Uncyclopedia:VFH/3 Second Rule

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:VFH
Revision as of 06:04, July 16, 2010 by Thekillerfroggy (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


3 Second Rule (history, logs)

Article: 3 Second Rule

Score: 2 seconds

Nominated by: Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 06:36, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
For: 7
  1. Nom + Cajek. I always thought this was quite funny, and given the rapidly falling standards of VFH, I say it should definitely have a shot now. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 06:36, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Symbol for vote Sure. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 06:38, 9 July 2010
  3. For. 99.59.86.144 06:04, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Symbol for vote For. Made me laugh. --Some Idiot Image002 09:26, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
  5. For. I'd eat that rock. ~ Lyrithya sig daji Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100711 - 06:22 (UTC)
    On second thought, nevermind. Hyperbole's right. ~ Lyrithya sig daji Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100716 - 04:27 (UTC)
  6. For. Little sloppy, but a genuinely funny article. Megaman126512 05:09, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
  7. For. Meh... it's OK. Zimbuddha Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 11:51, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
  8. For. Nice. Pretty good article. Yours Falsely, . . . . 00:48, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Against: 5
  1. Symbol against vote Against. Eh. --Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Friday, 06:46, July 09 2010 UTC
  2. Against. Kinda sloppy. Plus I don't know where this talk about VFH's falling standards is coming from. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:58, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Symbol keep vote Almost but no martini The idea is very good but the writing, imnho, needs some tweaking. The best ideas ought to have the most hours in the edit chamber to polish the thing and make it shine, and this has the potential to go that route. Aleister 20:19 9 7
  4. Against. I like the idea and runs reasonably well but let down by random story additions (relevance of Batman and Riddler for example?) to become a feature. LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:56, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Against. A lot of the wording is, honestly, bad. The lede appears to flat-out contradict itself. Some of the sentences are borderline ungrammatical. Needs work before it can go to feature. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 01:18, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
  • Re: Guildernsiteinsineinineisni: To quote someone who very recently voted on that UnNews about the camera: "It's not special, but it's featurable." About every week someone says something terribly depressing like this. If that doesn't indicate falling standards, then I don't know even what. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 06:30, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's interesting that you only hear about VFH's standards falling, isn't it? Never rising. No one ever says, "Hey, looks like them featured articles are gettin' good again." Which leads me to conclude we've been gradually sucking more since 2005.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  formspring) 01:28 Jul 16, 2010

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Personal tools
projects