For...I too scanned, failed to see the funny, but upon return engagement I was amused. This article is probably much of what an uncyclopedia article, parodying wikipedia, was originally envisioned as.--SirShandon (Talk) (Trophy Room) 12:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
For It looks so damn boring, yet everyone's voting for. Must be good. --Kip > Talk•Works•• 18:31, Jan. 5, 2008
For, I like the two pictures. The article doesn't attempt to do any overkill, but it has two of the funniest pictures I've seen lately.--Zisook 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
For, quoting Shandon: "This article is probably much of what an uncyclopedia article, parodying wikipedia, was originally envisioned as."~ QUILz( talk | contrib ) 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
For. If only for the last line (or if not) --monika 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak For Its a good article. The only problem is that you can't really find the jokes by scaning it and you cold easally dsimiss it as a lame fact article, but not this one. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added bySawblade5 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Featured. TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 19 January 2008. This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.