For. When the thing was in the news, I was like "Let's see what the folks at Uncyclopedia have to say about it". Err ... nothing. Well, there's bound to be half a dozen UnNews articles ... just one. On VFD. I was disappointed. It was ... a bummer. --BurekSP 14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It may be deplorable, mean-spirited, and a disrespect to all those who died on that day (including my great uncle Wallace, but he died of toe cancer) but it's funny, damn it all. --ЖKalirwith all the grace of a tin can 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For'd Uncyclopedia is supposed to be rude, and offensive. -- --Mgr.SirSonic80☭ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Against. Much like a page about my anus, it would have to be extrasuperfantastical to overcome the subject matter. This fails to reach the lofty heights of excellence. A valiant effort, though, and for that I give you kudos. Well, kudo. I've only got the one. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
NO! NO! NO! NO! - What is wrong with honoring the dead?--Dr. Fenwick 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Against I didn't laugh. Maybe because of the subject matter, but I didn't laugh. Not going to vote FOR just to try and prove how 'dangerous' uncyclopedia is. The Oblong Lobster 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Against Not particularily offensive, but not really that funny either. --WesternLotus 14:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Was nommed before but died due to "too soon" calls...
Come on people. The subject matter shouldn't make a difference. If we can feature an article titled "Niggers", and an article on Adolf Hitler, then why is it that we can't feature an article on the Virginia Tech massacre? We take the risk on Uncyclopedia of having and embracing possibly offensive material, and we've defended ourselves from censors and offended jackasses plenty of times in the past. Yes, we're a website dedicated to satire, and I'm aware that we do have limits, but I just can't believe we're starting to censoring ourselves. This article was written in a great angle, one that is entirely respectful. We had this page protected for some time, and we still have the banner at the bottom of the page out of respect if you don't believe me. We all know this is an emotional and touchy issue, but since when can we not find humor in tragedy? "Oh, think of the families." Yes, I'm very empathetic to the families of the victims, which is why I, Ljlego, and Mhaille (yes, credit to him as well) wrote this out of respect to the victims' families and Cho himself as he too was a victim. I'm sorry if you think otherwise, but I'm not going to apologize for any hurt feelings. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Abstain I think the page is great and should be featured eventually some time this year, but I'm debating with myself over whether or not it's still too soon. --Kip > Talk•Works••
Abstain. With things like the Aristocrats joke in there (which seem to take away from the respectfulness), I still can't vote for. However, you are somewhat corrrect with the articles you reference in your comments rebuttal. It is somewhat edgy, and it would be a bit hypocritical to vote for an article making fun of somebody who killed six million innocents within his own country and voting against one about somebody who killed thirty-four. However, you can't truly compare these other articles with yours, especially the first one (since it acknowledges within it the offensive nature). The line on this article is just too blurred for me.--Mr.Vib 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, to be fair, I placed my vote once again, the reason it was changed from an IP vote to my vote was because I had forgotten to log on yesterday when I voted, so now it is up again and at the bottom of the yes votes. -- --Mgr.SirSonic80☭ 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm (+3, Darwin Rule, Level 3)<<>> This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 18:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.