Self-Nom and For. Yeh. I know... self-nom. But I was looking over my old articles and noticed this had been featured on the Why? page. And I was like it has?. So I thought I'd just see how it does on here. Never know how VFH will turn out... —I FUCKED KIM JONG-IL WHOREMr. Antonio Yettie(talk) [23:40 13 August 2010]
For. I absolutely love the 19th century tone to this piece! Moreso, I love the different euphemisms for his "bishop." Bravo! S3ahawk 23:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
For I wish I spotted the 19th century tone but I'm just a Pole who can't speak English. Anyway, "funny" story. Funny in the way that can be found only in various Uncyclopedia's articles... SirPtok-BentonicznyPisz tutaj • KUN 14:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
I actually really did enjoy the article, just i was too lazy to vote previously and it was already kicking ass without my for vote, further reinforcing my laziness. phrage's vandalism earlier of the vote page and such just got me motivated finally -- SoldatTeh PWNerator(pwnt!)08:47, Aug 22
Eh. I didn't find anything here that was particularly hilarious or clever, despite some small laughs here and there and the fact that it's well written, so I'm going to have to give it a weak no.--HM(T) 21:49, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Against. ⦿⨦⨀ phrage 07:56, August 22, 2010 (UTC) re-read it but still see it more as kiddie porn than humour. i did not know one could vote 'strong against' Elassint -the vote lozenge does not offer it -clever old you -imagine if one could vote "strong against" in national elections.
Against. I'm gonna have to go with HM on this one. The writing's good and the tone's consistent enough to be tasteless without being pornographic, but I just didn't find it very funny. Still, policemen and women is unheard of. TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 08:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Against. Creepy. What I mean is, despite the excellent writing style, I simply don't find this article funny because of the subject matter. Elassint 15:09, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
While you're entitled to your own opinion and fair enough if you don't think the article is funny, if you're voting from a simple emotional reaction then I'm not sure that's a valid reason to vote against, possibly a reason to abstain. I don't think you can vote against simply because it creeped you out. If you didn't find it funny then that's a different matter. —I FUCKED KIM JONG-IL WHOREMr. Antonio Yettie(talk) [16:00 23 August 2010]
I'm creeped out by your answer to the comment. Strongly Creeped Out Creepy. Crawlers. Aleister 18:02 23 8
Against. Good article, but ruined by the rape stuff, which just creeps me out. -- 08:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment. If i removed your vote I do not know how I did it. Unintentional Vandals of the World Unite -you have nothing to lose but your names ! i have written a slightly longer piece in the discussion section about the amusing side of pedophilia. I hope that by writing this i have not torn out your chad again or something.⦿⨦⨀ phrage 16:40, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm low health, 28%ChiefjusticeGameCube This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 22:18, September 8, 2010 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.