| Article: Buddhism
|
Score: 4 holy grandmasters
|
| Nominated by:
|
Che  } 02:45,22February,2010
|
For: 5
|
 Bless. Just saw this one, and I laughed. Definitely better than most religion articles Che } 02:45,22February,2010- Bless per above. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:30, 23 February 2010
- For. InMooseWeTrust 05:11, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 ' —Paizuri MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC) - For. --Wilytank 18:47, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
|
Against: 1
|
- Against. I liked the start and expected the article to expand on the opening themes of non-violence and suggestible celebrities. Instead, it was mostly about Buddha getting stoned. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 12:35, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
 Comment. Wow, this voting turnout has been pretty pathetic... Che } 04:12,27February,2010
- I had mixed reasons for not showing an interest in visiting this vote page until now. I've read the article now, and I like it, but I usually pass on voting for this kind of subject. I can't explain very easily why I feel that way though. Sorry, mate. --nldr 02:21, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, never seen Uncyclopedians avoiding a touchy subject... Che } 02:54,1March,2010
- One good way to clear the Village Dump is to discuss any relationship issues you may have. --nldr 14:13, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain. I am always interested in writers taking on a big subject or re-editing an existing piece. However it seems unbalanced and concentrates on the Dalai Lama too much.
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 16:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
Bless. Just saw this one, and I laughed. Definitely better than 
' —
Comment. Wow, this voting turnout has been pretty pathetic... 
