Uncyclopedia:Reviewer of the Month/archive2

2010

December

Lyrithya

Score: 0 random voters

• Nom&For - Because there had been no other nominees, I decided to choose one of the last month's reviewers randomly and nominate them for this award. Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 13:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
• No.

1234 ~ 14:22, 27 December 2010

• We don't need a nominee every month. Least of all when there are no candidates. Just stop it. (unless you're going to nom me, in which case feel free) --Black Flamingo 14:38, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
• Can I vote against multiple people? *shifty eyes*

1234 ~ 14:39, 27 December 2010

November

Lyrithya (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 0 Meh

• Nom & For Should get it again plus Nobody cares --PUTTY 01:00, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
• No. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101126 - 01:23 (UTC)

  Now someone tells me I can just refuse it, drop out, say no, nuh-uh, etc... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101129 - 08:21 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of an unregistered user (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 0 Eh

• Nom. Well... he did an in-depth review. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101126 - 01:33 (UTC)
• For. I'm suck a noob and proud of it! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:13, 26 November 2010

  Better than sock a noob... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101126 - 03:37 (UTC)

• One review is not enough. No one wins this month! --Black Flamingo 07:57, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Is that an against vote? ~ 13:18, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 14:50 (UTC)

Yes, sorry it's not clear. --Black Flamingo 15:02, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Black flamingo11 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 0 Beh

• Nom. He deserves to win this at least as much as I do. Then again, he already voted so no one may win this award this month. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:04, 26 November 2010

Zombiebaron (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +0 ‎Zombiebaron

1. Zombiebaron - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at08:34, Friday 26 November 2010 -
2. Zombiebaron. --UU - natter 10:05, Nov 29

October

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 5

• Nom. This promising young noob did 4 reviews last month. I think he's ready. --Black Flamingo 11:12, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Long enough between his last win and this nom to credit the time in-between. I finally got my first Chief review recently and, as always, his review was very in-depth and helpful. His urine is clear and soothing. Aleister 12:07 2 10
• For. And someone else nominated him, so this doesn't even look petty. I mean, the guy deserves it. Totally. Lovely reviewist and keeps the whole process going as a whole, to boot; that has to be worth something. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101002 - 16:18 (UTC)
• For. It's time for him to win this award for the second time.-- (CUN) 00:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Aye, go on then. No one seems to vote on this award anymore anyway. I reckon Striker for next month, but until we have a new noob we should definitely honour the best and most prolific and reviewer the site has ever seen... UU! I mean, Chief. --Black Flamingo 13:53, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. While I certainly wouldn't mind getting the award again I would prefer to do it for completing some decent reviews at something closely resembling my original rate. Currently I'm fortunate if I manage to get in one review per month, not because I think Pee is any less important but because I have a great deal of other things to be getting on with; deleting masterpieces and banning modern day Marlowe's from editing. Currently checking the tables takes up most of the time I can devote to Pee, I just don't have 3 hours to spend reviewing something these days. However I shall stand back and let democracy take its course. Also, couldn't you, dear reader, be reviewing something instead of reading this? --ChiefjusticeGameCube 23:02, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
  • I feel you...I have no time for reviews. I barely have time to get online for an hour.--HM (T) 19:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Against If Chiefjustice is against his own candidature so am I against. I can't vote against his will. Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 22:54, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Yut. Chief deserves another win in this category. -- Sf13 1837 EST 24 Oct, 2010

  A sensible vote at last. Too bad, Socky! --Black Flamingo 09:06, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

  Sensible maybe, but morally questionable also. If I were to vote against myself at VFS or something, would you still vote for me? (Answer: Yes, but it would have nothing to do with sensibleness. It'd just be the "fun" thing to do.) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:13, 25 October 2010

• Batman. If anyone has ever earned the right to be a two time champ it's this guy (also Rocky, but that's not relevent to the discussion.) Sure he doesn't crank out reviews by the truckload anymore, but they're still some of the best you can get and he spends a lot of time maintaining the pee committee, which should count for something as well. -- ~ *You can be Robin* (talk) 16:23, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
• Man, if I vote for Chief I get in deep shit (according to Chief).--Funnybony  16:39, Oct 26
• For - His work managing Pee and actually doing good reviews.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:57, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Black flamingo11 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1

• Nom. Black Flamingo has actually been doing the most good work this month. October really has not been a good one so far reviews, but this guy's been reviewing when pretty much nobody else will, and been going strong. If there were five others like him, it's be great, but they all seem to have died, so perhaps thanking the flamingo for not dying along with them is in order. Anyway, while it would be a mite odd for him to get this twice, since this award is 'of the month,' I figured I'd throw his name out. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101017 - 23:05 (UTC)

  The light that burns brightest burns longest. Or is it the other way around? --Black Flamingo 11:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

  Doesn't it depend what's burning? What are you burning? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101018 - 13:27 (UTC)

  Bright eyes. Burning like fire. --Black Flamingo 13:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

• For. Never less than helpful. --Sog1970 13:48, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
• For. I was going to vote for Chief, but I guess this flamingo'll have to do. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:15, 22 October 2010

  Per below. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:00, 24 October 2010

• For. Man, if I vote for Flamingo I get in deep shit (according to Flamingo). And I'm equally screwed if I vote for Chief. So I better change my vote to Socky. Hope that's Okay.--Funnybony  16:39, Oct 26

  Sorry, but are you guys absolutely demented? I'm flattered and all and I should probably win this again one day, but Chief has ran PEEING for well over a year, done more reviews than anyone and is pretty much the best reviewer we've ever had. Vote for him for Chief's sakes! --Black Flamingo 14:01, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

  I think they may be demented... at any rate, I did not expect this to happen. On the other hand, who are they going to heed, telling them to not vote for them, the long-time guy or the newer fellow? Properly funny would be a tie, though, between two people who don't want it... if only. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101022 - 14:04 (UTC)

  So you don't want it either? Great, the two most deserving reviewers don't want their award. That leaves just one candidate. Me with this review. Unlike Chief and Black Flamingo, I certainly wouldn't mind winning this award. Go ahead, vote for me! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:18, 22 October 2010

  Actually... it doesn't say the 'one review in the last month' has to have been in-depth or anything... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101022 - 21:09 (UTC)

  It's not that I don't want it, it's that Chief simply deserves this a lot more. So what if he hasn't been doing many review lately? If we'd ever awarded this according to whoever did the most in-depth reviews each month, Chief would have about 12 of these. But we didn't, we always reserved it for users who hadn't won it yet. Last time there was no one who fit that description we gave it to UU, who I doubt did many reviews that month either. He won it for all the other times he should have won it. I would feel guilty if I won this over Chief. --Black Flamingo 10:05, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

  If it's that important to you, nominate me and I'll change my vote to a selffor. That'd mean both you and Chief would win the award. Problem solved, right? Though I do think managing to write five not-in-depth reviews for perfectly good reasons deserves some kind of recognition. In other words, vote for me! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:36, 23 October 2010

Sockpuppet of an unregistered user (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 4

• Nom. Socky's done some really stellar reviews this month. Well, not really, but he's a great guy and one of the most helpful users we have. Why he couldn't just vote for Chief I don't know (personally I think this might be part of an elaborate scheme to win RotM himself). --Black Flamingo 08:14, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
• SelfFor. Per above. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:00, 24 October 2010
• For. When I read Socky's review of the Battle of Grunwald, it changed my life for the better. The morning after it had been posted, my penis had grew an extra 4 inches, there was a beautiful woman inexplicably sleeping in my bed, my fridge was fully stocked with BLTs, and I was later given a pay rise of £11/hour. Thank you so much, Socky! --Matfen 12:03, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

  You're awfully welcome, Matfen! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:43, 24 October 2010

• For. PER ABOVE.--Funnybony  16:39, Oct 26
• Fightstar Per above... above? --~~First Child Rei Ayanami (give orders) 17:02, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

September

Lyrithya (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 5 manholes - and they're coming for me!

• Nom and for Has been doing some good work recently reviews have been of a high standard and has been doing a fair number of them each month, particularly compared to the rest of you slackers. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 07:36, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not slacking, i just have meen on semi-vaction. Starting mid-month i should be back in action baby! --Happymonkey39 Dah Meme Master 19:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

• For. I know (as it is only the start of the month) that someone else may pick up their act and start doing some more reviewing, but at the moment Lyrithya is the only one suitable for this title. Great work!-- (CUN) 07:47, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. What?! No! And could really write better reviews, anyhow. There's something lacking about them. ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100904 - 15:49 (UTC)

Lemme rephrase that. My reviews suck! *flails and runs away* ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100909 - 00:47 (UTC)

• For. Primarily to cancel out Lyrithya's Against. vote, because he/she/it deserves it this month. I've seen Lyrith's reviews, and they're good and solid. Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 04:12 Thursday, September 16, 2010
• Always! Gives good review. Even when s/he thinks s/he doesn't. That's the sign of a witch. Fear the wrath of a witch! My vote is laid before thou feet. Blessed Be. Aleister 2:37 22 9
• For. Great work. --Black Flamingo 08:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Dammit, guys... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100930 - 12:58 (UTC)

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1

• Nom. This guy may not do as many reviews as he used to, but he does them well, and also maintains the behind-the-scenes stuff with startling on-top-of-thingsness. And like UU, he definitely deserves this award for a second time for all those reasons that have been mentioned previously. When he got robbed. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100915 - 13:38 (UTC)

And For. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100922 - 02:19 (UTC)

August

PeregrineFalcon999 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 7 Yorkshirean pets

• Nom and for. This guy has written some of the most in-depth pee reviews I have ever seen, although that may have been because he was new, as they seem to have gotten shorter... yet they're still usually pretty damn useful and quite in-depth. Add to that the sheer number of however many he has done which seems to be a lot but I can't be bothered to check, well, I'm slapping his name here. Huzzah. ~ Arajlas *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100812 - 00:30 (UTC)
• For. But only just. This guy creeps me out... --Some Idiot 06:23, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

*Spiritual for. I simply can't vote for you since I want to win this award...now who to blackmail for a nomination...WHO! --Happymonkey39 Dah Meme Master 15:31, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

• For.. I must... for this award can wait... maybe next month... or not. --Happymonkey39 Dah Meme Master 03:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Excellent work. Sir MacMania GUN—[03:11 22 Aug 2010]
• For. The boy done good. --Black Flamingo 08:58, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Has earned his stripes. Like a tiger earns his stripes, by killing small birds. Aleister 15:12 30 8
• For. Absolutely. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 15:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1 Dual-screen magistrates

• I'm not voting yet as PF999 may well do a Lydon and deserve this by the end of the month, but as per what I said last month, I'm nomming Chief. --Black Flamingo 16:56, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment' He's won already, give it to someone who's rather new...i wounder who is new to the site...does lots of reviews....and is super sexy...No not PF999...hmmm --Happymonkey39 Dah Meme Master 16:59, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Stop whoring yourself for this award, you have done it twice now and it is already irritating me. If you want to win it, focus on working hard on your reviews and doing lots of them. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 17:11, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

comment to the comment to the comment. I was just kidding there chief :P. And I'm planning on doing tons of reviews. I wanna get three done today alone. --Happymonkey39 Dah Meme Master 17:43, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's a joke, whoring is like, bad and stuff.--HM (T) 21:45, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

• For. I feel safe voting this way this month- I think PF will definitely be ready by next month.--HM (T) 21:45, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, READY? --Some Idiot 21:58, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you heard of the Skull & Pee society? They decide when you're ready.--HM (T) 22:01, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

July

John Lydon (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 9

• Nom. John Lydon has come in and has done 19 indepth reviews in a little over a month. He did 16 indepth reviews in the month that I won. I did 3. He does a lot and he does them well. I'm withholding until the end of the month, though.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Thursday, 01:31, July 01 2010 UTC
• For. I'll jump in with a vote, and I was going to nom him too. He's done some very helpful pees, and has the "right stuff". A recent nOOb of the Month, John is the real deal. (two cliches looking for a third. . .) The sky is the limit! Aleister 1:35 1 7 MMX
• For. Sorry John, I have to do it, you're just too good. --Some Idiot 01:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This will be a really hard choice for me this month. I'm going to judge this based on this month's contributions- so both of you get crackin'! (I usually judge mostly based on last month's contribs, but this is a special case)--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Friday, 01:55, July 02 2010 UTC
• Comment. I really appreciate the nomination but I'm not too big on awards. I kind of like staying behind the scenes and just doing whatever. Besides, competition makes me shite myself. Thanks again for the nom, but I would rather not be voted for. --—John Lydon 08:12, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

  Now I'm going to vote for you just to spite you. Maybe. Possibly.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 10:22, July 06 2010 UTC

• *votes for just to be annoying* In all seriousness, though, what little I could be bothered to look at makes you look much too helpful for your own good. ~ Apheori *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100721 - 18:02 (UTC)
• For. This user sounds almost Christian Bale-ish in his plight to avoid mainstream attention. Therefore I vote. --Matfen 20:48, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Good work this month son. -- Sf13 21:51 EST 28 July, 2010
• For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:49, 29 July 2010
• For. Does good stuff, can't think who he learned that from... WINK WINK --ChiefjusticeGameCube 07:09, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
• For. I wouldn't mind voting for ChiefjusticeDS a second time, but not on a month when someone like Lydon's been doin' it up right. Aww yeah. pillow talk 07:39, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Reviews at a fast pace and very well.--HM (T)

Iwillkillyou333 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 2

• Nom. While John Lydon has been doing some excellent work we should not overlook IWKY333's contributions to Pee Review. He may not write in-depth as consistently as others but he keeps working (despite some booking problems) and shows a desire to help authors. I feel this deserves a nomination at least. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 09:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
• For> Do I need a reason? --ThePsycho(talk)
• For. I know IWKY has worked really hard on his reviews and takes PEEING pretty seriously. That deserves an atta boy in my book --—John Lydon 08:08, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1

• NF. Yeah Jonny and IWKY are both great, but they're also young. They've got all the time in the world to win this award, and I'm looking forward to seeing them grow. So then I thought: When UU's PEEING career was winding down, he won it a second time (and deservedly so). Chief may be too busy to do many reviews these days (I hear he's being groomed to become the next Mordillo), but if anyone deserves to win this twice, it's him. --Black Flamingo 16:33, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Spiritual for. BlackFlamingo gives a good argument, and the other two guys deserve it and should win soon, yet seasoning brings out the flavor in the lentils and rice. Whichever way this goes this month, every one of them is a winner. (I've never had a Chief review, and that may be a good thing, as he would rip me a new one and I already have a couple of new ones.) Aleister 19:33 8 7

June

HELPME (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 13

• Nom & For HELPME has provided many users with quality pee reviews, each a detailed lesson in point-by-point workmanship, grammar, and the proper usage of the King's English. Aleister in Chains 1:53 1 6 MMX
• Abstain. - As I have over 15, I'll abstain, but I won't for unless I get 20.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 07:16, June 01 2010 UTC
• Against. lol jk. I meant For. --Matfen 19:42, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
• GAY —Pelozurian (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• For. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 02:21 Jun 2 2010
• For The Cabal doesn't exist. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:25, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Fuck yeah! Love,  
• For. On account of him being The Only One Left Who Hasn't Won. Who the hell are we going to give it to next month? --Black Flamingo 14:42, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
• FOR MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 14:59, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: These votes are based entirely off of my good and frequent reviews...right?--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 02:32, June 02 2010 UTC

  No, your Pee Reviews have nothing to do with being voted Reviewer of the Month. —Pelozurian (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  It's just...Dexter's comment following his one on VFS about how Skype is a cabal unnerves me a bit. I don't want to go the way of Ptok. :P But seriously, it doesn't bother me too much and I'm not questioning anybody's integrity here, it's just a thing I thought about.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 02:36, June 02 2010 UTC

  I mention nothing of a cabal. I'm just oiling emc's penis with tomato juice. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 02:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

  What's a cabal? --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 02:43 Jun 2 2010

  <review whore> If you haven't seen my reviews, check User:HELPME/Pee Reviews</review whore>--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Wednesday, 02:44, June 02 2010 UTC

  To EMC, a cabal is something that doesnt exist. Theres no cabal. theres only us, God and Chuck Norris, but no cabal.--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 18:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

• For. He's gay gay gay gay. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 16:20, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
• For Fucking Sure You need not know why Psychotic Spartan 06:24, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Damn, I really wanted to vote for someone else, but there really isn't anyone else to vote for. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:26, 27 June 2010

  Well, FU Socky...--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Sunday, 04:37, June 27 2010 UTC

  NO U! Lulz, jk. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:48, 27 June 2010

• For. Does good reviews and always happy to have a go, if we can see a couple more per month then I will be absolutely thrilled. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 13:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Yarp which is the opposite of Narp. -- Sf13 12:59 Budapest, Hungary 29 Jun, 2010

May

Matfen (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 7 flobodob blib blob bleeb

• For. As the popular saying goes, this is pretty much a "one snail race". He got robbed last month. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 07:45, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

• I believe "Raped" is the correct terminology ;) --Matfen 11:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

• For. Yup, you were a very close second for my vote last month, I expect the good work will continue! -- Sir SF13 (Talk) GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 22:47 EST 1 May, 2010
• For. Per HELPME's falling on his sword only to rise from the dead next month. Won't he be pissed if he doesn't get it then? Hee hee. As for Matfen, goes without saying that he deserves this at some point, and hey, now sounds good. Al sans chains 19:26 18 5 MMX
• For. Oi! SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 21:07, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

For. Just following orders :P --Hopelessly Devoted To You... ¡¡¡Silent civilian!!! 22:27, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

• 4 ;) Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 21:09, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
• For.~ 11:43, May 27, 2010

HELPME (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1 helpers

• Aye. Its been a tough month, with the backlog of reviews to be done and everyone else being too busy to do them. HELPME has the most reviews this month so far (tied with the honourable Striker), and therefore is in a good position to be ROTM. --Matfen 11:41, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the nom. I don't feel ready though, I only have 11 in depth reviews. =/--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Monday, 08:04, May 17 2010 UTC

  Fuck it, mate. I've only got 16 in depth reviews, and I've been here a lot longer than you. --Matfen 22:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

  And HELPME isn't even counting a great informal review he did for my Sandstorm page, with suggestions which helped zoom it upline towards feature. He's good. Hoping, as always, for a tie. Al sans chains 22:34 17 5 mmx

  Yeah I'll probably be voting this way next month, by which time HELPME will be another old-timer who no one can believe isn't a steel kidney yet. Doesn't time fly? Either that or it can just jump really far. --Black_Flamingo 16:53, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

• For. Sure!--Funnybony  19:28, May 19
• Against. Per BF11. I'm self-againsting until next month. I think I'll be ready then. Everybody, GO VOTE FOR MATFEN. I think I should have at least 15 before I vote for.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Tuesday, 07:16, May 18 2010 UTC

April

Black flamingo11 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 9

• Nom. BF11 was runner-up in February. Although he doesn't do a huge amount of reviews per month, they are all consistently very high quality.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 05:49, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Look at this. He really deserves this.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 23:31, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
• I am converted. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 05:04, Apr 5 2010
• For. --Matfen 10:23, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Review! Black flamingo he done good by me (taught me how to check for enlighish errors, and know I dont make them), and he's sailed my articles on the wind a couple of times. Iwillkillyou has helped as well, so I'm split this month, and a spiritual For. towards him. Too bad more people can't win, but what's a good knock out drag out if not for the fun of watching. Aleister in Chains 17:47 11 4 mmx
• For. Absolutely. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 09:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
• For. (OMG) His most recent review summed up everything I thought but don't know how to say, along with stuff that are at the back of my head and stuff I have never thought of, and advice that are just so sharp and to the point. Not to mention that he's made at least two features with his reviews. Makes me think I have a long way to go. ~ 13:36, Apr 19, 2010
• For. I'm not here I'm on vacation. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 21:14, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Bf11 deserves this -- Sir SF13 (Talk) GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 2:01 EST 30 April, 2010
• Bandwagon for                                • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 Friday, 06:54, Apr 30 2010 UTC

Iwillkillyou333 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 0

• Nom. In addition to really improving his reviewing style, IWKY333 did the most reviews last month, and came in second for most in-depth. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 22:30, Apr 4 2010

Matfen (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1

• Nom and for. While I can't deny that I am great, nor that Iwillkillyou has vastly improved, there is another guy who has been reviewing for ages and is continuously overlooked for ROTM. A great reviewer and a generally cool guy. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 15:49, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Spiritual For. Dunno why, though. Guy sounds like a cock to me. --User:Matfen815

  STFU n00b! --Matfen 21:44, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Probable For. I'll commit closer to the end of the month, but this is probably where my vote is going. -- Sir SF13 (Talk) GUN WotM RotM FBotM VFH SK Maj. ΥΣΣ 00:24 EST 18 April, 2010

March

Skinfan13 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 14

• Nom and For. Feeling really generous today. Last month he and Chief were doing such a good job that there was actually a day when there were no articles on the queue. ~ 10:14, Mar 1, 2010
• Obvious For. He could probably go for UotM as well with the ranking and pee award expansion he did. There are a lot of experienced pee reviewers who now still have something to aim for, thanks to Skinfan. --Matfen 11:59, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Grumpy For. Took my rightful place of doing the second most Pee Reviews in a month, right behind Chiefster. And I would still be there, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 22:53, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Last month Skinfan13 was this close to edging out ChiefjusticeDS for most reviews. In addition, his reviews are chock-full of pointed, helpful advice. He puts genuine effort into his reviews, and it shows. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}} UTC
• For. Excellent work being done here, this gentleman is the reason we had a day with no reviews available, and almost every review he did last month was excellent, not to mention the creation of new templates for Pee. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 23:10, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Reviewed a number of my articles, and his advice has made them all better (except for Ku Klux Klan, but I'm still working on that). —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:25, March 4, 2010 (UTC)
• For Have read his reviews, and I trust the words of those who've voted here. So before I forget to come back to this page, For. ~   4:31 4.3.2mx
• For. Does the right kind of stuff. --UU - natter 11:24, Mar 4
• For. That guy sure loves skin. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 03:39, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
• For. For fucks sake--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 20:53, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
• Yep. Jenny? 21:18,19March,2010

• For. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 08:20 Mar 22 2010
• For. though i don't know who you are. carrot lol 19:21 March 22
• Far—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 19:39, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Iwillkillyou333 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1

• Nom plus For. Well, the dilemma is how to not look like an asshole in this situation lol. I've been watching Iwillkillyou's reviewing this month and he's doing a pretty good job. He's also currently leading with the most in-depth reviews this month (7) and hopefully together we can work on getting the list back down again. He also came out with an idea for helping improve people's reviewing techniques, and while the group is probably not going to take hold, I suppose it's the motivation that counts. If not this month, then perhaps in April, yet still this is where my vote is for March--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 02:23 EST 23 Mar, 2010

• Next month, because he will never beat you this month, Skinfan...if someone started doing Chief-length reviews and did 50 in 10 days you would still probably win this month.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 19:39, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Black flamingo11 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 0

• Nom BF probably deserved this nomination for March a lot sooner, and I feel guilty for not doing so earlier myself. BF doesn't pump out reviews systematically or in large numbers, but every month gives good quality reviews, and goes unrecognized. with 3/3 for 100% in-depth this month, BF deserves at least a mention this month and serious consideration in April --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 03:40 EST 25 Mar, 2010

Also next month, for sure. He lost to HH in February.—Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 02:10, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

February

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 3 Nintendo-playing gavel-smashers

• Nom and For. Well, let's see. Not only has the Right Honorable Chiefster passed up UU for most reviews on PEEING (sacrilege!), but he has consistently topped the list for most reviews per month for several months. Even if he's already won, I'd say that's a pretty convincing argument. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 22:39, Feb 1 2010

• Spiritual for and if ever there isn't someone who is doing good reviews but hasn't been recognised, I'll be voting right along side you. Pup 06:19, 10/02/2010

• Non-spiritual for. --nldr 02:06, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Well, with 15 in-depth reviews already on the 21st and after giving me good advice on no less than three separate reviews, there's no contest on who's been the best in February. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 02;36 EST 21 Feb, 2011

Hiatus Hernia (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 7 legitimate medical problems

• Nom. Miss Hernia has also done a fair amount of reviews these past months, coming in 4th last month and currently with 11 in-depth reviews. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 22:39, Feb 1 2010
• For. These reviews are really high-quality. Even if the quantity is a mere trickle of 2-3 a month, I think they're helpful enough that I feel comfortable voting for HH this month. pillow talk 23:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
• For Why the hell not, he's pretty good--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 20:21, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

  Er, you may wanna check your gender pronoun there, buddy. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 15:56, Feb 8 2010

  Hernia's a girl. Ah shit I didn't know that. Sorry Hiatus Hernia, my mistake--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 05:20, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

• Spiritual for if I hadn't voted for BF11, you would be my second choice. Definitely for you next month. —Sir ¬_¬ | Banter HOMOPHOBE!!! NOTM 22:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
• For. So many fine reviewers here, but I think I picked the right one. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 13:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
• For. A very good choice for this award. And if my spidey senses do not deceive me, methinks something afoot adrifts westward from Warshaw. Aleister in Chains 22:17 9 Feb. MMX
• What? Pup 05:55, 10/02/2010
• For. Does stuff. Doesn't fuck about. --UU - natter 09:23, Feb 10
• Yup per above. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:32, 27 February 2010

Black flamingo11 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 2 gothic lawn ornaments

• Nom. Likewise, BF11 has done his share of reviewin'. Came in 2nd last month (tied with Why?) and currently with 7 in-depth reviews. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 22:39, Feb 1 2010
• For. His reviews are really in-depth, and he hasn't won (or even been nominated, I think) HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 00:18, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
• UnFor. I'd back that horse... err, flamingo. --Matfen 11:13, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Thanks, but I don't deserve this as much as HH or Sequence... and certainly not as much as Chief... Maybe a little more than Ptok-Bentoniczny though. Still, I can't decide who to vote for. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 02:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • I was torn between you and HH, as HH gave me loads of helpful advice that downright made my article a feature. However, you've been reviewing quite a lot, and I believe a certain particular one will eventually get another of my articles featured. Anyway, it looks like she has it in the bag this month, and if not, I'll be voting for her next month. Unless one of Ptok's Polish friends hacks my account and votes for him. --Matfen 10:34, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sequence (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1 no longer missing persons

• Nom and for. Did some good review work during the summer, got a real life and went away, he has now returned in good form, providing consistently high quality reviews. More please. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:47, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ptok-Bentoniczny (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 3 Deliciously Nutritious Strips Of Hearty Bacon

• Nom + Bless He reviewed my article. Jenny? 00:04,2February,2010
• I didn't see that coming! But I believe I've got biggest chances for winning as election is usually won by the biggest ignorant ;p Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 13:02, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Against He hasn't got any in depth articles, and needs to follow the rules for pee reviewing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iwillkillyou333 (talk • contribs)

  And you need to follow the rules for signing your posts. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 06:47, Feb 7 2010

  As much as I hate to spoil everyone's fun, you can only vote once, be it for or against. Also I don't like against votes on award pages. --ChiefjusticeDS 13:57, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

• Foar sausage lol 22:47, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

• For 83.20.204.235 00:05, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
• For 86.157.250.140 21:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
• For 79.186.58.31 22:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Pippo 22:11, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Votes removed due to obvious gerrymandering. I remember this happening before somewhere I think. Last time it was "not cricket" Now, after a warning you are taking the piss... Ptok-Bentoniczny you were warned about getting your mates from other wikis to come and vote for you. You are so fucking obvious it's ridiculous. If I look around the wiki a bit more will I find this sort of thing happening elsewhere? If I do I will ban you Ptok-Bentoniczny. Fair eh? :D Right now I see 2 vote which I'm going to count and that's from CheddarBBQ & Colin "All your base" Heaney. I assume you have more class than to vote for yourself. I suggest Ptok-Bentoniczny that you quickly remove any other votes, or questionable nominations which you may know about regarding yourself. I can't be fucked putting up with this crap. It's far less effort to ban you. I don't care if you claim you don't know about these people. Deal with this situation now, or I start banning. I hope that's clear. MrN  Fork you! 23:23, Feb 9

I don't know this people. And according to the rules I can vote for myself. And I say: It's all due to my signature... :P Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 23:29, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can vote for yourself. It just means that you have no class if you do. Unfortunately for you I just went to the bother of doing a bit more research and I'm happy that you are lying to me. Last time I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now I think you do know at least some of these users and that is why I'm banning you for a week. Don't lie to me again or I will be even more unpleasant to you next time. MrN  Fork you! 23:40, Feb 9

Skinfan13 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1 fans of skin?

Spiritual Score: 2 Holy Ghosts

• Nom I already cast my vote, but looking over his recent stuff, I'd say he deserves a shout out. Jenny? 00:45,3February,2010

Well, I appreciate the nomination! Based on principle, I refuse to vote for myself for an award. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 18:29 EST 8 Feb 2010

I would vote for you but I'm also an egoist and therefore I couldn't have resisted an urgency to vote for myself. I hope you forgive me my inappropriate behaviour. However, you can vote for me if you want. That would be a bit funny if I won. Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 23:43, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I never said I was incapable of abstaining ;) --'Soldat' Skinfan13 06:41, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Given that Skinfan doesn't believe in himself enough to vote for himself, I also refuse to vote for Skinfan. Or something. Ask me again next month. Pup 05:56, 10/02/2010

Don't get me wrong, I'll whore myself all day on the street, and I do think I'm a quality reviewer, but I just don't think it's right to vote for yourself for an award. Articles, hell yes I vote for myself lol. At any rate, I'd love to have your vote Pup --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 01:10 EST 10 Feb, 2010

• For Charity. Plus he reviewed General DeGaulle for me when clearly no-one else was interested. --Sog1970 09:21, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
• Spiritual For, I've voted already, but Skinfan just gave a very good review of a page worked on by PF4Eva and myself, and will have helped it quite a bit. He's got good pee, clear and hydrated, and I wish most of these users could have a tie-win this month. Aleister in Chains 00:04 17 Feb. MMX
• Also a spiritual for, I would vote for him but he refused to vote for himself so now Hiatus Hernia got 6 votes and there is no point in changing my vote from myself to him. ;p Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 14:43, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

January

Necropaxx (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 10

1. Nom and For. He tied for second last month. He's done lots of indepth reviews, is very conscientious, and is sweet too. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 02:11, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. per above. --Mn-z 05:03, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. Enthusiastic contributor to all areas here and has time and the patience to read other people's work.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:20, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
4. Negropaxx FTW SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME • 10:56 • Saturday, 2-01-2010
5. For per last month.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 00:24, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
6. NecroFor. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:35, 3 January 2010
7. For. Does things the right way. Might not provide the quantity, but sure provides the quality. --UU - natter 13:23, Jan 3
8. For. Does good reviews, would love to see some more of them. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:45, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. I like his name. ☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃ 12:36 January 4
10. For. Because he tried talking people out of voting for him last month because he felt he didn't deserve it. He's done at least three more reviews now, and for a dead guy smells pretty good. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:31, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Verification. For those anally-retentive types like me, here's verification of a Pee Review done by the nominee last month: Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/History of the papyrus containing the spell to. . . .. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 06:16, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

  I've also done two this month: José Mourinho and User:Nikau/Independent cinema (construction). • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Sunday, 06:32, Jan 10 2010

Headline text

2009

December

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 4 who like having their water sports judged

• Nom&For. As of this moment, Chiefster is just two short of doing has done the most checked in-depth Pee Reviews of all time--and has only been here for just short of six months. Also he's continually updating the Pee Review list and checking reviews to see if they're in depth. Yes, he's already won this, but I think he deserves it again (also did 18 in depth Pee Reviews last month with second place doing 7). (see corrections and updates as of 8 Dec. 2009 in strikeout and italics) WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:18, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

  Not entirely true. He's about to have done the most checked in-depth reviews. Some people (me, Cajek, MrN, OEJ and others) were reviewing before the list began. Chief's about to top the list, and fully deserves to. But I've done more than 160 reviews (although more than one of the first few lacked depth), and I honestly think that, before any of the rest of us really started doing this, OEJ may have done more (he was pretty much the only reviewer on site at one point). Just appraisin' you kids of the site's history, man. --UU - natter 09:13, Dec 4

  You know what they say about history--it's not what happened, it's what's written down. But thanks for the history lession (and who's OEJ?) WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 03:55, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

  One-eyed Jack ~ 06:20, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

  OEJ was the first RotM. He was the guy who inspired Boomer, Cajek, MrN and myself to get this whole PEEING thing going in the first place. His reviews were some of the most insightful I've seen, and this place is automatically better whenever he chooses to grace it with his presence. --UU - natter 13:46, Dec 7

  Oh duh, the one whose name is first on the list. I should have thought it. For some reason, when I saw OEJ I was thinking of the OED, which got me thinking Oxford English Jew?  Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  01:19, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

• For. He deserves this again because he not only critisises but inspires to make a good article awesome and I just totally get him every time Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 13:31, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
• For. Now my article passed vote for highlight, I can safely vote For without being accused of bribery. You can accuse him of bribery if you want though... On a more relevant note, he is one hell of a reviewer. I've never had the pleasure myself, but I looked at some he's done for other people, and they're pretty good. --Matfen 00:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
• For. One of the best reviewers this month.--WILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 22:34, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Under user (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 5 who like the way admins pee

1. Nom and For. Because it's UU. That and nobody else has done enough to deserve it. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:15, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
2. Because UU is like the Rolls-Royce of reviews. ~ 06:22, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. Necro has stated he doesn't feel he's done enough yet to deserve this award. And if this is going to be the first time we award this thing twice, UU is the obvious choice beyond a shadow of a doubt. pillow talk 00:16, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. Because UU's not reviewing yet. zhel☃el 04:02 December 15
5. Five Per Hyper —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orian57 (talk • contribs)

Comment. Just in case anyone is as anally retentive as I am and can't find a PR by UU on last month's list, it's here. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 00:01, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Necropaxx (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 4 who believe the undead can still urinate

• Nom & for. OK, here's the deal: I've always objected to the idea of awards being bestowed on people twice while there are other people active who deserve to win them for a first time. Necropaxx here may not have contributed a massive volume of reviews in any one month, but consistently and quietly produces decent reviews here and there. He's been doing this for a while now, and deserves recognition. He may not contribute spectacular volumes of pee, like some, but that's not what this award is about - it's about recognising those who have taken the time to help people regularly. And for those who only seem to notice numbers instead of overall contributions, 20 in-depth reviews is more than some previous winners of this award have achieved, and I have the suspicion that, unlike them, Necro would continue reviewing even after winning this. He's good, he's helpful, and he deserves this. So let's give it to him. --UU - natter 09:54, Dec 9

• For. Because he's cool and I like him. Also, he reviewed an article of mine last month. • FreddCan Shredd • • • 17:05, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
• An Enthusiastic Yes. One of his reviews, of my Hydrogen article, inspired me to join as a user rather than keeping on contributing as an IP. Any person whose reviews can do that is willing to receive this award, in my opinion.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 03:14, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
• For. Though at some point Chief and UU really had ought to win this again. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 17:06, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
• For.. UU totally deserves to win it twice because he had the record for reviews for a long time and heads this and keeps it running. Chief totally deserves to win it twice because he's done more reviews than anybody for months and checks reviews. But Necropaxx deserves to win it once first. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 03:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
• Oh for goodness sake & against voat. I leave for a few days and you're nominating me left and right! UU, I appreciate that you think I deserve this, but I must respectfully disagree. I've only done 20 in-depth reviews since PEEING was set up. That's over a year ago. I think a reviewer (namely, me) should at least get 25 in-depth reviews before being considered for RotM. (I'll take the Attending Urologist rank, though.) If it's any consolation, now I'm going to be focusing on doing reviews for the foreseeable future. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 18:21, Dec 10 2009

  Comment. Siddhartha-Wolf, 17 in-depth; Projectmayhem666, 18 in-depth; IronLung, 18 in-depth - all RotM. A further several have numbers in the low twenties. The requirements as per this page are to have produced a volume of quality reviews, which you have done. Hence the nom and vote. --UU - natter 09:32, Dec 11

  So it's basically my own standards that I'm againsting. Very well, I have 20 days to do at least 5 reviews! Onward! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 10:45, Dec 11 2009

• Verification. Pee Review WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 22:19, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

November

Why do I need to provide this? (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 14

1. Nom and For. Why has somehow found time, between writing two featured articles, to write 24 in-depth PEE reviews, 21 of which he wrote last month alone. A superb achievement, and a thoroughly deserving candidate who was unlucky to go up against Guildy last month. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:44, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
2. Why, soitenly! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Monday, 06:33, Nov
3. Fawr. • FreddCan Shredd • • • 07:12, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
4. For In fact I have a feeling I may have said something like this last month. Pup
5. For. He did more detailed Pee Reviews last month than anybody but Chief (22 to 21), and Chief already won it. DAP Dame Pleb Com. Miley Spears (talk) 20:57, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
6. Certainly!--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 22:52, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong For. Wrote over 20 in-depth Pee Reviews the month I won the award (I wrote two). Keep up the good work. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
8. Bless. Sure, give him something else that I don't have :( Jenny? 03:25,6November,2009
9. Fooooor!. Baciammo le mani--Pizza Spaghetti Mafia! 17:03, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
10. Fo sho. Why? Because all the obvious reasons --BlueSpiritGuy 20:17, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
11. For. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 14:06, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
12. For. There's nobody else to vote for! lol  Sister Little Mermaid (talk)  03:12, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks so much for the nom and fors. But to clarify, one of the two featured articles was co-written with Syndrome. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 00:50, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

    I know, but it sounded better in that blurb if I omitted that, and Syndrome knows he is brilliant anyway. --ChiefjusticeDS 08:12, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

13. For. Yeah, does good stuffs. --UU - natter 11:54, Nov 30

Why isn't the numbers right?  Sister Little Mermaid (talk)  03:17, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

The numbers are right, return to work citizen for there is nothing to see here. --ChiefjusticeDS 08:42, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

14. Approval. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:44, 1 December 2009

October

Guildensternenstein (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +15

• I vote everyone who helps me lol. [/zh] 09:49 October 2
• For. per above. Although I just realized the top reviewer for September only got 4 reviews in that month. Edit he's also ahead of Why 30 to 8 in good reviews right now. Although it looks like why? might get several in this month from what he's done already.--Mn-z 15:30, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

:Comment: We based it mostly on his performance the month before. He deserved it for that. --ChiefjusticeDS 15:36, October 2, 2009 (UTC) Chief shuts up and wanders off to learn to read before he types.--ChiefjusticeDS 15:39, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment/Self-Abstain For the Time Being. Wow, thanks for the nomination. I'm not gonna vote for myself just yet, though. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:41, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
• For. OK, I know this is called reviewer of the month, but it's not just about the last month, it's about other things too. Guildy here has now completed 30, count 'em 30 in-depth reviews. He's the first person to have done more than 25 and not have won this award since Javascap (who I miss, by the way). It's more than 6 former winners of this award. And it's been done consistently, over a decent period of time, unlike one or two people who have come in, done a bunch of reviews for a month, won this award and then never done another. In other words, he's deserved this for a while. Why? is a good new reviewer, and has made a decent start, but 7 reviews in a week or two? Is that all it takes to win RotM nowadays? Let's see if he keeps it up for a few more weeks at least, huh? --UU - natter 16:42, Oct 3
  • I am still stalking the innertubes UU :) Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀ 13:37, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
• For Dammit UU, I was in the middle of writing a similar thing, and then you edit conflict me by putting in yours!! But yeah as much as I like Why? and as much as I want to encourage new people to contribute to PEE review, Guildy deserves this right now. --ChiefjusticeDS 16:45, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
• For. [Insert UU's comment here] • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 03:18, Oct 4
• Fine Might as well add it to the list of stuff Guildy has. Don Puttano cHeDDs 03:46,4October,2009
• Self-For. Thanks, guys! I'll try to continue doing Pee Reviews on a constant and consistent basis. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:13, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
• For. With all due respect to Why do I need to provide this?, I agree with UU. I was considering nominating Miley Spears, who has received three Golden Shower Awards, two of them from RotMs, but she requested not being nominated now as she doesn't feel she's done enough yet. While I think Why? and Miley may be promising, let's give them a couple more weeks or so to prove themselves. I'm voting for Guildy. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:27, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
• For. Guildy takes the job of reviewer seriously. So this is a serious appreciation for . --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 21:25, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
• For Coz this award will make almost no difference to his current awesomeness on the awesomeometer scale used to measure his level of awesomajesticfucktacularness! Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 11:05, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
• What? I havent voted yet? For • FreddCan Shredd • • • 11:45 October 11
• For---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 03:10, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

'09

• 3.14159265358979323846 Happy with what I have seen so far. Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀ 13:37, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
• For. with the proviso that I cahnge my mind if he outdoes me in PLS. Pup t 04:05, 20/10/2009
• For. Guildy can gild the lily and make it a VFH. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 11:05, October 25, 2009 (UTC) You voted twice, Rom. (as much as I'd appreciate another vote). —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:15, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
• Writes good articles and does good reviews. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:18, 30 October 2009

Why do I need to provide this? (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +1

1. nom and for. Does great pee reviews. --Docile hippopotamus 06:20, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Bless. Sorry Guildy, but I think this noob really deserves this. Don Puttano cHeDDs 14:47,3October,2009

• Comment. Thank you very, very much for the nomination and vote (even if one of you decided to change it). I really appreciate it, am encouraged to continue doing reviews, and would love to see the nomination stay up here for this month. However, this month I'm voting for Guildy. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:32, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
  • Which one of us were you talking about? Don Puttano cHeDDs 20:41,5October,2009
    • I was thanking Docile hippopotamus for the nom and for, and you for your vote even if you decided to change it. Thanks again! :-) WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 20:45, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. I'll be sure to consider voting for you before changing my mind again next month. Don Puttano cHeDDs 20:50,5October,2009
• Nom for next month As much as I appreciate the work that Chief has done (per Guildy's nom below}} the amount of work that Why has put into the PEE queue is also to be applauded, and I'd be disappointed to see Chief win it a second time before Whyner gets the guernsey. Pup t 02:04, 21/10/2009

• Seconded --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 05:04 Oct 21 2009

• • • Comment. Yeah, I suppose, but if we're ever giving that award out again, Chief hands-down deserves it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:33, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 0

1. Nom for next month. After being absent for a time, Chief comes back and has churned out a whopping 15 reviews in the last 20 days. Holy fuck. He's already the second all-time Pee-er ever, and has only been here a few months total. If anyone deserves to win this award twice, it's him (and UU, of course). —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:23, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

September

Boomer (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +3

• For the inaugural, and only, Reviewer In Perpetuity - The only ever R.I.P. Pup t 07:28, 1/09/2009

  Yeesh. Your signature made me think he was dead. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 06:41, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

  Confused the hell out of me. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:22, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

• Boomer all the way. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• For Definitely more than deserving, has been for some time now. --ChiefjusticeDS 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) As per Boomer's self-against. --ChiefjusticeDS 20:47, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
• For. It's his turn now! Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 04:54, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
• For Good reviews. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 19:01, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment He must not win! Or else the running gag will be shot to death! Methamphetamine Was Here (22:51 09-8-2009)
• Self-against. If I ever win this, I want it to be on a month that I actually earned it, not purely based on my long and illustrious history. With my wee hiatus, that can't be this month. Feel free to nominate me for Reviewer of All-Time Spectacular Magnificence, though. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:20, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
• Per {{USERNAME}}    Orian57    Talk   02:25 16 September 2009
• Traditional against from the grave Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀04:09 September 18 2009 04:09, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Siddhartha-Wolf (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 8

• Nom & For. Actually did some reviews last month. (Number two, to be precise, behind ChiefJusticeDS.) • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 02:36, Sep 2
• For. Yes!  –      (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN GUN DUN 06:52, 2 September 2009
• For Did quite a few good reviews last month. --Sequence 14:59, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
• Self-For - Because I don't deserve it but I surely deserve something from life, so I might as well take this while I can. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 20:24, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
• For Staircase CUN^t 20:25, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
• For Has always impressed me and has been brilliant at helping with the queue over the last month.--ChiefjusticeDS 20:50, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
• For. per above. --Mn-z 22:01, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
• For a lack of competition. Warm Regards, ▀ĴαVắśСąР▀04:09 September 18 2009 04:09, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
• sure. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 02:07, September 24, 2009 (UTC)
• For. Definitely deserving. On a side note, the queue is really starting to get backloged again, though. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 21:58, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
• For. Because although I really want to see Boomer get this, he's not done a review in about 2 months again, while Sid did a lot recently, and they were good. --UU - natter 07:28, Sep 30

August

Boomer (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +4 really emphatic Fors

1. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Strong For vote for this guy. Thank you. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak Abstain I would vote 4 but he won this already. zh I hate me new sig 12:46 August 3

   When? --UU - natter 14:21, Aug 3

   Oh, He didn't? zh/Singapore IS 4412:33 August 10

   Look at the list of previous winners above - you see his name on it? --UU - natter 08:47, Aug 30

3. for political figureheads that come to life and play catch with me in my backyard. and also they do reviews. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong for. He may be a lazy bum, but this here Boomer instigated PEEING in the first place, and ruled it with an iron toilet brush. He also instigated this here award. Given that so many people seem to do a ton of reviews in order to win this award, and then never review again, he is therefore one of the main reasons that so many good reviews get done on this site. He also always turns in good reviews when he deigns to do one. Puppy is young, enthusiastic, and will be a worthy winner, but Boomer deserves recognition for all his contributions. Vote Boomer next month folks! --UU - natter 08:46, Aug 30
5. For Because he's got no chance of winning this month so I'm willing to risk voting for him. MrN  Fork you! 08:50, Aug 30
6. Spiritual for As per UU, but I'm suggesting we nominate for Reviewer in perpetuam, rather than of the month. (Was waiting until the end of the month to suggest so nobody thinks I'm trying to steal his thunder.) Pup t 22:02, 30/08/2009

PuppyOnTheRadio (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +9

1. Nom+For. I've seen him about and he does great reviews. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
2. For Definitely, I would have voted for him last month but my vanity prevented my doing so.--ChiefjusticeDS 16:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
3. For, per my vote last month.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
4. For Ah, vanity. My lover, my curse. Pup t 22:46, 1/08/2009
5. Ha! Weak Abstain again because it's still early. zh I hate me new sig 12:46 August 3
6. For Always does in-depth reviews and gave me my first one (review) too. Calindreams 09:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
7. For. He has a very creative reviewing style which is unique and effective Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 07:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
8. For. per above. --Mn-z 18:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
9. For. Per his consistently excellent reviews. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Sure. Sir MacMania GUN—[23:32 28 Aug 2009]

July

Boomer (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +4 lazy bums

• Nom & for. I think he had something to do with PEEING, at some point. We should probably recognise that by giving him this. Oh, and he's going on what for him is the reviewing rampage to and them all at the moment, and I wanted to see if a nom would encourage him to keep it up. --UU - natter 16:57, Jul 4
• But I did 30 last month! You stink, UU, you big meanie! *cries* Also, For. Saberwolf116 17:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

  I am so against this award being given to people more than once if there are still people reviewing who haven't won it. While I know you're not being entirely serious, I have to make that point. --UU - natter 18:46, Jul 4

  I absolutely agree with you, UU. Staircase CUN^t 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• For Even though he only has five. Staircase CUN^t 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• for. hooray for figureheads! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• For Good review for me actually gave me something constructive to work with. Much appreciated. Pup 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Whenever I needed a review, he was my immediate go-to guy. Always available, always helpful, always constructive, and a real swell guy to boot. Fucking against. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ChiefjusticeDS (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +11

Nom He's been tiring me out this month, and his reviews are pretty good. Saberwolf116 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

1. For Excellent review, peope are really using them. Staircase CUN^t 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Changing to Chief. He's a great new reviewer. Saberwolf116 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Self for I decided not to be humble, thanks for the nomination, I'm glad the reviews are being well received. A brief note, I won't be reviewing anything for a couple of weeks as I'm going away, but will try and keep it up until I go and afterwards. Thanks again --ChiefjusticeDS 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Superstrong For. clearest vitamin-free pee ever! Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 09:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
5. 45 Excelent for both my articles and my ego.    Orian57    Talk   12:03 7 July 2009
6. Yes! Excellent reviewer, could be a little less enthusiastic with his scores, but meh. ~~Sir Fightstar Rocks! CUN 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
7. There's currently SIX reviews on the Pee queue. SIX! And all (well, largely) because of this guy. I rest my case. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   Not anymore. My checking gun is out of ammuntion. Saberwolf116 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

8. For. Bad picture, but still for. Mr Zhe-mel-talki-signe-singaporel-bling ^Brute! It's 11 July-03:10 ...with savings!
9. Having a look a little while ago there were 20 PEEreviews pending. Due to the diligence and hard work of ChiefJusticeDS that number was whittled down to 6, an easily manageable number. Now he's stopped reviewing and it's gone to 13. COME BACK YOU BASTARD. How do you think I feel having to pick up your slack like this? Oh, no, don't stop to care about the Puppy's feelings, just go skipping off through the meadows. YOU MAKE ME SICK! And while I think about it . Pup t 04:37, 20/07/2009

   There's a chance that I may have voted twice by accident... ooops Pup t 21:38, 21/07/2009

10. For. I just remembered, I don't have to wait until the end of the month to vote anymore. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Abso-fucking-lutely. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 05:32, Jul 31
12. Does good reviews. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PuppyOnTheRadio (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +0

1. Nom. Though my vote is cast elsewhere, Puppy gave me an exceptional Pee the other day, and has done the same for others as well, and therefore deserves at least a nomination. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   Next month. Staircase CUN^t 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

2. For. Contributes many a high quality review.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Against Per Escalator Pup t 22:49, 31/07/2009

June

Staircase (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 16

1. Nom and For. He has been here for less than a week and he did, like, 15 pee's already. Also, he is a good reviewer. Also also, vote for him. Also also also, I ran out of things to say. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 11:51 June 1 '09
2. For. Saberwolf116 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
3. For. For a noob, he sure did pick up this racket easily... More easily than yours truly, in fact.   Le Cejak • <14:16 Jun 01, 2009>
4. For. per above. --Mnb'z 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
5. For winning two awards in June, his first full month. Don Puttano cHeDDs 19:12,1June,2009
6. For -RAHB 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
7. For. Per Cajek. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
8. For. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Mega-For! I took a look at this guy's reviews, and the things are hugely indepth. As good as UU's or Gerrycheever's. Yes. Vote for him. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 02:57, Jun 3
10. Uh-Huh.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Most Definitely for. from fellow n00b It's Me Bitches! Don't worry, I won't kill you.
12. Um... Ya! —The Zhel 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
13. For. For a man I saw on the stair who wasn't there. It must have been you !--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Yup. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:23, Jun 7
15. I like this guy. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
16. pointless last-minute for. hooray! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Saberwolf116 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 2

1. Nom(omnomnom) and For. I go for quality over quantity, and this guy actually has both to offer. And that nutcase of a sockpuppet noob needs competition.

-- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 22:04, 20 Jun

I appreciate the nom Luvvy, but I won this last month and already voted for Stairs. That being said, I do enjoy having my ego boosted, so thankies =P Saberwolf116 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But... A competition without competition isn't even worth voting about, so the sockpuppet needs competition. Hence, I nommed a good, high quality reviewer. You. -- DameViktoria - (Contribs) - (Talk) - (Block log) 09:37, 21 Jun

Who is Steps meant to be a sockpupet of? Or is this a joke from somewhere else that I'm missing out on?    Orian57    Talk   11:50 21 June 2009

He's a sock of Cajek, isn't it obvious? —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a sockpuppet of Minister Art E. Hooey. Staircase CUN^t 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, it's a template. No but seriously, are you a sock?    Orian57    Talk   16:40 21 June 2009

Do I look like a sock? And who would I be a sock of? I don't get what's up with you people and socks anyway. Why would someone do that, besides as a joke? Staircase CUN^t 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well people become a sockpuppet if they've been banned and come back under another username. Or that's my understanding anyway.    Orian57    Talk   16:47 21 June 2009

Oh. Well. That'll come in handy if I ever get banned. But seriously, I just came here to have some fun and write things. Staircase CUN^t 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I thought you were just a normal user, too. Any ideas why luvvy's being so cunty about you?    Orian57    Talk   16:57 21 June 2009

No, she said something on her talk page about me whoring everything everywhere. Staircase CUN^t 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well so long as you haven't whored directly at her (you should respect it when people say they'd rather you didn't) I don't see her problem, it also, really doesn't mean you're a sock. Just a filtly little slut. ;-)    Orian57    Talk   17:15 21 June 2009

But... but... I'm a guy. Staircase CUN^t 17:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said you weren't, babe.    Orian57    Talk   17:26 21 June 2009

• For. Thoughtful commentary, insightful recommendations, and a work ethic that I greatly admire. His effort and the results I've seen, and continue to see, are beyond reproach. I'll vote the same next month, as it seems unlikely he'll win this, but he was deserving of back to back awards. --T. (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

May

Saberwolf116 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 20 classic retrogames

• Nom but not for yet - withholding my vote in true Boomer stylee in case of last minute ties. However, he's done a darn fine job in the last month. --UU - natter 10:59, May 1
• Self-for. makes me feel like a Douche, though. Saberwolf116 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Um... What the fuck is that suppose to mean, Jew? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Christian-get it right! And I didn't write that comment, so you know who did... Saberwolf116 22:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• For (tied for) most reviews last month, and far above anyone else who hasn't won this award yet. --Mnb'z 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yup. Per above. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Ay. Per his review. --silicson 17:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd feel stupid if I won this award without doing a review this month, so here. Saberwolf116 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not gonna promise anything, but I'm voting here for now. If someone decides to go on a reviewing rampage, as is so often the case, things may be... something. I don't know where I was going with that.-- Don Puttano cHeDDs 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Permanant keep now, for his review of my Leprechaun.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods13:13, 5 May 2009 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Bless. per his reviews this month Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 13:05, 5 May '09
• For. Quantity + quality. (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. His pee of my UnBook was quite good. —Sir Guildensternenstein 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. Fuck waiting, I'm voting now. Also, fuck voting for me - thanks for the nom, but I've won this already and really don't need it again. Saberwolf here has done more reviews than anyone over the last month and a half, has drastically improved his quality, has done a good job, and deserves this award. --UU - natter 08:21, May 13
• Ayup. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 02:44, May 14
• For. Can't be bothered to wait either. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
• Clearly deserves it.  –      (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN GUN DUN 15:18, 16 May 2009
• Who else deserves this? —The Zhel 15:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

UU always deserves it, but seeing how he said he didn't want it, I guess I do. :) Saberwolf116 18:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Totally. He reviewed my article medium rare, exactly per my requests. Boy, I hate it when reviewers freakin' overcook your review.--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian...>.< Saberwolf116 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• For. Is there anyone else? Pieface 12:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yup Been on the reciveing end of a one of his reviews. Was helpful. ~Orian57~ ~Talk~ 16:36 24 May 2009
• For 45 in-depth reviews versus the person in second place's 14. No contest   Le Cejak • <21:20 May 25, 2009>
• For. SaberWolf's just put an incredible amount of work into Pee Review this month. He deserves this. pillow talk 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• For -RAHB 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• For --^Dame 16:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Under user (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 4 lifetime achievement award winners

• Nom and for. Honestly, I don't think Saberwolf116 is ready for this award yet. No offense, SW: you're doing a great job, but I just don't think you're quite there. Granted, UU only did one (fantastic) review last month, but he spends hours and hours keeping the whole Pee Review system running. And he's got almost as many reviews as the next two runners-up combined. Guy deserves to be recognized again. pillow talk 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• It's alright hype, I don't really expect to win, though i'd love to. UU does a good job at maintenence, too. Saberwolf116 22:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, I kind of notice this award is aimed at treatising users who produce reviews, not organise the system. That is more of a UotM category in my opinion, of which UU thoroughly deserves a shout at some point this year. I'm withholding my vote until I see some nominations who actually produce more reviews than just one. Even if it's just Saberwolf116 in the end, I wouldn't care. Someone who keeps up the deliverance of reviews is rewarded. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Actually Nach, i've produced several reviews this month. Saberwolf116 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Apologies, I didn't intend to imply that you had only done one review, this is bad wording on my part - I mean to say that I'm withholding my vote until there is competition for thou. If not, then I'll happily vote for you. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• For That one review was really good. --C:\syndrome\_ 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. --Docile hippopotamus 11:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. Nobody does better PEEs than UU period(.) -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:00, 9 May
• For. This is like that time in March that I nommed UU for all these reasons and more, and everyone was all like "na-uh" and I was all like "ya-huh". IronLung 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• For. Holy shit, UU hasn't won this yet???? >:O   Le Cejak • <16:21 May 16, 2009>

  Of course he has. Else everyone would have instantly voted for him. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  Whoops, I'm dumb... Really, really dumb.   Le Cejak • <16:26 May 16, 2009>

  Perhaps you should switch over then? ;) Saberwolf116 19:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  And they call ME a whore Don Puttano cHeDDs 19:24,16May,2009

  Well, I don't go spamming every talk page I can find. Saberwolf116 19:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

  Neither do I. I just, well, *mumble* Don Puttano cHeDDs 20:10,16May,2009

April

Projectmayhem666 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 9 Annoyingly modest dudes

1. Nom & For (again) He should've won last month--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Problem is I've not reviewed anything this month, so I don't really qualify, I will, however now just so that I do. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Please don't vote for someone else again this month. Modesty can be annoying.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2. For. I'm apparently annoyingly modest. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes you are--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 19:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

3. For per above. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
4. For and I suspect this is going to be yet another RotM coronation... pillow talk 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks guys, I didn't expect to win, my cast isn't off until April 21st, so I can't do much on here, will keep reviewing as much as possible though. Really appreciate votes. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

5. For. Man it was awesome when I won this award instead of Projectmayhem in a month in which I only did one review. I wish that could happen all the time! IronLung 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   OH YEAH!! I DID MY FIRST REVIEW OF APRIL!! IM CATCHIN UP TO YA PM666!!--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

6. For -RAHB 08:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
7. For per above. --Mnb'z 04:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
8. For. How'd you get the cast? Breaking a bone presumably, but how? ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 20:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I was hit by a car cycling to work, the doctor also seemed to think my bent wrist was far more of a concern than the bashed in bleeding head and the puking everywhere. But what can you expect from the NHS :p. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ouch, blimey. I've only ever fractured a wrist in my lifetime. I'm must be invincible or something. I hear you at the NHS comment though. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hey Everyone! Did you know I Broke My Nose!!! Just in case all of Uncyc didn't know. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

   I can top all of you. I broke my middle finger, and had to get a cast on it that prevented me from lowering it when I put down the rest of my fingers. Pissed a lot of people off...--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 13:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ooh, lucky. I only broke my pointer finger. Broke it right after my broken leg cast came off, too. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 18:41, Apr 22

9. For. I've been away for a while and have been unable to contribute. For that I apologize; but I'm glad to see others keep contributing. Even though I haven't agreed with all your reviews I'm glad you're trying to help so my vote is there for you =) --Kit talk 23:21 24 April
10. For. I thought this month I'd follow ol' Boomer's policy of not voting until late in case of last minute ties, but it's pretty clear there won't be one. And I'd just like to comment that this guy is one of the most improved reviewers I've seen - from one line a box specials to genuinely helpful contributions. I just hope it continues once he has the award! --UU - natter 08:29, Apr 28

You know it will, oh, I'm back by the way :p --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 09:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

March

Projectmayhem666 (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +1 Days of Fucking Your Mother

• Nom + For According to the PEEING page, he is tied for 1st (with me) for the most in-depth reviews this month. Therefore, obviously, nomination. (I see this as the best reviewer "of the month," not just good reviewer. I don't care if you just got here 2 seconds ago or 80 years ago, I go by the month)--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, there should be a nominator of the month award. Just Saying.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 01:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, but we do have this... -RAHB 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

::For I just saw this a second ago, I'm still trying to do reviews, but again with the broken wrist doesnt help. Thanks for the nom. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My vote is going on someone else. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, that was nice of you. Give up your vote for someone else. Hmph. Making me all teary-eyed.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Crap, you just pulled ahead of me for most reveiws. I'm gonna have to fix that.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods

I have a fractured wrist too, so it's quite impressive. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. We tied again (as soon as the PEEING list is updated).--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods

I've done 2 reviews since it was last updated, so we're still not at a tie, I consistently do between 1 & 2 a day for reviews. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

DAMMIT! Stop pulling ahead of me! *cry* --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods

Well even so, remember, only one part of your review was very helpful :p --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What? You talking to me? Which review. Most of my reviews are very helpful, the only one that wasn't was the review of your article. --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yo, man. I'm sorry you only got my vote. With all you've did here, I thought you would've pulled ahead, but aw well. Maybe next month.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods

Under user (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +1 backup obvious choices

• Nom + For There doesn't seem to be any obvious choice this month. The top active reviewer who hasn't one this award is only at 14 good reviews. Under user did 109, and is 44 ahead on the person in second place. And, I believe he did some (like 40+) reviews before the Review committee started keeping track. --Mnb'z 23:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  But I've only done about 4 this year so far. Seriously gize, reward those who are putting in the effort at the moment, don't just go by volume alone. --UU - natter 09:24, Mar 2

  I'm going to leave my vote here, for the same reason I nominated you last month: you seem to be given a new job here every month and keep doing them all to a high standard. IronLung 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• For. Crazily enough, I actually think that he deserves this award. Bizarre! IronLung 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you can win this more than once? I didn't know that. But still, he hasn't reviewed anyone this month, so how can he be RotM?--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods

I'm sure he has. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 10:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kit paddle (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +3 self-assembly canoe propulsion systems

• Nom & for. Strangely enough, RotM isn't just here to recognise those who've done vast quantities of reviews, it's about making an impact, and being a good, helpful reviewer, which Kit has done. Polite, helpful, consistent, he might not be a machine on the level of some, but he does a good job. MDL won this award when he had done about 12 reviews, so forget the quantity, and reward those who are doing a good job. --UU - natter 09:24, Mar 2
• For. Seriously, why is UU being nominated? We need to encourage new reviewers, not LUFC fans who are past it. Anyway, Kit here gave me a tasty review, so I'm voting for the IKEA founder. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• For per U.U. --Mnb'z 17:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

IronLung (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 5 nice flat lungs

• Nom. IronLung has also been doing a decent shift, giving helpful feedback and popping up with some quality reviews. Deserves at least your consideration. --UU - natter 09:24, Mar 2
• For. Yesh. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:07, Mar 2
• For I always find his reviews to be fair and helpful. He puts out quality reviews at a consistent pace. They may not be frequent, but quality over quantity I say. I always am happy to see a little note promising a review from him when ever I have a review request out. Keep it up! ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• For. Quality reviews. --    19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• For. --Docile hippopotamus 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decent pee. » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gerrycheevers (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +2 Votes for president

• Nom&for Gave me a very good and helpful review, so get gets my nom.—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  You can only vote once, choose between voting for yourself or someone who has already won this award.UU - natter 15:50, Mar 12

  I've decided, sorry about this, misread. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• For. He reviewed UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo once. I'm still grateful for it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

February

Tagstit (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: +10 games of tag (or games of tit)

• Nom + 4 had 22 (according the the Cajek's list) good reviews last month. --S'r Mnbvcxz 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious for. I doubt there's even going to be another serious nomination. pillow talk 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what, the 3rd coronation in a row? Nothing wrong with that though, we just had obvious choices --S'r Mnbvcxz 00:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pee Review is weird. It's weird how everyone has a massive run of frantic reviewing and then burns out right around 60 reviews. pillow talk 03:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the older reviewers are still going up slowly but surely, a month or two ago, the burnout level was closer to 50.--S'r Mnbvcxz 03:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like many people review like machines until they win this, and then come to a juddering halt. Look down the winners list: going like trains; win award; little to nothing. Some then pick back up again, slowly, months later. Anyone would think we were obsessed with awards or something. --UU - natter 14:39, Feb 10

You described me pretty well there. When I win EVERYTHING I'm going to jump ship to ED. --Nachlader 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

i've noticed this too. RotM's stop reviewing, UotM's stop doing mundane tasks, WotM's cease to write...maybe we need to rethink our award system...

• W♥v. A fantastic reviewer. Plus, I'm sort of obligated to vote for my own adorable noob. —Sir SysRq (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• For. He has been doing a great job around here. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 17:35, Feb 5
• For. He's reviewed some of my stuff before, and was very helpful to me back when I was but a mere N00b, even if I didn't exactly appreciate it then. Keep it up, dude. --Guildensternenstein 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• For. Has blossomed quickly into a model reviewer. --UU - natter 14:39, Feb 10
• For. I might not always I agree but I sure damn respect his opinion - constructive and helpful. Gets my vote! --kit 17:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• For. Not really the deciding vote, but anything to boost his confidence. --Nachlader 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
• for. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 21:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Under_user (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 1 something somethings

• Nom + for. Our new Captain Catheter is doing a sterling job of doing both his job and someone else's job. Also, I wanted to prove Hyperbole wrong. IronLung 06:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'll kill you. pillow talk 06:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't he already win. --S'r Mnbvcxz 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but technically there's no rule that you can only win these once. pillow talk 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

January

Mnbvcxz (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 12 obvious choices

• Nom & Strong For. By far the most active reviewer on site in Dec, averaging a review a day to catapult into the Top 10 - no mean feat. I just hope he doesn't stop after winning this award, as he's doing a great job. --UU - natter 09:34, Jan 1
• Uber w♥v. Mnbvcxz is my hero. He's a wrecking machine! —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Darn, I wanted to nom him first. Oh well, for. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:03, Jan 2
• For. It's kind of obvious. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. I'm for this! Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• For -RAHB 05:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• For Mnbvcxz definately deserves this. --Docile hippopotamus 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. --    20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. IronLung 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. Even gave himself an (unfavorable) review over at UGotM! pillow talk 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. Of course! ^{Pirate Lord}__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• For. --Tagstit 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Docile hippopotamus (Talk • Contribs (del) • Editcount • Block (rem-lst-all) • Logs • Groups • Checkuser)

Score: 2 Large and lethargic mammals

• Nom & For tied with Nachlader for 2nd most good reviews for December. I hope he starts reviewing again after the holiday season is over. --Mnbvcxz 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Five He did a good review on my article that I'm willing to waste a vote just to whore it on RotM. J-Shea 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)