From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Vote
|
Score: 0 Number Twos
|
| Nominated by:
|
Sequence 23:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 6
|
- Self nom + For. It got a pretty good pee review and I think i improved upon it, so figured I would put it up and see how it went. Sequence 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very For. I'm usually skeptical about silly humour, but this does it so well -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 00:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- A Very Big Poo For . This is an excellent 'shite' article ! Very funny and well written and formatted. Good work Sequence ! --
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 05:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Smelly. I like it. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- For. It does the being serious about nonsense thing better than most ChiefjusticeDS 20:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- For. 86.132.128.97 00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- For. 203.217.77.195 06:30, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 6
|
 Against. fails the giggle test. --Mn-z 04:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)- Against. Nothing wrong with it but the subject. Style
 Guide 10:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Against. It's a well written article about shit. -OptyC Sucks!
 CUN16:52, 12 Aug
- Against. Nah. -- alarming Ape (blast) (Riot Porn) 00:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Against.
 TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  06:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Against Didn't make me laugh hard enough. Only a few chuckles. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 00:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
- Comment. Fuck I don't know how to change my vote, voted "For" out of habit. Style Guide 04:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
