Nom & for Just cause it may be "outdated" doesn't mean it isn't funny. Cause this is funny. Very funny. Funny enough so I think it should be featured. It isn't as funny as A wizard did it, though. Only one thing is. This needs to be featured, though. Okay, I'll shut up. MegaPleb•Dexter111344•Complain here 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
For. Even though the author is all cocky and shit. -OptyCSucks! CUN21:59, 19 Jun
For. I might be biased, but I think it's well-written and funny, too. •••Necropaxx(T){~}20:30, Jun 20
This is a strong against. I don't know how anybody could even consider votingforon this article. it is a horrible travesty with absolutely no purpose on this wiki. I would like to throw big, sharp rocks at the author. ! ~~SirFightstarRocks!CUN 06:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
For. Because I love bunnies. Dame 07:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Against: 2
Against. It needs a 'new nose' and an update to make it work as a VFH.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Against. I just didn't laugh this time round. :/ Orian57Talk15:09 21 June 2009
Comments
Abstain. Not because it's outdated, I don't care about that. I remember reading this a while back and being like "meh". Then I read it again and was like "meh". So now all I have to give you is a "meh". Sorry. —SirSysRq (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Abstain mehfulness, and its datedness isn't helping. Mn-z 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
abstain. still too many bunnies, and the tone is a little off for an informercial-y piece. i liked it better than last time though, so i won't vote against. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm 32% +6~ This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 07:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.