SelfNom+For. To honor the conclusion of the Ruffles the Tiger saga, I'd like to nominate this article. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 11:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak For still has some formatting ugliness, but its funny overall. --Mnbvcxz(Annoy) 14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
W♥v. Excellent satire. —SirSysRq (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Where was the funny? Devoured by the animals? Because it wasn't in that article. If anything feature the original article this one rode off. --SirDJ~Irreverent 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Against. I tried, but couldn't find anything particularly funny. Sorry. --UU - natter10:05, Jan 4
Additionally, the humour in this article is mainly satirical and not plain jokingly funny. Please take this into account before voting.-Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)