User talk:Yoda2031

hello!
Thankyou very much for your comment! its certainly nice to see someone take an interest in my, if somewhat outdated and childish, userpage! Indeed you are correct, and the measure by which wikipedia is itself surreal may not be 'total'.

However, as the wikipedia article on surrealism itself states "Dictionary: Surrealism, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought". to this extent the creation of a new zone outside of the previous sphere of thought by which anyone can edit has broken previous constructs and so is itself surreal. It may not be a giant underwater meglomaniac called Fred, but its close enough :)

And also, apologies for the shunning of Americanisms, it was a 'phase' i went through. I now realise that Americans have every right to be as incorrect with their spellings as do I :) --Chickenfeed9 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, I try to avoid using Wiki when possible - it has proven unreliable on all but the least important of points. I only logged in today to make an aside on a discussion page for something I'm vaguely interested in.


 * Anyway, glad to hear that I was right about taking criticism. One thing I would note is that the Wikipedia article on surrealism is a Wikipedia article, and should not be used as a source (Wikipedia's own policy on this is quite clear).  The definition of "surreal" which I use is one of my own making, based upon common usage (amongst book authors) and etymology (sur- meaning 'over/above/additionally', which can be taken to mean 'abstractedly' in this sense).  Lewis Caroll, Douglas Adams and (to a lesser extent, and I will explain why momentarily) Terry Pratchett are good examples of surrealist writers.  J.R.R Tolkien might be considered surreal by my definition of surreal (fantasy is abstraction from reality - hobbits don't really exist).  And this is, really, my point.  Surrealism is, by my definition, dream-like abstraction from reality, where Pratchett and (to a greater extent) Tolkien do not abstract from reality in this way.  It is in this distinction that I make my conclusive point.  Yes, one could say that Wikipedia is a surreal instance, as it is a creation derived from thought and therefore an abstraction from the previous reality (the world without wikipedia) however, I do not see Wikipedia as particularly dream-like or overtly fantastical.  The ways in which it is beyond its previous reality are functional, technical and ideological - not random, bizarre and inexplicable.  Thus, I stand by my original point that Wikipedia is not surreal.--Yoda (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Phonemic Distortion
I have nominated Phonemic Distortion, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Phonemic Distortion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. _ _ _ A. di M. 16:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)