Uncyclopedia:VFH/Symphony in Z Minor

Article: Symphony in Z Minor	Score: 7 whores, spermatozoa, penises, trips to the future
Nominated by:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:18, 28 November 2010
For: 12	Nom+For. Someone gave this a score of 42 in a Pee Review, so it must have some redeeming value. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:18, 28 November 2010 For based entirely on the Socky's recommendation Sir Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Pisz tutaj} • KUN 01:22, November 28, 2010 (UTC) For. A mistresspiece. Funny bony 08:59, Nov 28 08:59, November 28, 2010 (UTC) Flour You had me at "Fucking Aliens". Read this yesterday, but had to praise Socky (below) before voting for it. Historical pieces are opium to my poppy farmers. Aleister 10:27 28 11 For. Though I think the whole jizz/cock thing is a bit overdone, it's still a good article. Also, I feel my pee review would have been much less manic than Socky's, had I actually done it like I said that I would back when. Yeah. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 06:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC) For. Mrowa 21:41, December 3, 2010 (UTC) For. It seems like most of the featured articles are psychotic rants of some kind. Not that that's bad.... ,':-( sir Ch00_Bakka )-:', 00:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC) For. Shabidoo 02:46, December 8, 2010 (UTC) Having read it again I've decided I love it. --Black Flamingo 19:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC) For. M &M (christmas mood) 11:30, December 15, 2010 (UTC) ' Fucking For'--If you're 555 then I'm Talk What's it like to be a heretic? 23:35, December 15, 2010 (UTC) For. I'm not quite sure why, but I really like this. Successful silliness. -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 23:53, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 5	Against. Like all articles written from the idiot narrator viewpoint, just seems an excuse to throw in unfunny crudity and random in my opinion. *RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 11:45, November 28, 2010 (UTC) against --121.219.39.246 22:52, December 10, 2010 (UTC) Okay, okay, I admit... I read it. Unfortunately, some ranty things work, and some really don't - to me, this is just too much random and... well, what Romartus said. Unfunny crudity and random. Could have at least been funny crudity and/or random. 1 2 3 4 ~ 03:40, 16 December 2010 Against*. I gave it my full attention, but it just didn't work for me. Seemed to try too hard to be off-the-wall, and ended up falling flat on its face as a result. --UU - natter 14:44, Dec 20* Against.--58.164.117.64 08:12, December 28, 2010 (UTC) Against. Definitely no. I just don't get it Scofield 08:22, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Comments	Abstain. Having read that review, I now have no desire to read the actual article... so, er... ~ shifty eyes (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 01:24 (UTC) MUHAHAHA! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:36, 28 November 2010 I'm, er... not sure that's a good thing, Socky... ~ shifty eyes (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 01:42 (UTC) MUHAHAHA! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:36, 28 November 2010 You should at least read it before you abstain. --Black Flamingo 15:29, November 28, 2010 (UTC) Eh? What else would I do, admit that I actually did read it so I could check Socky's review? Never. I'm abstaining. ~ shifty eyes (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101128 - 15:32 (UTC) Not a problem mate, I'm thinking of doing the same actually. Although I'll probably have to read it first. --Black Flamingo 15:39, November 28, 2010 (UTC) Pluckin' feature the pee review and you'll have a one day wonder. I'd do it myself if I was here, which I'm not right now and if I were it would only be for a few minutes. The pee review makes me want to read the article someday. I've only known for a month or so that Socky is a madman, so I've been enjoying that discovery, and I'd nom that discovery and vote For. if I were here. Aleister 2:07 28 11