Uncyclopedia:VFH/Talk:This page does not exist

Article: Talk:This page does not exist	Score: 1 discussions
Nominated by:	Kip 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For: 9	Nomination Some people said they like the talk page better. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC) For. Made me laugh. Maybe it needs a good, solid introduction though. And besides, I haven't done anything stupid yet today. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 01:12 Aug 30, 2007 Gay Bowser --Roman Dog Bird 02:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) FORE, why not? - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC) For! That'd be so cool if the talk page made it! --YeOldeLuke 03:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC) For--*Sir* Manforman 12:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC) FORE!!! Wait, does my golf club exist? Oh wait, AQUARIUS, GIVE ME BACK MY GOLF CLUB!!! Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! For Just pretend that against votes do not exist.--Dr. Fenwick 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Fourty-two users have been banned for creating this page. EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank) 04:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Against: 8	No Just say "no" to vanity. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Surely trying to get one's own articles on the front page is a form of vanity, no? :P • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:28, 30 Aug 2007 A form of, yes. The same, no. Shades of grey, really. Perhaps I misspoke. Down with silly noms. Also, it's a mess (it looks like everybody has added their 2c), it needs pics and it's a wildly inconsistent take on an in-joke. Next you'll be nom'ing my conversations with my mother. Or your chats with my mother. shudder Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Against, on general principles. --Algorithm 05:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Against -RA HB 06:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Just say no to silly nominations. ~ Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p. 30/08/2007 @ 12:21 Against. ~ 12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Strong Against I actually had a really nice, long-winded response typed last night. The computer crashed and it all disappeared. However, my hatred of this nomination continues. There was no effort put into this by anybody. Just a bunch of one-off responses that are not very funny. Granted, some of the responses are humorously irreverent, but come on! There's been so fucking many of these types of responses on countless talk pages the wiki over! We don't feature those. Also, this is unnecessarily long, and very much useless. Considering the randomness of it, I compare this to when Star Wars was nominated for highlight. No way then, no way now.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Against - Say no to drugs, kids. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Against. I'm all for featuring novelty pages, but this isn't even novelty. It's just... a talk page. -- 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 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments	Wow, nice to know someone takes me seriously. Abs. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:04, Aug 30, 2007 Abs. This nom is pure idiocy, but the talk is funny. --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I really do wish the page could get some recognition. Maybe with a solid introduction or a good reskin it could be featured. I know it's Kip and all, but this page isn't like the other ones, it has effort and funny in it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:31 Aug 30, 2007 I would normally vote against this kind of stuff, but I started this one. So if it does get featured I claim the credit.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)