Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnBooks: The Lost Introduction to Walden

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

UnBooks:The Lost Introduction to Walden (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: UnBooks:The Lost Introduction to Walden	Score: 15 beautiful mushrooms, sitting gracefully beneath a tree, beside underbrush, and pinecones...
Nominated by:	Guildensternenstein 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
For: 15	Nom & For. I think this is one of my better things. If anyone has ever had the misfortune of reading any of Walden, than hopefully you find this amusing as well. If not; well then fuck you. ... Just kidding. --Guildensternenstein 17:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) For. The repetition worked and I got the "who the fuck does this guy think he is" feeling.--    20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) for. a rather gripping account, which is why i decided to vote for, upon the completion of reading this account of walden, which was so gripping, that i decided to vote for. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) For. pre above. Mnb'z 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) He goes on for like 6 pages about chasing a bird around his pond. They made me read that part of an excerpt earlier this year. You were supposed to learn about transcendentalism; I learned that Edgar Allen Poe could beat up Thoreau and Emerson at once with one hand tied behind his back. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 06:55, Feb 19  For.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) For. Rather excellent. --UU - natter 14:04, Feb 19 For. I have not had the misfortune of reading Walden, but I still enjoyed the article. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:30, Feb 19 For. It would probably be appropriate to post my "Transcendentalism Rap" song right now. Seriously, I have one. - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 17:14, Feb 19 For. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) I planned to abstain as I have not read Walden and felt that I could not properly vote for or against this article. However, seeing just how well done it is, and just how funny and rather insane it is, I now feel I can not properly vote any way other than for this article. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) For. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 13:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC) For. IronLung 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) For Nice ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 16:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Against: 0	No against votes
Comments	Guildensternenstein, do you have a Pee Review? It is a self-nom, after all. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:31, Feb 19 No. It's on the "articles that need reviewing" list. Part of the reason I nom'd this to see how it do because no one took a look at it and I had no way of gauging how good it was. Based on the reception it's got thusfar, I guess it is a good article after all haha. But yeah, no Pee Review, sorry. --Guildensternenstein 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, well as long as it's been up for a week, the nom's good. Good luck! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:38, Feb 20

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.