15:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Zombine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zombine.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful tip when reverting vandalism

After seeing your noble struggle fixing the vandalism at article Metre, I thought I would point out that you can revert to a prior revision of a page by going to the page history, going to a good prior revision by clicking on the date of it, then clicking "edit this page", and "Save page", thus saving that copy of the page as the newest revision. -- Centrx 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for stopping by the Psychology Wiki

Hi Mostly Zen. Your obviously the kind of person we are looking for! Welcome. On a personal note if you want a voluntary clinical placement over the summer where you can spend all day building the clinical psychology section on the psychology wiki and talking to us about clinical issues and the job etc do come back to me! I would be very interested to meet with you and try to arrange something. I reckon it would be excellent experience for you and you would obviously learn a lot. I am encouraging students to keep a record of their contributions to the wiki for CPDand course application purposes. Could you pass on the good news about the wiki to any contacts you have , particularly raising it in appropiate places on the internet.Thanks again for joining us. Good luck with the revision. Cheers Lifeartist 08:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC) No probs. If you win the lottery the work experience offer is open. Looking forward to seeing you on PW after your exams. Lifeartist 12:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message about Psychology Wiki

I just made a new category called Category:Psychology Wikians by interest, with several sub-categories, if you'd like to check it out. There's a link on the Browse page of Psychology Wiki. EPM 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psyc Wiki

Hi there, thanks for the info. Front page looks awesome. Will dive more into it and hope to help in contributions soon. Currently a bit tied up with some summer classes =( Thanks again...cheers! therearenospoons 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Re: A New Wiki for you to look at

Hello, Mostly Zen. First off, congrats on becoming an administrator on the Psychology Wiki! :) The template you directed me might have already been fixed, as I can't see anything wrong with it except for a stray caption (Psylogo-png.png|). Your Beginners Guide looks great (user-friendly and thorough), as does the rest of the wiki.

The only bit of advice/criticism I have in mind now is that for some of the articles copied from here, interwiki links, Wikipedia templates, images, categories, etc. appear as redlinks because they don't exist on the Psychology Wiki. For example, in the article Syllable, Template:Polytonic, Category:Phonotactics, and Image:Syllable structure.png haven't yet been created or uploaded there, so perhaps it would be helpful to go back to such articles and tweak them a bit or create the missing pages they link to.

Feel free to drop me a line if you need anything, and I'll try my best to help. Keep up the awesome work on that wiki! ;) Cheers, Sango123 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TBI on the Psychology Wiki

Thanks for the heads up, I'll definitely check it out. Peace, delldot | talk 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for approaching me--after reviewing the TBI page there is definately some stuff I can add--it doesn't really discuss aptosis, or the frayed rope theory (why TBI predisposes one for problems later in life when the neuronal reserve is needed) or Ralph Reitans recovery curves which pretty much show 6 months is peak recovery for stroke victims... Okay. See you there. -Mike --DoctorMike 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Psych Wiki

Hello,

I'm very interested in learning more about the Psychology Wiki Project. I would like to communicate with you about this via E-mail. Which of your E-mail addresses should I use.

Regards,

Michael David 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I did send you an E-mail as a test to see if it gets through as addressed. Your User Page in Wikipedia has Newman with a capital 'N'. I used the small 'n' you gave me here.
Let me know which is correct.
Regards.
Michael David 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed you back now - Tom Michael - Mostly Zen Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary thoughts

Well, it looks okay. I'd advise against trying to contact large numbers of people simultaneously, as that could be perceived as spam (although I know you have the best of intentions).

Incidentally, will PsyWiki be open to editing by the general readership, or will it be limited to registered users, or is it by invitation, or...? DS 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology wiki heads-up

Hi Tom,

Thanks very much for the link to the Psychology Wiki, it looks very fantastic. I've just posted about it to mindhacks.com which should hopefully generate a bit of interest.

All the best - Vaughan 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology Wiki...

Hey Mostly Zen — thanks for letting me know about the Psychology Wiki. I'll check it out! Best wishes, talkGiler S 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to browse through the site, but philosophy of mind is not my specialty. It's hard to find what needs work, so it will take some time to find the relevent subprojects. Amicuspublilius 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, there's a lot missing on Freud in popular philosophy, and a lot missing on the entire Popperian "pseudoscience" criteria. There's a start. Amicuspublilius 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Psychology Wiki

Hi, I just found your message about the Psychology Wiki. I've just checked it out. It's an interesting project and I'll try to contribute. Antonella 12:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Kelly

Noticed you're interested in Kelly's work. I tried to list him on Constructivist epistemology but someone edited off. Would love your involvement in that discussion! B. Mistler 06:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cs-source.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Cs-source.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/s/User_talk%7EMostly_Zen_bfd7.html"