User talk:MacMania/Archive1

Yes, the archives.

Welcome to the archives.

Welcome to our magnificent civilization!

Greetings, honored traveler MacMania/Archive1, and welcome to the glorious nation of Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions to the site. I hope you enjoy this great land and decide to make a home here. If not, the city exit is right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah, there you go. Anyway, here are a few helpful links for humble newcomers such as yourself:

• Beginner's Guide
• How to be funny and not just stupid

If you read any of Uncyclopedia's sacred parchments, make it the above two links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with some sort of issue, try these:

• About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
• How to get started editing on uncyclopedia
• Everything you ever wanted to know, but were afraid to ask
• Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a proud citizen of Uncyclopedia! Please remember to sign your name on all talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) or alternatively use the "sign" button () that you see just above the edit box. This will automatically produce both your name and the date.

If you need any sort of help, then feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the Village Dump, or add the following template: {{help}} to this page along with a message describing your dilemma and someone will come along and help you if they can.

Again, welcome! --General Insineratehymn 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to UnNews

You'll notice I've ICU tagged your article, UnNews:42 demoted to Penultimate Answer because it's kind of ugly, and doesn't look like an UnNews article. I didn't bother to read much of it because of my overwhelming duties as an admin, so I'll just let you fix it, if you'd like. It may even be featured as a lead story. Read on, absorb the wisdom of the unnews collective, and become one with everything. Cheers! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zim ulator/welcome to Unnews Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

PEEreview

	The article The Doctor has been reviewed by PuppyOnTheRadio(talk)
	Version as at 25 July 2009	PEE review

I'm not going to do the second review, but this is a million times better, and I'd probably replace the existing Doctor Who page with this. Pup t 01:54, 27/07/2009

Pee Review Selling Drugs

Hey, I like your idea of converting my article into a HowTo, thing is, I have no idea how. As you may already know I'm a bit of a n00b. Do you have any pointers?

Six Hats

Hey, is this better than before? Pup t 22:21, 28/07/2009

Ah, you beat me in finding all those spelling errors. Yes, in short, I think it is better than before. Nice job. MacMania 23:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant spelling and grammar errors. Isn't it ironic?

No it isn't. MacMania 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I've learnt all about irony from popular culture, and I can't see in any way how this is like rain on your wedding day. But Yar! I don't spell/grammar check things completely until I'm happy with the content and layout. There's a few places where I've slipped into passive verbs in here, <opinion>but it fits in with the overall voice, which is just below encyclopaedic</opinion>. Pup t 00:46, 29/07/2009

Re: The Doctor

Hope you don't mind me taking my feedback to your talk page for this one, I just think it makes it easier for you to pick up rather than having to navigate back to mine all the time.

Alright, I have read through your article for a second time and I'm generally pleased with the changes that you have made to it now. As far as layout goes there are still a couple of problems that I can see on my precursory read through, you have done well to get rid of the image collisions from the top, just make sure it doesn't reoccur with the template and the Tardis image at the bottom of the page.

The incarnations of The Doctor are also a lot better, and I am very glad to see someone actually making use of HTBFANJS, best thing for you to do here is to now use your initiative to trim the section or add to it. Think about ways to satirise every person you have chosen to be The Doctor. It is not against HTBFANJS to describe what Hugh Grant might have done as a powerful time lord.... I suspect that it is too hideous to contemplate. I realise you set down a reason why they don't have a description, but you could make use of the space rather than leaving what they did up to the reader. You have to remember that while HTBFANJS is an invaluable asset there is no substitute for your own initiative in going through an article. Your tone is much better too.

Ultimately I would: wait for the article to be proofread, if it starts taking too long you can drop one of the more senior members a message on their talk page, while you are waiting for that you can go through and think and rethink all your words and tonal choices, this gets dull very fast but it is necessary to make the article great, and finally just revisit a couple of sections as I noted above and sort them out, you are getting into the realm of cosmetic changes now and any future changes will most likely be to the wording or structure. --ChiefjusticeDS 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to make the less-satirised Doctors more satirised. MacMania 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

guybles has awarded you a cookie! Now go play in traffic.

An excellent rewrite. You pruned out the utter dross, left what remained of the funny stuff and created some nice, original (and ultimately humorous) material. You deserve your cookie. --Guybles _CUN 09:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, a cookie! [bites into it, only to break several teeth] OW OW OW OW OW!

Seriously, thank you. I'll see what the reviewers have to say about it too. MacMania 11:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

signature test

1 2 3 4 Sir MacMania GUN— 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This better? Sir MacMania GUN— 04:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And again... Sir MacMania GUN— 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be a prick, but check out UN:SIG regarding sig height. You can get away with 16-17px (as per MrN and myself) but 20px is a little high, and looking at that image you have a whole bunch of white space above and below. I'd also be inclined to 'chop the image until it is your desired height (as per my poo in my sig) and attach a link to it, like your contribs or whatever you are wanting to whore advertise. Pup t 05:34, 30/07/2009

No problem, POTR. I believe this is fixed now. Thank you for the heads-up. Sir MacMania GUN— 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

I'm actually feeling guilty for not doing a PEE review today, so I'm going to assuage my guilt by just saying I had a quick look at Sherlock Holmes, and I like the improvements, but I agree it still has a way to go. I was wondering where you wanted to go with it? There's all sorts of Sherlock Holmes spin-off stuff like the Star Trek episodes and this which I would love to get a copy of the original. The way I see it, you can either go as far away from the original Conan "the Barbarian" Doyle, or go back into the Holmesian universe, and just continue to expose the absurdity of the character. What are you thinking? Pup t 05:46, 30/07/2009

I laughed at the link. I don't know about going into spin-offs, though; that sort of stuff makes me queasy. (The premise sounds like an UnScript idea. No offence to UnScripts.) I know, I was okay with that for the Doctor, but the extra incarnations tended to stay within the bounds of reason or at least spoof the original. Although -- yes, I might consider the TNG holodeck episodes were I to write a section on Professor Moriarty. (And why on Earth haven't I?! [dramatic pause] To the Unmobile!) I should probably take a look at the local library's copy of the Annotated Sherlock Holmes, look at the annotations from those who play "The Great Game" (i.e. pretend Holmes was real and often struggle with the inconsistencies of Holmes canon because of this), and take some hints from that. (Or even the annotations on my well-worn Oxford copy of The Adventures of ... could do.)

By the way, is the signature all right now? Sir MacMania GUN— 19:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I gave in and made a reference to The Seven Percent Solution. But aside from the TNG episodes, that's the only spin-off I'm mentioning. Sir MacMania GUN— 19:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sig seems good, or at least I'm not about to make any complaints about it. (Actually it's scarily like mine, but with a hell of a less ostentation. That is a good thing.) Regarding Holmes, more than anything else I wanted to know where you were thinking of taking it, as I'm happy to throw in feedback along the way, but the reality is there was two ways to go - broad or deep. For Doctor broad works - the in-universe thing of regeneration and the length of the series and spin-offs asks for it - but with Holmes deep probably works better, but either way could work. I'll try and give it a decent review today if it's still in queue by the time I get there. So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it Pup t 21:15, 30/07/2009

Oh! Deep it is, then. Well, it will be deep when I have developed it further. However, it is quite unlikely that I could do this sort of thing before the review gets done. Sir MacMania GUN— 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My uncle the God expert who helped me a lot on that article is also a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. He said he liked the Star Trek references and something about a Star Trek director wrote a Sherlock Holmes book you quoted? Sorry I don't remember how that worked. Also he said in one of the Star Trek movies Spock said Sherlock Holmes was his ancestor. I don't remember what movie but I can check if you want! Miley Spears 23:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot my uncle also said he saw Leonard Nimoy who plays Spock play Sherlock Holmes. He said Nimoy wrote an article comparing the two characters. Miley Spears 23:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, Nicholas Meyer wrote The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, wherein Holmes goes to Freud to be treated for his cocaine addiction. Same idea as the ending of that article, which was intentional.

And a Spock-Holmes connection seems natural: it's only fair that the two emotionless logical almost machine-like greats are related. It appears that Nimoy did star as Holmes in a run of a RSC (Royal Shakespeare Co) play, and also in a 15-minute television film titled The Interior Motive ... an educational film on Earth's interior. Huh.

Glad your uncle liked the article! Sir MacMania GUN—[23:49 18 Aug 2009]

Should have done this earlier - obviously you've seen it already...

	The article Sherlock Holmes has been reviewed by PuppyOnTheRadio(talk)
	Version as at 31 July 2009	PEE review

Cheerio then

Big thanks for reviewing the article about copyright infringement. I've gone ahead and done a review for Cheerios as my way of showing thanks. Feel free to ignore the numeral score, I really didn't have any idea of if I should rate it high or low, hopefully the comments are more useful. I've also redone the article on Copyright infringement trying to take into account your suggestions. You can tell me what you think if you want, but you don't have to if you don't want to.Sequence 02:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Holmes

Having cast my eye over your article for a second time I have to say I'm very pleased to see you using the conversation between Holmes and Watson as the link between the prose, it makes the article feel much more structured. Nothing wrong with your tone in the new sections either. I would just be careful when it comes to linking into the prose, they just seem to appear, yes I know, this is another prose criticism, but just a sentence to suggest that Watson is actually typing as this conversation is taking place. Otherwise we can say that the prose requirement is just about satisfied.

I should commend your writing in general, it is superb and you have my vote for Writer of the Month already. Hope you carry on writing new stuff, it's always good to read, even if I do a review after. --ChiefjusticeDS 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

FROM THE DESK OF GUILDENSTERNENSTEIN

Thank you for supporting my recently featured article

Your support is greatly appreciated.

—Guildensternenstein

---

—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pee Review

Suffering from urinary tract problems at the moment (don't worry, nothing too serious) so I haven't been able to pee yet. Doctor says it'll improve in the evening, so you'll get your review then :) --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes! It looks very good now, the intro runs into it very nicely, awesome :) --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about the pics though. I feel that is very important, but that might just be because I have a very short attention span and need big shiny pictures to enthrall me once in a while (exactly like the audience you are satirising I guess ;)) --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefly

I think you've made some positive improvements to it, good work on the accessibility and formatting stuff. It's very nearly there now. Just a couple more tweaks and you could be on your way to VFH. Tweaks would mostly be defined as a little bit of editing in the text to make sure your best jokes are utilised fully and a final proofread to make sure the article is wholly to your satisfaction. --ChiefjusticeDS 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars 2010

It is much better. You have my strongest support on VFH. You have sorted everything that I suggested and the critics views are a nice addition to the article. The pictures are much improved and the R2 one is far easier to see. Nothing else that I could see was a problem. Good luck on VFH. --ChiefjusticeDS 06:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping make Six Hats a feature...

...and this is where I'm supposed to have made a really exciting template, but it's easier for me to just write this once and then cut and paste it a bunch of times. Pup t 09:34, 11/08/2009

Yes. Yes it is. But regardless you are welcome, and I hope to see more features from you! Not that I'm one to talk, but ... Sir MacMania GUN—[12:55 11 Aug 2009]

Oh, and sorry I missed the vote for Holmes - didn't make a difference in the end. Pup t 13:02, 11/08/2009

Yup. That one gathered votes really fast. Your review of the article a while back is much appreciated as well. Sir MacMania GUN—[13:31 11 Aug 2009]

2001

Afternoon, sorry about the lateness of my reply. First of all, I do like the changes you have made but I feel (and I think others will too) that there needs to be more consistency to it. Now this isn't as big a criticism as you may think, all it really needs is that when you introduce the movie at the beginning, you precede it with acknowledgement of the concept you are applying. So I think it might be best to include a little line of dialogue, even something as simple as...

crinkling of crisps packet

ssshhhhhhhhhhh!

...to make the reader aware of the approach you are taking from the start. So they know that they are watching someone watching 2001. Right, the rest of that intro section is perfect, especially the line about dialogue, so don't change that at all. What I feel you are actually missing out on a little is how extreme you should make these character's opinions. I think you should make them more caricatured because at the moment it feels a little bit too realistic, but you need to satirise the art-house enthusiast - how this film is like a kind of Bible to him, perhaps in a slightly silly way, he doesn't understand it at all but he can sure quote some people who do - against the Blockbuster special-fx ADD watcher - who can be the source of more the silly humour and more obvious criticisms that people on here might find funnier, outlandish statements and such. I mean don't take it too far, but add a bit of drama in there, a bit of conflict. Also I think you need to make it clearer whose voice is whom (I don't mean in the dialogue, but I feel there is a third voice coming over too? In the captions I mean). I would recommend making some additional comments that lie outside the 2 main voices in the captions, some that are more just witty observations (as you have at the moment) but not related to the nature of the film itself.

Alternatively, it's possible that I'm an idiot and you should go back to making funny captions for the pics and forget about any introduction of the analytical satire I suggested, for the sake of "teh lulz". I have a feeling people won't find it that funny as it is, people want immediate laughs and would properly react better to a basic satire of the film without any regard to people's reactions/opinions of the film. It's up to you, perhaps my idea is a little too ambitious... --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 12:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, cream the 2's actual characters for all their comedic worth too. Make it obvious how flawed they are in addition to satirisng the movie. I would suggest that, since I can't imagine the intellectual art-house type (or the one I have in mind) smoking a blunt or anything, you could actually have the guy that doesn't understand the movie being more the stoner and lighting up just before the final monolith, or half-way through the hyperdrive (or whatever it's called) sequence, then suddenly coming out with all kinds of randomly profound-yet-absurd statements about the film. That way the twist could be that this stoner exposes the other guy even more by making true - but exaggerated and silly - observations about the film, while the former know-it-all just has no response and is left speechless then suggesting that they watch something else (and Clockwork Orange is a good choice, yeah) to try and change topic as soon as possible, to which the stoner would reply with enthusiastic-yet-apathetic (hard to explain what I mean here unless you're familiar with stoners, something like "suuure, it's all gooood") stoner affirmative.--El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You might have to watch the film stoned yourself though to get the right dialogue. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, last "also" I promise, it would be funny if you somehow tied this final line of dialogue to a somewhat ironic subtitle right at the end. Something like "And so mankind's evolution continues...".

PEEd

	The article Pixar has been reviewed by PuppyOnTheRadio(talk)
	Version as at 13 August 2009	PEE review

Cheers Mac

Your stuff always seems to be of a high quality, you're one of Uncyclopedias consistent beacons of good-writing, keep it up! :) --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 21:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Template

I laughed out loud at your "thank you" template. Well done, sir. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

FROM THE DESK OF GUILDENSTERNENSTEIN

Thank you for making my article a feature

It's about fucking time.

—Thanks

---

—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

About time indeed! I wonder if that's a record breaker ... Sir MacMania GUN—[02:13 18 Aug 2009]

2001

I just read (a portion of) your article on 2001: A Space Odyssey on Pee. Though I haven't written it yet, I was thinking of using something very similar to the "dun dun dun" thing you used in your article for the beginning of my planned eventual rewrite of the existing shitty article on Stanley Kubrick. Also, your use of pictures is eerily similar to something I did in my Sergio Leone article. This means one of two things:

• You are psychic and/or somehow steal my ideas, OR
• We think alike, and should therefore be best friends.

I'm betting it's the later. We should do a collaboration sometime (maybe rewrite the shitty article on Stanley Kubrick).

Also, I really liked what I read of your 2001 effort.

—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 05:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're rewriting Stanley Kubrick?! Splendid!

Yeah, since I don't have psychic powers, I presume it's the latter. It all does make sense though, when you think about it: Also sprach Zarathustra is pretty iconic in 2001, and I used a lot of pictures because, like a lot of climactic shoot-outs in Sergio Leone films, Kubrick tends to convey the narrative through visuals rather than dialogue.

Rewriting Kubrick would indeed be nice, though. Quite deplorable that Uncyc doesn't have a better article, really. Since you're planning a rewrite, it's a good thing I didn't go ahead and start by myself, eh? Your rewrites of Kurosawa, Leone etc were marvellous, so I would, in fact, love to collaborate on Kubrick with you. Sir MacMania GUN—[11:43 18 Aug 2009]

Although I assume you would have a far greater knowledge of Kubrick's œuvre than I do. Sir MacMania GUN—[11:44 18 Aug 2009]

Well, I dunno about that, but I def. think we should do a collab. I'm working on a number of things at the moment, but when I feel like doing Kubrick, I'll let you know. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

*cough* um I'm a bit of a Kubrick nut too, mind if I join the ride? --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 23:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not! I don't plan on starting it for a while, though. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project (God)

First, I think the heading of this section is too long. Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project (God)?

Really, thanks for your review of Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project (the God article)! I'm just one member of the IC so I can't speak for anyone but myself and, of course, God. But God said He likes your review too! I agree with a lot of your suggestions and I think some parts can be funnier. I don't think I can go back and edit right now, but maybe someone else can. You? I'll have to sleep on it first. I mean sleep on the article, not on God. But that might be fun too! Miley Spears 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pixar

Just read that, and, though I won't have time to do a review of it, I think it should be called "Pixar". Also, it seems you have either been (subconsciously or otherwise) taking pages out of my proverbial "How to Write a Filmmaker Article" book, which means you are either a plagiarist or that we should be best friends. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Or both! But I digress in jest. I've read both your articles and GlobalTourniquet's Hitchcock article, so I admit it had to be an influence. I did, however, try not to follow either too closely. Mostly I tried to walk the reader through a generic Pixar film while also displaying information about Pixar, which indeed is the basic idea of your director articles and the Hitchcock article. The major difference, of course, is that this is a studio rather than a single director. This results in Pixar's lack of frequent/memorable actors (except Ratzenberger) and visual consistency (given that there are advances in technology and differences between directors). The plots, however, tend to be more consistent in structure because they're all about self-improvement/discovery.

However, I just noticed I rambled on a lot, so I'll cut myself off by saying that that is all. Sir MacMania GUN—[19:35 19 Aug 2009]

Reports say God is Dead?!

If you go to the God article and click on the link for "Please see this article's entry," it takes you to the old nomination.

On the old one, some of the no voters said no because they believed it was just a rewrite. For example, see ChiefjusticeDS's talk page. Learning it's not a rewrite, the justice is reconsidering. But many people who try to vote will end up at the old nomination, and will believe the vote's already over. So could you fix the link so it goes to the new nomination? I asked someone else to fix it too, but whoever gets there first I hope you fix the link! Thanks! Miley Spears 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed your article

This one, to be precise. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 03:03, Aug 24

Also...

Have you thought about joining PEEING? You already meet the membership requirements. All you have to do is join and be lazy. It's great! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 05:31, Aug 24

Oregon Trail

Reviewed it for ya--it's quite good. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

FROM THE DESK OF GUILDENSTERNENSTEIN

Thank you for supporting my motherfucking article.

You are clearly a badass motherfucker.

—Guildy

---

—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PEEd

	The article Alien has been reviewed by PuppyOnTheRadio(talk)
	Version as at 28 August 2009	PEE review

Shorter than my usual standard, but I've kept it succinct this time around. Always happy to expand it if needed and time permits. Also reviewed Laws of Physics, which you might be able to use some of the pointers in that for User:MacMania/Cartoon physics. To be honest though, I'd suggest that these two should be combined, as they are both definitely the same concept. Pup t 21:07, 28/08/2009

You're Leaving?

No! You're the highest-output writer on this site right now! Oh, well... See you next summer. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:44, Aug 28

Well, not exactly leaving so much as lapsing into a state of semi-activity. I'll definitely be around, but busy things are afoot. I'll probably be able to afford one more month of activity this year, though. Sir MacMania GUN—[22:47 28 Aug 2009]

Do mind ding me a couple of favours:

1. Do a PEE review and remove one more from the queue.
2. Vote on RotM - It's Boomer and myself at the moment <opinion> and we both deserve it </opinion>, but voting seems a little quiet.

Mad Props! Pup t 23:27, 28/08/2009

Thanks

Thanks for the PEE on the History of the Atom. Glad you liked it. I'll try checking the spelling (again) but being a scientist means I'm fundamentally illiterate. --Sog1970 07:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

'Sincere Thanks'

Thank you very much for helping to make me August 2009's Writer of the Month.

This is hands down one of the best moments I've had on Uncyclopedia. And you helped make it possible. Thank you.

• • • Necropaxx (T) {~}

---

Sorry to steal your thunder last month, but this month the award is yours! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 23:57, Sep 3

You deserve that award very much. Thanks very much for your kind nomination! Sir MacMania GUN—[00:01 4 Sep 2009]

Cartoon Physics

I really liked your article so iw ent looking for an animated cartoon fall. sadly this is all i could find.

Physics is fun, apparently.

It is quite physics-y but it's a shame about the end. unfortunately I wouldn't have a clue how to edit a gif

Pee Reviewed Red Dwarf

I suppose there's some better and fancier way of doing this, but wanted to let you know I finished Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:MacMania/Red Dwarf. I hope what I wrote helps. Why do I need to provide this? 05:02, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

I posted comments on your edits on my talk page WHY??? 19:54, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Thanking you for your vote on Psyché

User:POTR/Psyche Pup t 22:27, 8/09/2009

Thank you for voting on Number Bases

User:POTR/NumberBases Pup t 22:41, 8/09/2009

Lens Flare

Reviewed it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:23, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you from POOF

User:POTR/POOF Pup t 11:15, 13/09/2009

The Doctor Will Be Featured: I Was RIGHT and You Was WRONG HA HA!

Waiting for Anne Droid to zap this nomination into the Void as the weakest link ... Sir MacMania CUN—[23:48 7 Sep 2009]

Yes, when you posted that message the article did have the lowest score, and it looked like the nomination had died. But you forgot, The Doctor regenerates! WHY??? 02:43, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Told you so! Congratulations! King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court)  22:14, September 18, 2009 (UTC)