For: 15
|
- Self-Nom & For. Since last time, I've added more content, more jokes, and more pony tricks per all you people that said I needed to add all those things. There isn't a Pee Review, though I have responded to criticism from this article's last nomination. So, um, yeah. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 18:34, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 For. It's even better than last time. —Sir Socky   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:08, 15 July 2010- For.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:23, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- For. If it doesn't make it this time and you are looking for more improvement, some of my crits in the pee from last time still stand. -- monika 15:00, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Liked. --Black Flamingo 18:34, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 Pacman. It's very... red.  Jenny? 19:25,16July,2010- For because fuck you --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 19:26 Jul 16 2010
- Narrow For. Gave it a couple more re-reads, examined the changes, and declared myself a fan. And also for the record, Romartus is still completely wrong about what he says. It's courtesy to wait a while between renominations, but as I should definitely know, it's not necessary at all. --
 TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  20:49, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you find it improved and that I won you and your vote over. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:47, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- For. Perfect length and full of the big smiles. I LOVE COLOUR! mAttlobster. (hello) 22:58, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Go florth Cleared a hedge in a couple of weeks. Aleister 23:00 16 7
- For. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA
 AMUSE ME 23:25, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
- AS per Fredd
 |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill  | 11:05, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
- For. —fj0j3ddjoaw;rfjaew (r30qjd) 08:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- For. Me likey. ~
 Lyrithya *shifty eyes* (words) (actions) -- 20100718 - 16:16 (UTC)
- For. Megaman126512 00:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
- Comment. I thought an article that hadn't made it for featuring couldn't be re-sent for three months. Is this correct?
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:26, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it depends on whether the article has undergone significant changes. Here, most of it is the same, but it's 136% of its former size, so obviously, quite a bit has been added. I think whether that clears the bar is probably up to individual admin judgment.
 pillow talk 22:36, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing in the rules about that. Also, three months sounds like an awful long time. --Andorin Kato 22:38, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Or, too many fucking rules. Just vote, and stop worrying. Woody On Fire!
 Talking Woody Stalking Woody 22:39, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain. I can't vote against Guildy and he won't need my vote here but still think it's against the spirit of the place for a hasty re-nom campaign. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:49, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, although my vote is in already. If that becomes the norm then the que will have 40 noms on it, recycling stuff every couple of weeks under the same name or a new name until it passes. On the other hand, in a perfect world I do like fixes though, using VFH comments as a foundation to edit your own totally original page. Aleister 10:02 17 7
- To me it isn't a good precedent and I will repeat my point if others do this too unless another God speaks or if I have to take another holiday.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 10:16, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it's not like this was a "hasty renomination" or anything--the article is over a third longer, has several more jokes, two new images, and has generally been improved upon based upon the criticism and feedback of others. This is a "bad precedent" why...? —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:08, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Because he said it is? Last I checked, Zombiebaron died and made him King of Uncyclopedia. All cheek aside though, everyone's entitled to their (non)-opinions. And though your changes were swift too, two days for a renomination is really quick. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:28, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not debating the fact that it's been a quick renomination, I'm just curious as to why that's a negative thing is all. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 03:50, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
- It's mostly a fairness issue, I guess, and one that's highly subjective. Without changing anything (or making minimal changes) and renominating, people think it isn't fair to bring it back so quickly, since it only just failed. When you do make significant changes, it's less of a problem, but it's still more annoying than anything sinister-er or whatever. As the writer of Filial Piety, I have no issue with renominations. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 04:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Pointless abstain. I'm still unconvinced, but voting against at this point is like an Egyptian trying to cross the Red Sea: I don't think I'll beat the wave. Fecking Moses. IronLung 00:42, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
|
