User talk:ThomasPynchonsLeftNut

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Pre-Rendered Welcome![edit]

The Balloon welcomes you!
Hello, ThomasPynchonsLeftNut, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left...Not that far, goddammit! ...Yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for nooblets:
If you read anything at all, make it the above two links, particularly the second one. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia, or need more help with something, try these:
If you feel like asking someone for help, feel free to ask me on my talk page, in the help forums, or on the Uncyclopedia IRC channel. With the forums and the IRC, keep in mind that the first response of the community is almost always general silliness. We are after all, a silly wiki, run by numerous silly, silly people. When you edit discussion pages, though, make sure you sign your name, using four tildes (~~~~) or the "sign" button (Button sig.png), above the edit box. This'll automatically produce your name and the date, and lets everyone know who the hell you are. Signing will also help you avoid the {{tilde}} template.
When you write articles, make sure you start with enough on the page so that it's not deletion-quality. If you must create a stub that you plan to expand on in the near future, use a {{WIP}} or {{Construction}} tag to mark it as a work-in-progress. However, if you leave a tagged WIP unedited for a full week, it'll wind up huffed. If the idea of impending deletion doesn't appeal to you, you should like I do, and start pages in userspace, first. This means making a page like User:ThomasPynchonsLeftNut/Article about stuff. In userspace just about anything goes(save for the obvious no-nos, like shock pics or other stupidity), and you can build and rework your page(s) at your leisure. Once it's done, just move into mainspace, maybe getting a pee review at some point to get constructive feedback on your article.
For new users seeking help, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Browse our list of available mentors, and leave them a message on their talk page.
Lastly, and most importantly, have fun with it! As a comedy wiki, that's kinda what Uncyc is for. Enjoy yourself, and remember to never take anything anyone here says too seriously. We have serious moments, but generally we stay pretty laid back. Also, I'm not a bot. Just 'cause you saw a similar message on a bunch of other users' pages doesn't mean I didn't have to copy and paste this one onto yours with my own meatsack of a finger. Anyways, welcome to the machine! - T.L.B. File:Baloon.gif WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 20:50, Jan 14

Re: Adoption request[edit]

I usually adopt right testicles, but I'll make an exception for your case. Questions, concerns, comments, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 01:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I always adopt a symbiotic relationship with my children, much like that between Ocellaris clownfish that dwell among the tentacles of Ritteri sea anemones. The territorial fish protects the anemone from anemone-eating fish, and in turn the stinging tentacles of the anemone protect the clownfish from its predators (a special mucus on the clownfish protects it from the stinging tentacles). Do you understand now?

Your first article looks good so far. I formatted the picture and added a link or two. I'm sure you can figure it out. Do not forget to categorize your article as well -- the more the merrier. This can be done by putting "Category: <insert category name here>" (but instead of being surrounded by quotations, surround it by brackets, [[ ]]) at the bottom of the article. For your article, I would recommend Category:Sports, Category:Canada. Here's a useful tool for browsing through categories:

Moar blue links, maybe a "See also" section, and some more content (if possible; some of the subsections are very short). Once you feel it's done, I'd be happy to look it over. Maybe even a submission to the Pee Review for a second opinion (like the typical mother, I am probably going to tell you how creative and gifted you are even though the turkey you traced by your hand in art class is too embarrassing to hang on the fridge). -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said first, I meant third. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you fuck up on a title, there are two options. Go to the page, and on the top by the edit tab is a tab titled "move". Hit it. It should be self-explanatory from there. The fucked-up title page will automatically redirect to the page with the correct title which will now have all of the wondrous text and pictures of the fucked-up title page.

Another way to give a page a new title is to use the title change template: {{title-left|insert title name desired here}} You can put it anywhere on the page desired.

You ought to know that moving pages can create a double redirect, which is where a page redirects to a redirect. This can get kind of confusing in explanation. It basically creates a loop and the initial redirect goes nowhere due to wiki formatting.

Creating double redirects is a mild yet bannable offense because they're generally annoying. To find out if your page is a double redirect, use this, which is found in the special pages area which is found on the left of your screen in the toolbox bar (underneath the navigational bar and the search bar). It will show you what the double redirect is -- both the initial redirect, and the redirect it redirects to. You can simply fix it by taking the initial redirect and linking it to the page the second redirect redirects to.

In a simpler context, A links to B and B links to C. This is a double redirect. Make A link to C to fix it. Simple enough?

You can also click the "What links here" button on the page to find out. . .well. . .what pages link to it. Double redirects will show up there as well, but the above explanation is simpler. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

For the ICU tag, I have removed it. This page answers a lot of questions about the ICU tags, but it's pretty basic stuff and I'll post the relevant material: If you revise an article that has been tagged with ICU enough that it becomes a full article, you may remove the tag yourself. As long as you make a good-faith effort at really improving the page, you don't need permission from anyone to remove the tag. If you are unsure about a page, or want to contest the fact that a tag was put on in the first place, leave a message on the talk page of the person who added the tag. Most of the time they will be impressed just at the fact that you took an interest in the matter and will let you remove it. If you are unhappy with the response you get from the user who tagged the page, talk to one of our friendly administrators. To avoid an ICU tag being placed on your page, use this template: {{Construction}} I see that you already have this template on your Episcopal church article.

When working on articles, a lot of people use sandboxes, with are userpages for creating and working on articles without all of the mainspace (non-userpage) edits. Your welcome template from TheLedBalloon explains this. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


No. Policy calls for the Codeine's Mum test. Since she's asleep right now after having swallowed copious amounts of horse semen and is thus not available for her input, I don't see how an UnNews article with such content could be considered vanity by other considerations on the aforementioned policy page. So long as it's funny, and, of course, your pathetic blog links to and glorifies Uncyclopedia with statements such as, "Uncyclopedia is one of the greatest websites on the face of the Earth, third only to 2girls1cup and Asian bukkake porn sites", I don't think it will be a problem. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 03:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


The protocol for rewrites is a slogan we stole from Nike: just do it. Considering that nobody cares about your articles (just kidding. . .but not really), the only real consensus to speak of is your own. Do what you please, since they're your articles (in a way). Come Friday when I get more time (I'm presently working two jobs a day to keep you fed) I'll pitch in what I can. Good luck. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:VFH/Episcopal Church‎[edit]

Not sure if this one will make it as people don't always appreciate this style of writing, but I think it's top notch stuff. Good luck. MrN Icons-flag-uk.png 02:11, Feb 5

If I might make a suggestion?[edit]

People would know what you had written if you put some links to your articles on your user page. People who do Pee Reviews also sometimes like to keep a record of them by saving the links also. Have fun... MrN Icons-flag-uk.png 03:22, Feb 5

Three Things...[edit]

First of all, thanks a ton for the NotM vote dude.

Second of all, I didn't know you wrote that The Mars Volta article. But then again, I really had no real way of knowing haha. You have to say it was very short, though, and the template at the bottom said that it was a WIP and that it would be deleted if not finished by Jan. 30; I found the existing article and then wrote my TMV article on Feb. 1.

Third thing; The Mars Volta are sick as fuck. My friend Ryan and I are big fans. It's actually fairly sweet that you and I both like Pynchon and TMV. What other cool-ass things do you like?

--Guildensternenstein 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I also like cotton candy and pop tarts. And David Lynch films.

Like the first, the second is kinda hit-or-miss (fruit flavors only, please), the I LOVE David Lynch.

Sick. As. Fuck.

--Guildensternenstein 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


My dear elusive testicle:

I purveyed your article today with glee:
But quickly I was all like "shit; woe is me."
Because from your blog the article took,
It breaks all the delicate rules in my book:
I wanted to nominate, and to add a picture
But I was unwilling; it broke all the scripture.
Your text overflows with humour and mirth,
But next time, my dear man: post it here first.

IronLung 19:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blame my adopter. He said I could post something from my "pathetic blog" and link to it so as to maintain full disclosure. He lied to me. Unless you're lying to me. I'm so confused. The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasPynchonsLeftNut (talk • contribs)

We don't have an official policy on this as far as I am aware. I may be wrong... In my view, if you did actually write it then it's OK to have it as an article on Uncyc, but I also think that should such an article be nominated for to be featured on the front page (as IronLung was going to do) then the VFH voters might vote it down for this reason. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages using 4 ~~~~ that way we know who said what. MrN Icons-flag-uk.png 21:05, Feb 5

Sorry about the sig forgetting. I'm incorrigible.

Anyways the blog is mine of course and the link is a shameless self-promotion. I am a huge fan of shameless self-promotion. That's how Michael Jackson got famous.

But since I'm also a fan of meaningless awards from lame web site communities, do you suggest I remove the article from my personal blog (for now, mind you), remove the source link and let it fly like that and see if they laugh and vote? I'm willing to do that just for the hard-on that your award might elicit...

Thanks --TPLN 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, er, well... Hang on, which article are we talking about here anyway? Could ya post me some links so I can take a look? I was chatting to an admin in IRC earlier and he did not think it was a problem, but if you link me to your blog and the Uncyc article in question I will take a look. MrN Icons-flag-uk.png 01:42, Feb 6
The article is identical in both spots.
the UnNews piece
My blog-o-rama --TPLN 01:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

VFH voters would probably smile favourably on your articles even if they were posted in both places, but they're a hell of a lot more likely to like them if they're posted here and then there, rather than the other way around. I would still vote against this article, even if you removed it from your blog, simply by my own hard-arsed principle that featured articles on Uncyclopedia should be material written for this website, not material submitted here incidentally. Even though I really like the article, I don't want this site to be a BoingBoing for satirical blogs. IronLung 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's understandable. Thanks. Next time I have a good article in mind, I shall decide whose penis I should fellate: my own or you guys'. --TPLN 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You are going to fit right in with the rest of us... This place is full of self fellationists... MrN Icons-flag-uk.png 03:59, Feb 6
I'd say there's no problem with that, as long as it was written by you. If you find out you plagiarized, I'll cut your other testicle off. But until that time, take a look at Unnews. ~ 10:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Coen Brothers Pee Review[edit]

I was just about to give this baby a look, when I gave the page a quick up-down scroll and saw the WIP template on the bottom. Are you finished with this (at least for the time being for Pee Review purposes), or not? I'm dying to review it but if it's a WIP than perhaps I'll wait until you're through with it before I give it a proper look. In any event, lemme know when it's "done" and I'll review it for ya. --Guildensternenstein 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have at it, knave! Do your worst. It is a WIP - it needs more I think, but I put it up for prelim peepee because I'd be curious to hear perhaps what? Thanks. --TPLN 06:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Look for that review from me at some point in the next day or two. Thanks. --Guildensternenstein 18:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


I was thinking perhaps you and I could, dunno, collaborate on something in the near-future. I really have no specific ideas in mind or anything, but yeah, just throwing that out there. --Guildensternenstein 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

ThomasPynchonsLeftNut: No, thanks.

Guildensternenstein: No thanks? What does that mean?

ThomasPynchonsLeftNut: I don't wanna do that.

Guildensternenstein: Do what?

ThomasPynchonsLeftNut: Collaborate.

Guildensternenstein: Collaborate! Now that's a good idea!.. Don't you fuckin' look at me! Don't look at me, fuck!

The David Lynch article needs a bulldozer, or at least an extreme makeover. Hows about that?

Hey, btw, I'm just going to quietly remove the WIP tag from Coen Brothers - I'm giving up on the biography section.[1] You are welcome, of course, in this open community, to take a crack at it. Or maybe I just remove it? What do you think?

--TPLN 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. Because I am lazy
Haha. I guess I could take a crack at both I suppose, though I'm not really promising anything. I was actually thinking more a long the lines of coll. on an original work, but yeah. Although if you'd like me to try to re-work those two I'd definitely be open to doing so. --Guildensternenstein 22:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

David Lynch[edit]

Just rewrote the Lynch article. I kept a fair amount of your stuff, but I added/removed a great deal as well. Hopefully you (and everyone else) find it improved. I'm going to put it up for Pee Review, so if you wanted to you could check it out. --Guildensternenstein 05:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, but heavens, no the existing Lynch article was not mine at all. I was proposing that we collaborate on re-writing it together, being both fans. I thought the existing article had a couple of keepable things, but overall was pretty bad. I never touched any of it. I'll check out your changes now. --TPLN 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh OK. I'm retarded. But yeah feel free to look at what I did and lemme know what you think. --Guildensternenstein 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I like where you are going. The intro is good. I have an idea for the biography section, which I will now affect. I wonder now if you thought I was crazy or schizophrenic with that awful opening section about his balls, thinking I had written that crap. Among other parts of it. I'm almost embarrassed by the misunderstanding. David would not approve.
If anything I'm the one who should be embarrassed for thinking you wrote that haha. But no worries now; all is good. --Guildensternenstein 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Aha, I humbly apologise. Go ahead and take next week's, and be assured that such inspired writing comes to me only everytime the moon decides to turn blue. I've wondered how contributors might reserve a place for things like these, and I guess it would be simple enough to just put a notice on the discussion or in the source beforehand. We'll see.

Finally, I like the sound of a "Your birthday this week" section, but I don't know why you're telling me this since I have no real authority anywhere or anything, and you theoretically could do whatever you want. What kind of section would this be, though? Is it supposed to predict how someone's birthday will go if it falls within the written week? --The Dit 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't assuming you were a horoscope authority. I actually did not complete that thought - I know I can do whatever I want. I just wondered, you being fond of the horoscope section and good at it, how you would feel if I went ahead and did the "Your birthday this week" thing on your week. Actual horoscopes often give extended "advice" to anyone whose birthday falls on the given day or week of the publication. That's all. I'll go ahead and do it and you can see what I mean. Also, I'll update the UnNews front page for your week. I like Aries for it, unless you object. Also, I'll just shut up.
Oh, I see! Maybe I should shut up myself and leave the horoscope writing to people who actually read horoscopes... Except when the blue moon rises and I decide to turn into the werehoroscopewritingguy. By the way, I personally thought Aries' was pretty average, myself. --The Dit 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


We could use you. Sir SysRq (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. How about a % increase in my pay? (I'm already stealing my maximum amount of company time writing all this nonsense...) I guess I could stop writing stupid things and collaborate with y'all, but this getting paid by the article arrangement doesn't really encourage that, does it? --TPLN 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
How does a fancy new abbreviated rank to place in you si-oh wait, you don't have a sig. Oh, maybe you do have one, and just never use it because this makes for the fourth {{unsigned}} template I've placed on your behalf today. Sir SysRq (talk)
I'm incorrigible --TPLN 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what that means. See? That's why we need you. (Seriously, come help out. You get a template and everything.) Sir SysRq (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
My horoscope told me to do things I'll later regret. I don't really believe in horoscopes, but I'm a Gemini, and we're naturally skeptical. What I'm trying ot say is, what do I do? Where do I sign. Do I just add my name to that section on the UN:IC page? Then what? --TPLN 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
First, you can start signing your posts. Secondly, you add your name (followed by LOB, you're just a Lobsterback for now) to the list. Thirdly, you can show up here and make yourself known. Actually, we just started the rewriting itself so if you just wanna start editing Al Gore after reading up on our concept you're more than welcome (as long as you stay within the concept that was agreed upon.) Next week, you'll be able to join in the discussion and have a say in deciding on the concept. Any help you can give us is very appreciated. Cheers! Sir SysRq (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Incorrigible: adj. Incapable of responding to correction.
Raising Arizona moment:

Parole Board chairman: They've got a name for people like you H.I. That name is called "recidivism."
Parole Board member: Repeat offender!
Parole Board chairman: Not a pretty name, is it H.I.?
H.I.: No, sir. That's one bonehead name, but that ain't me any more.
Parole Board chairman: You're not just telling us what we want to hear?
H.I.: No, sir, no way.
Parole Board member: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.
H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?
H.I.: Yes, sir.
Parole Board chairman: Okay, then.

By my inner Coen brother, that ain't me any more. You can dock my pay 5% for every time I forget to sign my post from now on.--TPLN 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for that. That made my day. Sir SysRq (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For wit[edit]

File:Newcookie.gif IronLung has awarded you a cookie!
Now go play in traffic.

IronLung 00:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I like cookies. Thanks. --TPLN 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel I too should applaud you for that display with sweets. Perhaps you could be the one the prophecy foretold of to replace the great Modus, king of talk page banter. Sir SysRq (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Newcookie.gif SysRq has awarded you a cookie!
Now go play in traffic.

Daaaanngg duddee...[edit]

you are pumpin an article out a day it seems! Impressive. Get some of those featured man! ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought about self-VFHing Coen Brothers. I was sort of hoping someone else would come along and do it. I so hate tooting my own horm until after someone else has. Then you can bet I'll be tooting away. Did you read HowTo:Write Good? Is the featurable maybe? --TPLN 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Not yet, I am kind of in a non reviewish mood because no one reviews on this damned site anymore except retards who give one or two lined comments and my requests have been sitting there for a while. It is tragic...but if you want I can read it and fully review it and see if I would vote for it. As for Coen Brothers, I will read it then maybe nom it if I thinks its good. ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing, while extremely vital to this community, is a delicate proposition. I have reviewed three times I think. I tried to give really detailed encouraging and helpful responses, and I think I did all right, whatever the response was.... My problem is finding a thing that I feel even qualified to review. Humor is so subjective. One rather lame review comment I saw after a negative review was "Write what makes you laugh" - fucking duh, dude. The writer would not have written it here if it didn't make him laugh (especially the writer in question, WNN[1]). But the reviewer was so self-absorbed that he/she imagined that since he/she didn't laugh, the writer must have written something that he himself didn't think was funny. The absurdity made me waggle my head in disbelief.
Incidentally, Coen Brothers already got a good review, and I even incorporated some of the nice ideas from the review and it definitely got better. It may need to be stretched out a bit more for VFH, but I don't really know how just yet. --TPLN 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. without naming names
I will check through and see if I have anything to say. I always just say what I personally would do to the article, if I had written it. That way I am not wrong, and it is a perspective that they can either use or not. I try not to say DO this unless it has namedropping, cusses too much, or the prose is beyond saving. You should do some more reviews! That'd be cool! ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 02:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A Thought...[edit]

Maybe, possibly, just throwing this out there, I could re-name my existing Mars Volta article something like "Sample Mars Volta Lyrics" and put it in the UnPoetia section or something, and then you could revert the article back to the original one you wrote, and then we could have links on the bottom linking our two articles, and they can co-exist peacefully like Israel and Palestine. Wha' da' ya' thing? --Guildensternenstein 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So... does that mean I... take this... vest off? Carefully, I mean...? --TPLN 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you said mine wasn't very good. And I believed you (despite what my user page says - that's just the sad, futile hubris of a dying man). But for reals, your stuff there is really great, especially some of the pictures - maybe a combining of the two concepts into an overall great TMV tribute might be better...? --TPLN 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd be up for that, too. Perhaps at some point you could write something in your userspace, and then I could take a look at it and add to/edit it/whatever, and we can agree on a final kick-ass TMV form, and yeah haha. --Guildensternenstein 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have inspired me...[edit]

for my next big article. You wrote something about Where the Wild Things Are, and it seems like something that could make a great Unbook, like UnBooks:Polar Express. My first ideas, is that these guys dress up as monsters to have this kid follow him and rape him when he is gone. Like there is an old rickety raft and the boy goes, Why do we go on there I thought the castle was the other way? And he goes, oh ya, ummm...because it is a magical raft that will take us to the secret island...and so on. It is just a rough idea...I really don't know why I am telling you this. But if you have any ideas before I start that'd be great. =) Or if you wanna colab or something that'd be fun too. Just...ya... ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 06:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

David Lynch Pee Review[edit]

It was overwhelmingly positive, if a bit insubstantial, although if it was that good to the point of not having to be substantial than that really isn't an issue. Anyway, it did a hell of a lot better than I'd anticipated, and if you'd like to I thought you and I could nom it as a joint VFH thing and yeah. --Guildensternenstein 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there would be some more I'd want to do with it. One thing that I would like to see more about is Lynch's extreme mysogyny. The one picture of Inland Empire with the "Woman in trouble" caption is part of it, but it's not enough. It is one of the things he is called out on the most - that he seems to hate women and abuses them in every film. Can I take a crack at satirizing that first in the text? I promise not to overdo it. Or to try not to anyway. --TPLN 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think the best place would be under the "Motifs" section, as to keep with the running joke I established there. The inclusion of "Some people, however..." and "symbolizes sexual desire..." are of course somewhat obligitory if you're going to put it in that section, but yeah. Granted, you can do whatever the fuck ya want, I just think that that would turn out the best. --Guildensternenstein 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, check 'em changes. --TPLN 01:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Beautiful. VFH? --Guildensternenstein 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I made a couple more little changes. I think we have a fairly complete Uncyc article here. There's nothing about his nutty TM crusade, which might be good satire fodder. But maybe let's see if it's received as is, shall we? --TPLN 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I dunno how well Lynch's meditation would fit into the rest of the article, given it's current tone etc., so I think it's best we just leave it. I'm going to nom it now. --Guildensternenstein 04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


150px This is my happy face

Unlike this monkey you appreciated my article. Nerds all around the world are rejoicing and praising you as their newest Captain. Thank you for voting!

The Force is strong within you.

For a wonderful grandmother...[edit]

Dear Grandma,

A grandma need not be bold,

Or even, daresay, cold,

But a grandma must be old,

Otherwise, that's just weird.

OK, so, the store was all out of thank-you cards, so yeah. Also, I don't know how to make templates. But, seriously, thank you for the vote for NofM. I appreciate it.

--Guildensternenstein 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and are you...[edit]

...still eligible for NotM yourself. Like, for March I mean? Because if so, I'm totally going to nom. you because you totally deserve it. --Guildensternenstein 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am, but even if not, how about this - go ahead and do it and see what they say. It would certainly be a nice little gesture. And congrats, you totally deserved it too. I feel like The Wizard of Oz over here. When it was nominated for best picture, it just happened to be going up against Gone With the Wind. Any other year and it was a shoe-in. Know what I mean?

Thank you![edit]


Good day, old chap! Thank you indeed for your vote on my article, UnBooks:Hot Japanese Girls - Colourblind or Unable to Speak English?.
As a sterling reward, I will not deliberately make this text extremely tiny around these pictures of some rather cracking Japanese girls I've supplied for you.
... I say, are you still there, old boy?


-- "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doomo arigatoo Nachlader-san for the lovelies. The article is a riot.

Pee on...[edit] new article? I have a feeling you're just the guy to do it. --Guildensternenstein 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Were you waiting to be recognized?[edit]

Congrats on UnScripts:Waiting For Godot 2: Waiting With A Vengeance being the number two article for November 2009! Rabbi Why do I need to provide this?, humble goylem rabbi of the Temple of Narishkayt and rector of The University of Uncyclopedia, Whynersville Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  21:02, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

This is me. Was me (a switch, not a sockpuppet). You know, I think it was Socky who insisted I could remove the indicator on my sig that said so. Apparently, he was wrong. And thank you. See you on my talk page! --AKA The Pretentious Testicle GlobalTourniquetUnAstrologer, film critic 23:29, December 18, 2009 (UTC)