From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
VFG Archive 1
 | 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. |
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
meh --Mnb'z 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: -2
|
| Good |
- Close enough semi-unlinked to page that I think is slightly amusing. --Mnb'z 20:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
- Not Promoted --Mnb'z 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- fwhore just failed VFH. --Mnb'z 08:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- For and at some point we should probably have a rule that six "for" votes on VFH can just be directly promoted to the list.
 pillow talk 22:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good. IronLung 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
Promoted. --Absolutely Not Benson 21:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
 For.. --Absolutely Not Benson 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
- meh --Mnb'z 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
Promoted --Mnb'z 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- Funny stub found while image categorizing. --Mnb'z 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- For. What are you talking about? The images weren't categorized at all. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- For. Random as all hell, but has some excellent lines and a pretty hilarious picture. pillow talk 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
For.. --Absolutely Not Benson 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
- I was doing a rodent image blitz, I just clicked on that out of curiosity. --Mnb'z 19:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Promoted--Mnb'z 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +5
|
| Good |
- Good what I would call a quasi-quasi feature, was at +7, but didn't make quasi feature. --Mnb'z 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a good article, and anything that got more than 6 for votes on VFH almost certainly belongs on the VFG list. pillow talk 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
For.. --Absolutely Not Benson 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- For bunnies. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
- Promoted --Mnb'z 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- Nom+For. Let's burn in hell. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Whore vote: Cmon' it's a parody of anthropomorphic Jesus saturation not an exploitation thereof.--
   23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good. IronLung 04:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let's all jump on the bandwagon!--J-Shea 03:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
- Just interested in some feedback. Could the text be reformatted into VFH material? As-is it's just a fun, goofy page with lots of images.-- 20:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I will never try to VFH this in any way. I'm still vividly remembering the extreme indignation of a few people who almost soiled themselves over it.-- 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, I copied your comment from the thingy below. You can just remove it if you want. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It gives us something to talk about....so, come here often?-- 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Once in a while... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fascinating.......I hear that little bastard groundhog Phil claimed winter wasn't over recently-- 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds very interesting... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain. It's really well put together, but it was so painfully self-conscious and apologetic for its own existence that it kind of turned me off, honestly. pillow talk 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wow!. Constructive negative criticism from someone who clearly read it with an open mind! I appreciate the effort. You are correct sir, the article wallows in apologizing for itself from start to finish, which was intentional.-- 08:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- Good first image is funny, along with the intro. --Mnb'z 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good. IronLung 04:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this is exactly what VFG is all about. Too weird for feature, and yet: kicks ass. pillow talk 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
abstain I'd have the feeling that it would be funny if I got the reference. --Mnb'z 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- THE ANSWER YOU SEEK IS PROVIDED WITHIN THE ARTICLE ITSELF! IT IS TRUE AND ALL POWERFUL. CONSIDER YOURSELF EDUCATED! Also, if you missed the link at the end: http://www.timecube.com/ -OptyC Sucks!
 CUN17:47, 20 Feb
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- P.S.: wow. I can finish a sentence without expletives or whoring. Oh, never mind.
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: -2
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
- Meh. It's got some hilarious stuff in there, but honestly, I suspect that most of it is stolen from other websites. Also: contains many jokes well past their expiration date. pillow talk 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- per above quite cliche. --Mnb'z 05:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Shit. IronLung 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
Not promoted. IronLung 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: -2
|
| Good |
fwhore first rewrite. --Mnb'z 19:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
- Conditional against unless it fails VFH, in which case for. Seriously, this is fucking brilliant. pillow talk 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- self against clutter removal. This is probably going to be dead for days. --Mnb'z 17:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Why are you voting against it if its VFH worthy? I can see you point in not wanting a featured or quasi-featured on the list of good articles. But, it make take weeks for it to get off VFH. Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for it now, then strike it from the list if and when it gets featured or quasi featured? --Mnb'z 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know. I don't want features on the VFG list, and I'm not totally sure what to do if something is so hilarious you nom it. I think what I am gonna do is wait a day or two to see how it does on VFH and then reappraise the situation. pillow talk 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, I didn't think this article was that good. It only got a 5 on humor on the last review. But that does raise the issue of what to do with the occasional VFH worthy article that gets here.
- I'd say we should have a policy of putting any article that is nominated for VFH and fails on this list. Except those that are almost unanimously rejected, i.e. finish at a net -3 or worse, and have 3 or fewer gross for votes. People would have already read the article, so the revote won't take much work.--Mnb'z 02:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather handle that informally than make it policy :) But, sure, part of my whole idea with VFG was a way to spotlight articles where people can't agree on whether or not they're awesome. Hence the "6 for votes = promoted" rule. pillow talk 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea what do with articles that get VFH nommed when then are on this list. I would suggest voiding the nomination, so we don't have nominations sitting in limbo for weeks. It can always be renominated here. --Mnb'z 05:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not Promoted, on VFH --Mnb'z 18:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- Nom+4. I think this is great. Again, doubt it would get featured due to its niche nature, but it's definitely good. --UU - natter
 15:39, Feb 13
- Holy crap That's brilliant. pillow talk 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thom Yorke has discovered Uncyc. --Nachlader 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hallucinogenic. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- For seeing how many people will vote for this. --Mnb'z 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- For. It's overlong, but the intro is very, very funny. pillow talk 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- For. This is the first article I recreated. --Meganew 15:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good. IronLung 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- For. It starts out well, though it's quite long and stuff. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 12:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
- Um. Uselessly over-long, hard for me to even understand, repetitive images, some flat jokes. It went well at the start though. --Nachlader 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: -2
|
| Good |
- Self-Nom. Would be interested in hearing what people think of this, since I'm not going to bother PEE with it. --Nachlader 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
- Having trouble with this one. The parody of Google Earth/ Google Ocean seems a little unclear to me. pillow talk 19:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Not Good. --Meganew 17:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- meh per above --Mnb'z 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments |
- Comment. In response to Hyperbole, Google recently released 'Google Ocean', they probably still have the note referring to it on the Google main page. Also, the article provides a source. If this isn't what you meant, then I'm confused. --Nachlader 19:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- What I mean is, I understand what it's about, but I don't understand specifically what about Google Ocean, or the public reaction to Google Ocean, or the public reaction to Google Earth, it parodies. pillow talk 19:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I'm unsure about the general reaction to Google Ocean, but my initial thought was that it was like they made a program for people who can't be bothered to go out and see the ocean for themselves (hinted by the final quote) and that they don't know a single thing about the ocean prior to the Google program. I don't speak for others, obviously, but that was my reaction and I thought I could see an UnNews article via a parody. --Nachlader 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. I just don't think the concept comes out quite strong enough in the article itself, since the article seems to imply that mankind itself has never seen the ocean. Maybe if it were more clear that the journalist was just an ignoramus. Might have to modulate into first-person a little to accomplish that. Just my $0.02. pillow talk 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was in a pickle over how I'd address the article as a journalist: plainly, I wanted to mimic a journalist who uses puns in their stories ("that won't sink to the bottom anytime soon", "testing of the waters" etc), as I've been watching a lot of The Day Today recently. I wasn't too confident about writing as someone who is evidently very overexcited and astonished by the 'discovery'. This was my first UnNews article, I don't usually think of such ideas, so I didn't want to miss out on the punsome journalist opportunity. I see what you mean about the concept, which may have been the gap I sensed, but didn't quite identify. Frankly, I'm glad with the first effort anyway. --Nachlader 19:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not promoted. pillow talk 19:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
- Yes. A little jumbled, but really pretty hilarious. pillow talk 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, ma'am. Messy, but funny. --Nachlader 19:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It gets my support. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 09:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Close enough --Mnb'z 17:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
- Promoted via rules. --Meganew 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Score: +4
|
| Good |
|
| Not Good |
|
| Comments |
|
Fwhore It brings all the boys to the yard? 
