From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: UnNews:Ontario man unable to find girlfriend, builds one instead
|
Score: -2.5 celibate losers
|
| Nominated by:
|
142.68.151.223 17:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 4.5
|
- based on a true story, the real one is almost as funny as the one on here, i bet he's doing stuff to it 142.68.151.223 17:02, 1 January 2009(UTC)
- for this article is too close to the truth but its still hilarious --Uncle J 18:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- for, i can't see why ppl would even vote against this --142.167.210.61 21:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- for, i think it is feature worthy --James Rideout 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is just good enough. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- For. lol 60.48.226.208 08:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 7
|
- Not quite feature worthy --Mnbvcxz 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Against. IronLung 18:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good concept, poor execution. It needs some serious work, but this could be featurable someday. Unfortunately, that day is not today. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Against as per SysRq, although I'm not quite as keen on the concept. –—Hv (talk) 1/01 22:57
- No thank you. The backstory was longer than the actual "news" part of the article, and the last couple of paragraphs were too graphic for my taste. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:22, Jan 2
- Against --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- No thanks. Comma splice in the first paragraph. Racial stereotyping and sexual explicitness instead of actual jokes. Not for me.
 pillow talk 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
- Comment: Possible vote-rigging here? All three IP's have been 142.*.*.*, two 142.68.*.* (James Rideout initially signed as another 142.68 on the fourth vote). Just noting that, as it seemed a bit suspicious. –—Hv (talk) 1/01 22:57
the IP address I use is a static one, the other 142.68 vote is someone else, the other one is 142.167 not 142.68, not everything is a conspiracy --James Rideout 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's merely pointing out that it's possible. It's happened in the past. Plus, we have all of the established users voting against, and two not-as-well-known users plus two IPs voting for. At the very least, this merits a second look. And yes, everything IS a conspiracy. This very comment is a conspiracy against something or other, I haven't decided yet. I mean, we haven't decided yet. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain. I'm starting a third conspiracy, but may eventually join one of the other conspiracies once I have time to read the article. I'd have time now, but conspiracies are remarkably time consuming. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
