From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: God
|
Score: 1
|
| Nominated by:
|
OptyC Sucks!  CUN16:41, 19 Aug
|
For: 6
|
- N&F. Once again we colonized a previously featured article. Suck it Uncyclopedia. I think it turned out pretty good. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:41, 19 Aug
 For. And I saw it, and I said "If I say 'I saw that it was good' would that constitute blasphemy?"                Sir MacMania GUN—[19:37 19 Aug 2009]
- Although, how exactly would re-featuring an article work? Would it work? Sir MacMania GUN—[19:38 19 Aug 2009]
- God will wager that it would work to just put the Featured Colonization template under the regular Featured template. -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:44, 19 Aug
- For. It's a completely new article (see here) and I think it's great. Yes I worked on it, but I've worked on many I haven't voted for. Miley Spears 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- For. How can you vote against God? Binky The WonderSkull 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- For. I don't believe in God, but this makes me reconsider. There's no I in RAPE (lol contribs) 05:19 Aug 20, 2009
- For. While I'm not too sure about some of the "jokes", I think it's good enough for a feature. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 5
|
- Sorta Self-Against. I could swear this just got voted down. Anyway, yes, nice rewrite, but it's already been featured. Now, when MadMax and Cap'n Ben win UotM and WotM again, respectively, we'll talk. 'Til then...
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  02:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- You say it's already been featured like it matters. That didn't stop us from rewriting it, why should it stop us from refeaturing it? After all, it's a completely different article now. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:20, 20 Aug
- Against. I know I worked on this, but I don't think it's good enough. -- smug Ape (earn) (Riot Porn) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Against. It is too frantic in style, trying to cover a very big subject and aware it might bore the reader before they reach the end. --
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Against. For a subject so broad on a global scale I find this too Westernized. This article starts out funny, then becomes quickly Jewish-Christian. It would be great if it covered the WHOLE SUBJECT from every major religion on Earth. Then it's a full-fledged "God" article. Funnybony 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Bahai and variations (Abrahamic religions) are the primary religions that recognize just one God in the sense this article is written. It's already long; if everything was included, it would fill the entire Uncyclopedia! :) Miley Spears 20:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Againt. This continuous renomming of an already featured article is a little annoying whether it was colonised or not, it was good enough to feature back then, why should fix something that isn't broken? Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is the version that was featured. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- When somebody told me that was the featured version, I thought they had to be kidding. They weren't. Miley Spears 23:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
Abstain. Solid enough as an article and perhaps it will grow on me..or not..--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)- Comment. Jesus Christ, that's long. Going to have to read it in parts. Sir Sunbeam
no u F@H KUN 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- This just failed, yesterday. I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed. Frankly, it's going to take a while for the sense of deja vu to dissipate Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, after less than a day. I didn't even know it had been nommed till after it was pulled. Hardly a fair chance IMO. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:21, 20 Aug
- Don't blame me. My hands are clean. It was minus three. Minus three! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- People may still not know--clicking on God: "Please see this article's entry" sends people to the old nomination which says it's closed. Can this be fixed? Also some who voted against thought it was just a rewrite and not a completely new article, and said they would reconsider. Miley Spears 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I fix! I does! And, excuse me for sounding dull, but what's the difference between a rewrite of a page and a completely new article that happens to use the same name as it did before? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds more impressive if you say it's a completely new article. Much the same way as me telling the ladies my penis is a half foot long. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:40, 20 Aug
- OMG it is?! Most cocks are only 6 inches! OMG! Miley Spears 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey baby. /me smoothes back eyebrows. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:57, 20 Aug
- I don't know I'm new here. Maybe I didn't word it right. But I got that from a WotM nominee who previously voted against it saying it was just a rewrite, and then decided to reconsider when he learned it was a new article. What I meant is some people thought it was just some edits of a pre-existing article that had gotten really sucky and not a completely new one which it is. :) Miley Spears 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The weird thing is, according to the indents you're replying to yourself. I'm freaking out. Just a bit. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't believe the indents! They lie! Besides, I like talking to myself. OK I'll fix it. :) OK I just fixed it. But now it looks like you're replying to yourself! :D Miley Spears 18:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
CUN16:41, 19 Aug
For. And I saw it, and I said "If I say 'I saw that it was good' would that constitute blasphemy?" 
