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

Sweatshop (history, logs)

Article: Sweatshop

Score: 22 exquisite examples of Honduran textiles

Nominated by:
For: 22
  1. Self-nom & for. I want to give this a go. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  21:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fuck regulation, this is funny. --Littleboyonly.jpg TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly.jpg 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. F dat - That really was funny --Moneke 04:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. For. Seems completely legitimate to me! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 12:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Wow! Garments at this price! Sign me up! - UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 15:00, Oct 7
  6. Weak For - a bit short, but that doesn't change the fact that it's funny--Sir Manforman CUN.png 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. For     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   19:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)  
  8. For-Liked it in Pee Review like it here click on the links people!--Dr. Fenwick 23:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. For. Fashion so hot, you'll sweat. Sweatshop. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 12:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. For Wow great article Azu 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong shiny Squeak! Weasel 3689PS3 and F@H Pwn! Viva Colombia! 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Super Strong For. Excellent article all round. RabbiTechno 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. I laffed Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. For --General Insineratehymn 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. 4 - A good read. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon.gif(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:52, Oct 15
  16. For as part of my campaign to make sure all articles, even those without clever titles, get a read and a vote. Жhttp://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/2/20/GBDsig.PNG WHEEEEE! 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. For - And I just placed my order with them, I hope to get my stuff soon. --Pleb- Sawblade5 [block me!] ( yell | FAQ | I did this ) 06:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. For — What I like about this is, it gives people some fun while conveying in no uncertain terms a valuable point of view. I think it could be improved over time, but it will be a shame to watch it being "elaborated" by those who think they can improve it and can't. SmackBot 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. For - Read it earler but didn't vote. Probably because I was laughing so much. You can't laugh and vote see. It's not done. The Oblong Lobster 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. For - Damn asians ruining internet games for us... --AAA! (AAAA) 23:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. For Creative AND well-made AND pretty funny to boot... what more could you ask for at such a low, low price? --The Acceptable Thinking cap small.png Cainad Sacred Chao.png (Fnord) 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. I'm jealous! Nice, man, nice! --  Le Cejak <-> 19:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Against: 0
  1. Against on principle: I'm not saying this isn't a brilliant and deserving article, I'm merely pointing out that there's no way I'm paying £7.99 for a pair of trousers that are so cheap to produce, even third-world sweatshop workers can wear them. SmackBot 14:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

*I do believe this article is not eligible, as it has not been Pee Reviewed. and it is a self-nom.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)  

It has been peed. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  11:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So it has.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

ATTENTION! For those people that think this article is too short, you obviously haven't click the other pages on the side, like men's wear and ladie's wear! - UnIdiot | GUN.png | Talk | Contribs - 15:41, Oct 7

  • Having just re-read this, I had to return and change my vote to 'super strong four.' This is, perhaps, the best thing I've seen on Uncyclopedia in a long time, if not ever. RabbiTechno 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've given this a positive vote. It's definitely worthy and it definitely overshadows all of the other stuff currently on offer. SmackBot 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(Oh, and each time I go back to it, I find something else, which is a major bonus. It's clever.) SmackBot 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


← 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.