From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Uncyclopedia
|
Score: 6 self-referential votes for a self-referential article
|
| Nominated by:
|
Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 11
|
- Nom+For. Sycamore did a major rewrite on this one, and I love what he's done with it. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- For--
   23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- For. Wow, a lot better than the last time I looked at it.
 JediBob Things I've said Things I've done 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- For --Mnbvcxz 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- For - so long as featuring Uncyclopedia on Uncyclopedia won't break the Internet, like Googling Google does. Rabbi Techno
 kvetch  Contribs  FOXES 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 self for — Sir Sycamore (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)- For I'm digging what he did to it. Colin
 ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Finally this article stopped sucking. And it only took, what, four years? —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- For. It's us in a nutshell. A large, virtual nutshell. --UU - natter
 13:09, Jan 7
- For -- An inspiring job. See my review. BlueYonder
 - CONTACT
- For. Silver-uk 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 5
|
- Against. Still needs more work on continuity and some shaving off of memes. --
 15Mickey20  (Ho ho ho to Mickey) 20:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Against. Chock-full of in-jokes that would be funny to almost no one not voting on this very page. Plus, featuring an article on ourselves makes us all look, in my opinion, like a bunch of douchebags. This one has to be top-notch quality just because it does - not for VFH.
 pillow talk 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Against - I have to agree with Hype here. It's a lot better than the old version, but it lingers way too much on things like forum in-fighting and memes that, if the article was on another site other than Uncyc, would probably be shot down for vanity. It's a fairly good article, just doesn't work for VFH IMO. –—Hv (talk) 11/01 18:32
- Against Nice work, but this is not ready yet. MrN
 22:37, Jan 12
- Per Hype. It's got to be revolutionary if we're going to feature it. -RAHB 07:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
- Abstain -- i dunno. I'm just not feeling it. Oh well. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:19, Jan 5
- Comment - Mickey, I'll take a look at the flow and see what I can do - although I have not seen anything myself. With regards to memes etc - this article is the exception on that rule, I could not really imagine an article about ourselves without some in-jokes and self parody - although I have cut out the very bad ones like Cap Obvious, the ones there I think work pretty well. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
self for — 
