Uncyclopedia:VFH/Short story

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


Short story (history, logs)

Article: Short story

Score: 23 improper character developments

Nominated by: Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
For: 23
  1. NF I remember reading this a while back. I loved it. It must be featured.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. THIS IS SPARTAAA! Squeak! Weasel 3689PS3 and F@H Pwn! Viva Colombia! 02:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak for. One of those satirical pieces which actually becomes less funny as a result of its intelligence—and I'm really not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing! Extremely well-written (unlike the stories it so accurately lampoons), but suffers from some minor punctuation issues in the final two or three subsections. Also, the author neglected to mention the most irritating short-story writer of all time: H.P. Lovecraft!Morsa 04:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. A spendiferous attempt to capture the soaring majesty of a much maligned genre. For. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
  5. This piece contains some of my very funniest lines, I think. Fuck you if you disagree. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    Comment No thank you. I have my (imaginary) girlfriend for that. --CUN RA Talk to me _ 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. For. Really well written, and very good. Although I was tempted to disagree just because of the above comment. I'm like that, normally. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 08:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. I loved it deeply, enough to say, "I loved it deeply, enough to say, 'I loved it deeply, enough to say for. Necropaxx (T) {~} 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. F☭R, Premier Tom Mayfair
  9. For Quite awesome. --THE 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. I seem to remember voting for this some time ago... — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong For. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. All of a sudden, a man with a troubled past rode in with a ten gallon hat, and a for in his pocket. He dropped it off at VFH, and rode off, never to be seen again. -RAHB 02:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Once upon a time, there was a For. The end!!! --Vana 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. For     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)  
  15. For --General Insineratehymn 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. I love it. It's horribly true, all of it...  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • elk cloner) 19:53 Oct 13, 2007
  17. 4. Me likes... KyriosDelis 00:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Riveting: it touched my inner self and I wept. For Dame http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b2/PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. For but only because I want everyone to think I'm nice. Frankly, I found the article boring and tedious to an extreme; however, I can see that the author has some talent which should be encouraged, and being nominated for Uncyclopedia feature status may be a fitting spur for him or her to persevere and eventually achieve something of consequence. SmackBot 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. For. -- Mitch Icons-flag-au.png 01:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. For -- Sir FS Doovad Read You got somethin to say? 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. For --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. True How true it all is. The best satire I've ever read here. --CUN RA Talk to me _ 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Against: 0
  1. Sorry but I can't let this vote close without at least one voice against. SmackBot 14:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind. It is satire and being a dreadful read makes the point. SmackBot 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • Motion to strike both of SmackBot's votes for obvious reasons. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What would that do to the total? SmackBot 01:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep it the same, but with less you. You can't vote twice, anyway. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 01:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say that I can't vote twice? And is it really me that's bothering you? SmackBot 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the "common sense" section. UGotM, on the other hand, is a different story. People have been known to vote on any particluar candidate a good seven times each. Ж Kalir with all the grace of a tin can 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Seven times each? That's disgraceful. I would never dream of voting more than three times: one for, one against and one abstention ... plus maybe a rude comment but that wouldn't count toward the total, would it. SmackBot 08:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, there, Mr. SmackBot, you may want to curb your criticism just a wee bit, considering the author has a feature for every day you've been on this site and won Writer of the Month ages ago. I think he's already "achieved something of consequence." Sorry if I sound rude, but it seems a bit odd for me to find a user who hasn't been around two weeks yet being condescending to one of my favorite writers, long established as one of the site's best. — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's nice that you defend the writer but let me ask you, if I'd simply said "Not to my liking" and given the work a single vote against, then would you have made an objection? Perhaps the trouble is, I got here late after spending too long in the non-fiction department. SmackBot 08:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
... Which makes me want to add, people have more fun in the non-fiction section. SmackBot 09:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not actually "the writer" of the article, that would be Alksub. I just added to what was already a great article; the real core of the article was Alksub's, and he certainly deserves the credit and the feature more than I do. You can check the revision history to exactly what I added, which was mainly just the section at the end and some various jokes to fill in the rest. That being said, please continue with your compliments. And SmackBot, take notes. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm making mental notes. SmackBot 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Click to feature this article
Always check the feature queue first.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.
Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.