Uncyclopedia:Reviewer of the Month/archive4

2012

March

Shabidoo (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 4

•  Nom&For For writing 16 in-depth and quality pee reviews in one week for the Happy Monkey contest. I may have read all his reviews, and each of them were full of helpful edit and storyline ideas and all the other good things a good pee review is known for. He won this recently yet possibly earned another go at it for his Happy Monkey batch of bananas. Aleister 16:17 2-3-'12
• Sure. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Despite not quite reaching Chief's output of 1,111 for February, I think he deserves this. Pup 03:21 04 Mar '12
• For ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:26, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. It takes something very special to be worthy of two of these, and he ain't there yet. On the right track, though, perhaps. 1234 ~ 17:47, 5 March 2012
• For Oh yes, he bust his ass off writing the Happy Monkey's Pee reviews, while we other judges just said things like "Good job!" He deserves it. Mattsnow 18:46, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

  Also, why didn't the reviews he did for Mappy Monkey count as "real" reviews? Uh? Mattsnow 02:23, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Lyrithya (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 3

• If we really, really really have to give this out again, can we give it to our fourth highest-rated reviewer of all time please. --Black Flamingo 23:33, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. I like her. Pretty sure she hates me though, but that's aside the point... --Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა)   04:35, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
• She gave me a good one. On pee review. Behind the barn. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:43, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
•  Ethereal against. Somone's probably going to be pissed at me for voting against here, but my rationale is that the RotM is actually of the Month. While I agree that Lyrithya's total output is something commendable, based upon just last month the largest number of reviews was definitely Shabby, even if they weren't official reviews. And I like italics, okay? Pup 04:46 10 Mar '12

  You still only get one vote. 1234 ~ 05:59, 10 March 2012

  Fair call. Fixed. Pup 10:08 10 Mar '12

  I'd already fixed it. I'm magical like that. And covered in mold spores. 1234 ~ 10:53, 10 March 2012

PuppyOnTheRadio (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 0

• Nom (I already voted) He writes great reviews at an alarming rate, I think he's overheating. Mattsnow 05:54, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Black flamingo11 (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 283

• This guy gave me a great review once. --Black Flamingo 11:59, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd vote for him, but he still hasn't finished doing a review for me. Pup 12:01 10 Mar '12
• He finished my review, so a Spiritual for, as I'm already supporting Shabby. Nominally Humane! 10:09 19 Mar

April

PuppyOnTheRadio (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 5

• Nom and for. EIGHTEEN in-depth reviews last month. Scary, but true. Mattsnow 09:43, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
• He should really pick it up to one a day, but I guess he deserves this for giving it a go. Aleister 11:53 6-4-'12
• 18???? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:49, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
• Puppy recently overtook Lyrithya in the PEEING chart. Yes I am afraid. --Black Flamingo 13:15, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. An inspiring performance. --ChiefjusticeWii 18:25, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

<insert name here>

Score: 0

1. Nom High quality reviews ooze out like fluids from a frog in wringer. Nominally Humane! 09:36 06 Apr
2.  Strong against! Possibly one of the worst reviewers on this site. Seriously, the last time I did a review was like... I can't even remember. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 13:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

June

Iwillkillyou333 (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 1

• Nom and for. Iwillkillyou333 is an interesting case. He's been around quite a while now, he's written 70+ pee reviews, and he's never won this. Sure, some of his reviews are a bit short, others are barely comprehensible, but according to the PEEING big-wigs, at least 40 of them were actually pretty good. Why he hasn't won this yet is hardly a mystery, but I say it's long overdue for a guy who has been helping out at pee review for much longer than most other users. --Black Flamingo 14:00, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ferric AlFerrous (talk) – contribs (new • del) • edit-count • block (rem • list) • all logs • groups • checkuser

Score: 4

• Nom. This guy has also been doing some good work. If anyone bothered to look at pee review these days he probably would have been nommed by now. Keep it up both of you! --Black Flamingo 14:00, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. This guy. --ChiefjusticeWii 15:57, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. Mattsnow 16:58, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. I'm going to give my vote for this dude. He's done more recently than I have (I did one last month and it really waasnt that good). Though I have yet recieve this award during my long tenure on Pee Review, I don't mind waiting another month or two.---   TALK What's it like to be a heretic? 19:14, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. He does reviews, thats a plus. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 09:26, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Awards, Decorations and Honours