Uncyclopedia:VFH/Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Essay in the Jones of text

Article: Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Essay in the Jones of text	Score: 4 tit-munching crocodiles
Nominated by:	*Style* *Guide* 05:50, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
For: 14	For. Submitting a rainbow for bulls to trample. *Style* *Guide* 05:52, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Revolutionary. FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 05:54, December 18, 2009 (UTC) no now i am even more of a cobweb —talk 05:55, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Allllllllllllllright! —RomanDogBird (Talk•Morgan Freeman•eat my shorts nigga•Hawkman•suck my balls) 06:07, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Piss poor I love it! -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 06:10, Dec. 18, 2009 For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 09:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC) For. Because I'm in it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:04, 18 December 2009 For. Per Romartus' misunderstanding of what an in joke is. Also, it's pretty funny and I voted to feature the article and this would go along nicely with it. Feature 'em both at the same time. -OptyC Sucks! CUN12:19, 18 Dec For. It made me laugh. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:41, December 19, 2009 (UTC) For Because everyone below are unfunny, over-thinking, idiots (When voting. I think many of them are quite funny writers). And that really annoys me. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 15:53, December 19, 2009 (UTC) For I don't even know why —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 05:25, December 20, 2009 (UTC) For Wow. ☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃☃ 09:58 December 23 For Changed my mind. If it's lol worthy then it's worth the front page - in-joke or not. Pup ..Because I'm clearly a massive uncyc user and my vote is needed to settle these matters. Testostereich 19:31, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
Against: 10	Against because I am incurably biased and hate everything • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 10:36, Dec 18 2009 Did you think someone needed a reminder or what? -- *Style* *Guide* 11:00, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Touché, Multi. Touché. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Saturday, 11:38, Dec 19 2009 On the usual - and good rule - about avoiding placing in jokes , user pages etc up for a VFH. *RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 11:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Against. Because I am a "tightass" and my first reaction on seeing this was not to seek out the author to congratulate him, but rather to check who needs ban patrolling for vandalising PEE review. ChiefjusticeDS 15:11, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Against. Even though I wrote a tiny part of this, my anal retentiveness makes me vote no. I don't want to encourage people screwing up the Pee Review process. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 21:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC) since when would this affect pee review in any way. also CDS i was asked to review the article in an appropriate manner, which I feel I did. need i add that i was a respected pee reviewer long before you were even on this site —talk 21:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I realise that you have done reviews, I didn't suggest at any point that you couldn't, I simply communicated my feelings upon looking at the page. You also appear to have misunderstood, my point was it looked like vandalism, I didn't say it was, also, no you didn't need to add that you have been doing reviews longer than me, as it isn't really relevant. I feel it shouldn't be a feature because I didn't find it pleasing to look at or to read. I have nothing against you personally or as a writer, but I have no interest in discussing the way I have voted further, I'm against, and that's how I plan to stay. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:17, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with someone doing a joke Pee Review; I've thought about doing one myself--but not in the Pee Review space. And also regardless of intent, I can imagine a swarm of would-be comics jumping on legitimately wanted pee reviews and screwing it up for those who sincerely want to be reviewed. If this is moved to somewhere outside of the Pee Review space, that's fine. But I still wouldn't vote for it as a feature, even if I found it hiliarious, because no one who doesn't know our Pee Review system would be likely to get it. King of the Internet Alden Loveshade??? (royal court) 02:39, December 19, 2009 (UTC) Against. per above Mn-z 06:14, December 19, 2009 (UTC) Against*. I've done a couple of joke PEE reviews, but when it comes down to it I still try and put in meat into the review to actually help the person writing the article. In fact, I just completed a review done in the style of* and then came here and saw what the comments on this are. But the long and the short of it is that although I have written reviews of a similar nature, I would never expect any of them to be nommed for front page, and I would likewise vote against them. I have nominated stuff like this for the humour factor of seeing it nommed, but never with the expectation of seeing it on front page. So while I think this is funny, and I enjoyed it, I think it's only funny to me because I'm on the inside of it looking out. To an outsider, this looks stupid. Pup Fail enough, my Puppy - which outsider were you thinking of? There are quite a few of them out there. Some of them even have similar sense of humour with you. -- *Style* *Guide* 09:39, December 20, 2009 (UTC) Take this discussion to the talk page, don't continue it in the middle of the votes. --UU - natter 09:42, Dec 20 Against. Illogicopedia already exists. Plus, while this is a fairly well-dresses word salad, a word salad it remains. I just don't find this funny, and as such I have to cast my "tightass" vote. --UU - natter 09:42, Dec 20 Voting against this because you don't find it funny is in no way tightass. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it is the best reason to vote against something. I actually give you a pat on the back for this, though I have no authority to, and my hands are greasy from eating all those potato chips.... should have gotten pringles. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:42, December 20, 2009 (UTC) I completely agree. You gave the best possible against reason UU (i hope that doesn't come across as sarcasm cos it wasn't supposed to...) —talk 17:45, December 20, 2009 (UTC) I agree with UU, but totally disagree with Fag agreeing with him. -- *Style* *Guide* 18:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC) Against. Incidentally, whatever happened to Natalie Imbruglia? You know, the girl who recorded "Torn" back in the mid-nineties. I always thought she had what it took to become the next pop starlet, but somehow she ended up relegated to obscurity. pillow talk 19:18, December 23, 2009 (UTC) Wasn't she with 10000 Maniacs for a while? Or was that before she got famous on her own? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:40, December 23, 2009 (UTC) No, man, I think that was, like, Natalie Portman. pillow talk 19:39, December 24, 2009 (UTC) No, I just looked it up. It was Natalie Merchant. Wasn't Natalie Portman that hot Jewish chick from Star Wars? Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:45, December 24, 2009 (UTC) Against There are several reviews much funnier than this. Feature all of those first, then bring this back. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:18, December 24, 2009 (UTC) ☃ Snowman... How could you have the audacity not only to claim my work as your own, not only ask for criticism and then blatantly disregard it, but to then attempt to gain praise by displaying the criticism to the masses? I, sir, spit upon your mockery of my work! Ж Kalir, Awesome Author_{(alliteration affords additional awesome)} 05:57, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Against. ~ 21:58, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
Comments	oh no words —talk 05:57, December 18, 2009 (UTC) The first bull. Would work great as an addition to Jones if that were featured. But on it's own it's not really that funny. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 08:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Comment. Yeah and of course nobody can find the article after reading the Pee. Stands to reason. *Style* *Guide* 09:01, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Good point, although made in an unecessarily sardonic way. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 09:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC OK - sorry about that. -- *Style* *Guide* 09:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Romartus, since when was this an injoke, and there's no Userspace here so there's no rule against it being nominated —talk 12:30, December 18, 2009 (UTC) We could fill up VFH with in jokes for the next six months. I think it would be a HUGE turn off for new writers. If I had seen a page like this on the front page , that would be my reaction. --*RomArtusImperator ®** (Orate) 13:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Did you even read what I said or what, cos that wasn't even a response. And I like how wherever you go you automatically assume yr opinion is shared by everyone else —talk 13:47, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Yes I read your reply. I don't know if my opinion is shared by anyone else but when ever articles like this have been placed up for VFH , they have usually been voted down for the reasons above in my NO vote. I am making the point of agreeing with that and that I am also concerned that if this gets the nod for VFH , it will just open the floodgates to all future articles like this getting here and getting voted on. Since what grounds could it be said not to be eligible ? --*RomArtusImperator ® (Orate) 14:08, December 18, 2009 (UTC) So what you're saying is that you want to eliminate the democratic process? "Oh no, if people vote for this, they might vote for something else I disapprove of! We can't have that, now can we?" The Ugandan Government Should Cease Existence. Yoweri Museveni can go die, too. Fuck Uganda. 17:18, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Comment. Would you mind continuing the discussion on some talk page, this or the article's, Mr Rule? Style Guide 14:19, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I have not read the actual page, so I am unable to comment on its funniness or not, but after reading this page, I must make my neccesary link to User:The Woodburninator/RulesVsFunny, and walk away. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:29, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I love you man. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:34, 18 Dec Recommendation. In the unlikely event that the tightasses actually let this get featured (as it should be) I would recommend removing all the comments before the review. They actually add nothing at all to the humor. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:43, 18 Dec I tried to do that with Talk:Sania Mirza, (deleted unimportant comments that didn't say much, or add to the comedy) and nearly got banned for it. I doubt it happens. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:54, December 18, 2009 (UTC) I think I enjoy the way it all comes in on something otherwise fairly civil —talk 21:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Comment. wow - Chief Justice is getting tough on you Fag! -- Style Guide 21:30, December 18, 2009 (UTC) chief justice ain't got shit on me dog i'm a badman —talk 16:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Comment. In all honesty, if this was the first Uncyc article I read, I would definitely come back for more. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 20:02, December 19, 2009 (UTC) Comment. Oh yeah and before I forget: Yakkety yakety yakkety yak. Obviously not to you Black Flamingo. Style Guide 09:40, December 20, 2009 (UTC) Comment. Yo, againsts, spread the word too! I nominated this just to have a bit of a dickfight here. It's not front page material for such a mediocre site. Style Guide** 10:54, December 20, 2009 (UTC)