Uncyclopedia:VFH/Flag Burning Amendment

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:VFH(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(←Voted for)
(Add comment in {vfh failed})
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|nom={{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:46 7-Mar-13</small> 21:46, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
|nom={{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:46 7-Mar-13</small> 21:46, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 
|scoretext=readers who think "desecration" has to do with poo
 
|scoretext=readers who think "desecration" has to do with poo
|fornumber=4
+
|fornumber=5
 
|for=
 
|for=
 
#{{For|Self-nom and For.}} This was a crufty article that attracted more cruft overnight, and is now a fresh new rewrite. It was that or [[UN:VFD|Votes for Deletion]]. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:46 7-Mar-13</small>
 
#{{For|Self-nom and For.}} This was a crufty article that attracted more cruft overnight, and is now a fresh new rewrite. It was that or [[UN:VFD|Votes for Deletion]]. {{User:SPIKE/signature}}<small>21:46 7-Mar-13</small>
Line 9: Line 9:
 
#'''For'''. {{User:Romartus/sig2}} 10:35, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 
#'''For'''. {{User:Romartus/sig2}} 10:35, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
 
#'''For'''. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 12:52, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
 
#'''For'''. {{User:Simsilikesims/sig}} 12:52, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
|againstnumber=0
+
#'''For'''. A great article: the construction is very good, jokes are fresh, and, finally, what I mostly like, is that there is truth as well as humor. I would like more articles like this one. But, in some parts of it, it seemed that the article is losing its Uncyclopediness, especially because of the vocabulary used. {{User:Anton199/sig}} 10:54, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
  +
|againstnumber=3
 
|against=
 
|against=
  +
#'''Against'''. {{User:Kamek98/sig2}} 23:24, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
  +
#'''Against''' Not that funny. It could be better. [[User:ScottPat|ScottPat]] ([[User talk:ScottPat|talk]]) 17:12, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
  +
#Not for me, think it needs a spit and polish.... -- {{User:Mhaille/sig}}
 
|comments=
 
|comments=
  +
}}
  +
  +
<!--Just press save to close nomination. Comment is optional.-->
  +
{{vfh failed|
  +
|sig={{User:Romartus/sig2}}
  +
|stamp=18:28, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
  +
|comment=crashed-and-burned
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 18:55, May 24, 2013


Flag Burning Amendment (history, logs)

Article: Flag Burning Amendment

Score: 2 readers who think "desecration" has to do with poo

Nominated by: Spıke ¬ 21:46 7-Mar-13 21:46, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
For: 5
  1. Symbol for vote Self-nom and For. This was a crufty article that attracted more cruft overnight, and is now a fresh new rewrite. It was that or Votes for Deletion. Spıke ¬ 21:46 7-Mar-13
  2. Symbol for vote For. I tried to burn the article, but all I did was get this large brown patch on my computer screen and now I can see the insides a little. So if you can't burn 'em, join 'em. Aleister 21:56 7-3-'13
  3. For. LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:35, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
  4. For. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 12:52, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
  5. For. A great article: the construction is very good, jokes are fresh, and, finally, what I mostly like, is that there is truth as well as humor. I would like more articles like this one. But, in some parts of it, it seemed that the article is losing its Uncyclopediness, especially because of the vocabulary used. Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:54, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Against: 3
  1. Against. Sir Peasewhizz de New York (Chat) (Stalk?) 23:24, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Against Not that funny. It could be better. ScottPat (talk) 17:12, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Not for me, think it needs a spit and polish.... -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Personal tools
projects