This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
I laughed ...Unfortunately, not at this. There's not nearly enough Canadians and chainsaws in this picture. --Sir Seeker(Call me?) |KUN|VFP| 17:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Against. On the basis that somehow, I don't understand how the caption "Insert image caption here" goes with this picture. Also, who's Insert image credits here? I don't know them! (But yeah, this would go with UnNews funnies more than here.) --Mr. MonkeyPant-hoot here. 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Against. Nowhere near VFP standard. Sorry, but it's the truth. -- Sir CodeineK·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Against, although Codeine lies. We don't have standards. Standards are for pussies and pinkos. This is America, damn it. If we wanted standards, we'd move to Europe. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 13:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
For Dammit! It's time those neopets who like other neopets of the same gender were given the rights of other neopet couples. That's what I think our friend here is trying to show... or 3 puppies being sick in a blender, I really can't tell. --SirDJ~Irreverent 09:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Against. It looks like something username would come up with. Yes, I can't even be bothered to completely type in that thing with the username and the template and the people getting confused and angry and laughing and the like. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Self nom and forWallabee218 08:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Against Votes: 5
Against Well, this isn't original at all...Oh, wait, I see, you've put a halo on the cat and some horns on Bush. I almost missed those, they looked so real. --Sir Seeker(Call me?) |KUN|VFP| 10:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Against. I really should start making standalone 'chops again. Most of these noms suck, and suck hard. Compared to the mind behind this, I'm a fucking genius. Yes, I swore. It was apropo. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
If my comment sounds harsh, Wallabee218, keep in mind that it takes time and practice to go from a noob Uncyclopedian who makes kitten huffing jokes to a grizzled comedy or satire veteran who has the necessary experience to frame a bad idea in a way to disguise the fact that, even after years at Uncyc, they still have no idea what they're doing. If you stick with it, the caterpillar that is you will eventually bloom into the flower of the comedy of a mixed metaphor. Unless you're Mhaille. Then you continue to just make jokes about cock. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 13:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The toaster is a ferocious predator, employing the "sneak-up-and-pounce" technique to great effect. Here, on the wide open plains of America's breadbasket we see the full ferrocity of this electronic killing machine, the slice of bread doesn't have a chance.
Weak for There was a discovery show on Family Guy about fire trucks, so it's already been done...On the other hand, it hasn't been done enough. The world will benefit from your knowledge of toasters. --Sir Seeker(Call me?) |KUN|VFP| 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I shall never trust my toaster again. Ever. ~ 07:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
For Without the cartoon spring thing, I wouldn't have laughed as hard. – Preceding unsigned comment added by I2Drunk2Edit (talk • contribs) diff
Medium rare For. Not the greatest VFP nom EVAR, but it's OK. -- Sir CodeineK·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Against Votes: 8
against Well, I'd like to for it, because it is a nice funny and absurd concept. But seriously, the little....cartoony, line thingy, needs some touchup. Fix that and I'm a for all the way. -RAHB 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Against The line does hurt it. Extremelyestlybored 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain: I like the concept (enough to abstain instead of againsting), but the toast looks awkward to me. Fix the toast. Then renom. --Mr. MonkeyPant-hoot here. 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Since when has making something look realistic been a criterion? •••Necropaxx(T){~}01:01, Oct 15
Removed About a month, +0 -RAHB 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Nom-For. Seeing the dire straits that VFP is in, I decided to nom one of my favorite images from Snakes on a Plane. Here goes. •••Necropaxx(T){~}21:35, Oct 29
Why not? Its not like there's a time limit for when a picture is "worthy", especially considering that the pictures are cycled randomly anyway. Anyways, its perfectly nonsensical, though I would have liked an image solely of a badger with a pipe and a wide brimmed hat --Nytrospawn 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Against Votes: 5
Against. Terrifyingly random picture based on an idea that has literally been done to death. Literally. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 08:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Per Modus. Literally. All types of literal. Yes, even that type. -RAHB 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Before getting into advertisements depicting romanticized American life, Norman Rockwell dabbled in the production of ransom notes. This piece was done under an alternate pen name for a business acting as a front for a leftist military organization.
For Because this image is very deserving of this and is the work of the late great Famine --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Against Votes: +7
Against because while the scenery outside the window was nicely done, the window itself (or at least the window frame) wasn't.--PaddyAtkinson 14:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Just another blurry photo on a wall bites the dust.--LOLsupreme 09:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Against per above, window frame looks too blurry--Mnbvcxz 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Against. Not a great chop, plus it's not funny. --UU - natter09:26, Nov 18
Against. What's so funny about this? Ethereal 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
N+F This is a great image that was brought to our attention from a bad article the image is very good the article its on is not. I felt that this image is good enough that I believe it should be a featured image. (and should be used on more articles) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Against Votes: 5
Against. Could you make the text smaller and the text bubbles more pixelated? I need to work on my squint. Also, I'm sure that the backstory to this would make the frontstory more funnier if not, dare I hope, most funniest. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Against. Text based. And, as Modus, observes, difficult-to-read, squinty text at that. Plus, doesn't make me laugh, particularly with no context. --UU - natter09:48, Nov 19
Against. I have nothing against text-based picture jokes per se, but I find this neither funny nor creative. Ethereal 16:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
No. Ethereal said it for me. •••Necropaxx(T){~}16:41, Nov 19
I'm pretty sure that this isn't original. I'd google it, but I have grown weary of backing my rhetoric with facts. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
For. The head does look odd, but that sometimes adds funniness to a picture. RabbiTechno 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
PHOR It's not that great, but the fuck that John Cena getting hypnotized is disgracing the front page. ColinALL YOUR BASEHeaney!Casa BeySuperfly Portfolio 03:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Fore as per Colin. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Against. They don't need green eyes because they are already that way. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who didn't understand it, please let me clarify. This piece implies that Bob Ross has the power to paint never-ending portraits. These portraits can be entered by those daring enough to venture inward... Hopefully you understand now, if not that is okay, or maybe you just don't like it. Either way, I don't mind. Just felt it would be good frontpage material. Rbpolsen♦☺ 06:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
FAIL. 
For....Psyche! 
06:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)