Uncyclopedia:VFH/Edit history

Article: Edit history	Score: -4 edits
Nominated by:	NXWave 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For: 4	A unique article that pushes the boundries of Uncyclopedia. --NXWave 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC) IN BED I GET IT! Weasel 3689 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC) oh MY! HE DOES "GET IT"! Apparently, another one of my articles is up here Le Cejak • <-> 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 4. Shiny... Me likes the shiny... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:02, Oct 28 I like. Manforman actually brings up a good point when he says it isn't injokey for anyone who's ever used any sort of wiki before. I disagree with everything else he said, though. Self-reference has been featured before, and I see no reason why it should stop doing so. -- TKFU 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 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Against: 8	Against - an excellent article for Uncyclopedia, but an article in this style can't be featured--*Sir* Manforman 16:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Against — because it's cliquey at more than one level. Featuring this would estrange most people. (I wouldn't say "can't", only that I think it's inadvisable.) SmackBot 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Weak Against It's freakin' awesome, but I must question it's featureability. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Saddened against I lovez this article, and I don't think it's too in-jokish, but I think it would look horrible on the main page. --THE 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Against. Nice article, but not featureable by any standards. --General And Min. THE DUDE MAN 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Against. Although it pains me to vote this way, as I love the article, but I think featuring this would confuse any non-regular visitors (more even than some in-jokes), and isn't that who the feature is primarily aimed at? --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 10:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Against. As per all above me. ~ 13:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Against I changed my mind. I hope you guys didn't hate it or anything! -- Le Cejak • <-> 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments	Good-- in fact, EXCELLENT reviews on this. There is a controversy, however, about whether it's too in-jokey. I think it isn't, and neither does this article -- Le Cejak • <-> 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) It's not that, it's just that a spoof of a Wiki function, eh, I can't see how it could be featured. Unique but not-funny, still, I am impressed that you were able to come up with this--*Sir* Manforman 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I meant it's self reference really wouldn't make it look good on the main page, basically what THE said--*Sir* Manforman 01:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Also, my other concern is the colors are slighlty off, that could easily be fixed however--*Sir* Manforman 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) So you're voting against something simply because it wouldn't look good? We've featured uglier -- TKFU 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 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) You've almost swayed me TKF. If looking ugly on was the only reason I voted against, I'd indeed strike out the against vote and change it to a for, but the humo(u)r relies on the self reference, but as you said, self references have been featured before. The only reason I'm voting against is per the other againsters, it's not featurable--*Sir* Manforman 01:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC) We would just have a picture be the front page. The page uses 3 or 4 different pictures. Remember when Red light was featured? -- Le Cejak • <-> 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) A picture of what? -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 10:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Abstain. I like it, but not really for featuring. Vaguely reminds me of this one I did, which also should probably never be featured. --So So 10:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)