Uncyclopedia:VFH/Withnail & I

Article: Withnail & I	Score: -2 tins of lighter fluid
Nominated by:	User:PyramidHead88 David 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
For: 4	Self-nom + For I have a heart condition. If you vote against me, it's murder.--PyramidHead88 David 00:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) For. I'm no murderer! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 00:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC) For. --Docile hippopotamus 01:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC) For.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Against: 6	We're multi-millionaires. We'll buy this shop and then sack you. Also, I have to reluctantly vote against. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Die Die Die Not quite good enough. And I have a heart condition too, so if you disagree with ME, it's also murder.--Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Against Because I was in Camberwell when I voted against it. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Against. Honest opinion is that it has improved since the first review I commented on - and as I mentioned then, I really do love the concept. I'd say it's on the way, but needs work still. Hopefully a second review (have a little patience, or ask someone who isn't me on this page for a review) will help. I want to see this good enough to feature. I also want something's flesh. --UU - natter 13:21, Mar 16 Against To vote against pyramidhead, also its still not finished if you ask you me. 2nd review? --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Against. What the heck is this? *Sir* Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 04:09, Mar. 17, 2009
Comments	ok. Consensus from a few seems to be that it's not good enough. Anyone feel like elaborating? I.e., is the subject matter limited, or can it actually be improved? Yes I know it's what pee is for, but it's been there for a week and no-one's reviewed it, dammit (since the second submission, that is). I'm getting the FEAR! --PyramidHead88 David 09:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Help me out here, where is the pee review required by the self nom regulations? ~ 09:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Withnail & I--Sycamore (Talk) 09:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Ah, my famous oversight. Just keep ignoring me as you do anyway. ~ 09:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC) yeah, it's actually been submitted twice now. First review was somewhat, uh, rigorous, but I took on board what I could. Now been waiting a week for a slightly more generous one, I hope. --PyramidHead88 David 10:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Abstain.. Erg. Tough call, this one. So it goes. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:23, Mar 16 In response to 'against' vote number 6... the US flag says it all. :P deep inhalation. I shall never play the Dane (or be featured). --PyramidHead88 David 09:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Its the unfairness of UK articles, the americans are quick to vote against us. Unfortunately our articles are funny, funny not just stupid even. Oh well. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 11:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think it's just that, as there have been some very British featured articles. As you said yourself PM666, this doesn't seem finished, and don't forget Withnail is a bit of a cult film - many people in the UK wouldn't have a clue what it was either, sadly. A coward you are Withnail. An expert on bulls you are not! --UU - natter 11:19, Mar 17