Uncyclopedia:VFH/Rolex

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Rolex (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Rolex	Score: 13 proud owners of a good-looking timepiece
Nominated by:	Style  Guide 20:21, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
For: 14	For. Style  Guide 20:21, July 11, 2010 (UTC) For. I had to wind back my vote but still a yes for this one! RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:31, July 12, 2010 (UTC) For. If you want a Rolex, I know a bloke down the pub who sells genuine ones for £10. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 11:45, July 12, 2010 (UTC) For One paragraph in particular had me laughing for 10 minutes, even though I wrote it. An interesting story on how the page came about, comment below. Aleister 17:20 12 7  For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:47, 12 July 2010  For. Although I'm not sure which is funnier, the article, or the fact that Aleister bitched out a spam bot. Either way, funny stuff.--—John Lydon 14:26, July 13, 2010 (UTC)  Per my review. This article smacks of Douglas Adams-esque humor, and therefore I give my unconditional vote of approval. That and I've read the article through at least 4 times now. My vote should count four times over for that reason. -- Sf13 14:13 EST 13 July, 2010  Very Good. I laughed and laughed and laughed. Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 02:36, July 14, 2010 (UTC) For. maybe add another part in there again about how, no matter how much the technology and design has changed over the years, or the masking of crap, they still can not tell correct time or sync up with anyone elses expensive pos. -Maniac1075Complain Here 03:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC) For. GOOD! Funnybony    08:51, Jul 14 08:51, July 14, 2010 (UTC) For.--Sycamore (Talk) 18:15, July 14, 2010 (UTC) For. Yah. --UU - natter 15:53, Jul 15 For. I like Alerister's work, and this one is no different. M'su Carencro - Talk - Contributions - Blag 01:50, July 17, 2010 (UTC) For. Not my cup of tea, per se, but amusing nonetheless. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:09, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 1	This should be a double against to also count for Zimulator, but sadly, it is only mine. 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 08:20, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	Comment. Abstain. I don't want to vote against it only because I don't think it's very funny. Effort has been expended, and it should be judged by Uncyclopedians who are more in tune with this sort of humor. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 11:40, July 12, 2010 (UTC) History and Pee review A helpful and very nice Skinfan pee review. Well, a salesman for Rolex came to Uncy one fine day and set up an account, pretending to be a long time user who had been away for a few months. He now wanted to tell us about a wonderful watch he'd found. Just a sharin' with his buds at Uncy. So I reamed his ass on his talk page, then, remembering rule two, decided to make it up to him by writing an article instead. Some more about our salesman friend on the article's talk page Aleister 17:35 12 7 It's worth reading all the links Aleister has provided. I am fascinated that a desperate salesman comes on here, creates an account and then tries flog expensive watches to a bunch of libertarian anarchists on this site. I know there have been other strange types trying to sell military rations on here a few months ago but this one even came up with some fake story to add to the mix. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:21, July 13, 2010 (UTC) It's worth reading all the links Aleister has provided if you wish to see a man yell at a robot. -- 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 08:27, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Thank you Romartus. It's worth reading all the links because that's always part of the humour of the page. And yes, a watch is a robot, but one with a smiley face in some instances. As is a corporation. Aleister 9:57 13 7 It's worth ignoring user:thekillerfroggy. 98.217.88.250 23:10, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Keen idea, IP. -- 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 00:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC) Ah..so it was a clever spambot after all. You live and learn.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:30, July 14, 2010 (UTC) No, it was me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in at the time. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 11:26, July 15, 2010 (UTC) It's worth ignoring posts signed with an IP address. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 11:26, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Click to feature this article

Always check the feature queue first.

Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article. Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.