| Score: 2 (4-2)
|
Nomination by I forgot 20:05, 18 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)
|
| For:
|
- Nom and figgity-for. --I forgot 20:05, 18 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)
- For. I loved it the first time I read it and it still makes me smile. -- Hindleyak Converse • ?blog • Click here! 19:46, 20 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)
- For, even if I'm morally against Uncyclopedia in anyway this is still a good article. --Testostereich • (ballsack) 19:54, 20 Farbleum 2008 (UTC)
- There is only one thing in the world worse than having an article about you featured at Uncyclopedia, and that is being brutally raped by wild chimpanzees. Either way, featuring one here should be a peice of cake for the dead bastard. -- Kippers • Talk • Crap • Special & Randumb! 08:29, Feb. 23, 2008
|
| Against:
|
- Against It's a great article, really, but in my opinion featuring something that is absolutely thrashed in some articles these days might start a new revolution of Uncyc in-jokes. --Ryan (p.s. sort out ywr sig! It's englufing the wiki :P)
- Against mostly cos it doesn't nearly fulfil what it should have for me. Second is because it's too uncyc-y. --
 09:25, 17 Arche 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
- Well, the man practically invented Uncyclopedia (along with Mr. T and the Ghostbusters). --I forgot 02:49, 19 Arche 2008 (UTC)
- Since when was "guilt by association" reason for an Against? --~~~~ 18:21, 22 Arche 2008 (UTC)
- While I'm terribly sorry an' all that, I don't take it back. Illogicopedia shouldn't just be Uncyclopedia's trash dump. Featuring this article, while it's not an Uncyc article in itself, would simply affirm that -- 12:47, 23 Arche 2008 (UTC)
- Right, I've put on status=failed. Don't hate me. It's nothing personal. The vote's been around for a long time and has always had a low score. -- 08:47, 2 Arply 2008 (UTC)
|
