Uncyclopedia:VFH/Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit (crap)

Article: Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit	Score: -2.5 crap crap shit
Nominated by:	Argylesocks (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
For: 4.5	A diamond in the rough. Argylesocks (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC) For. 99.236.241.188 21:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC) For. Lenny The Bruce Scarletpantalones (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC) For. Because Aleister and Anton opposed Madclaw @ ^talk 19:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Doesn't happen that often, does it? Anton (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC) For. IT MAKE-A ME LAUGH SO I VOTE "FOR" ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Mar 18 '14 2:26 (UTC)
Against: 7	Oh, it's on. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 09:36, Mar. 14, 2014 Against. Mimo &maxus 12:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Put a dirty sock in it. Aleister 18:07 14=3=14 Against. I would vote "yes", if it was on VFD. What do you find in it? Anton (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC) --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Decided to make a decision. Mainly because the first thing people will see is, well, the first bits of it, which are the 'coarse beauty' part, and they may not read on to the literary analysis bit, which I also am wavering between considering 'just ok' and 'pretty funny'; but also to spite all the spite votes, and because two admins voted for this and I do not suck up to them, I use common sense and that, see? (And no it's not deleteworthy) – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:42, 18 Mar 2014 Against. An ignominious return. No more of this cunt, crap, shit on the front page. It's lame like Professor x. Leverage (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments	I like the literary analysis bit, and I'm glad to see someone come back and liven up vfh, but this article doesn't quite do it for me. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:09, 14 Mar 2014 Comment. Hello, could some admin perform a check user or whatever that thing's called, to determine if the IP and Scarletpantalones are Argylesocks' sockpuppets? An anonymous and a new user who immediately votes on VFH after registering seem rather suspicious to me. Mimo &maxus 22:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Yadda yadda anyway we know who he is so I wouldn't suspect anything like that. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 14 Mar 2014 So this doesn't seem suspicious to you? I don't care if he's the queen of England, I demand a check user, if such a thing exists. --Mimo &maxus 08:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I mean c'mon, can't you see it? "Scarletpantalones", "Argylesocks"... --Mimo &maxus 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Comment. I noticed Argylesocks was taken off the automatic watchlist before he made an edit. TOAST anyone? RomArtusImperator ITRA* (Orate) ® 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Comment. Pfft lol this comment-section is why people use irc. It's TKF there, welcome back! Cat the Colourful (Feed me!) Zzz 17:57, 15 March, 2014 (UTC) Yes and let's all quit seeing socks and assuming bad faith. There's more activity, two more users about, so we should all be happy. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:07, 15 Mar 2014 Well, and what if he has two socks? When you commit a crime, the chance of you committing it again increases. Anton (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I don't know who you're talking about or what or why, and I don't care. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:38, 15 Mar 2014 What a nice answer! I should adopt it as my own devise! Anton (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Comment. I know he's TKF, I've been told this three more times previously and I don't give a fuck! The rules are the same for everyone! And Lwy if you don't care keep the "bad faith" bullshit to yourself, and stop sucking up to admins/former admins! This is obvious sockpuppeting and you people tolerate that because it's TKF? Mimo &maxus 21:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Pfft. That is all. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:53, 15 Mar 2014 What's that supposed to mean? Mimo &maxus 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC) The same thing as "I don't care"? Anton (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC) It means 'you don't get it, and I'm tired of explaining it to you because you refuse to get it'. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:56, 15 Mar 2014 Easy answer, TKF's password got messed up or something, so he can't use that account right now. Hopefully he'll get it back. As long as one account is inaccessible it's fine to use another name. Hyperbole made an art of it! Aleister 22:17 ides of march=14 Comment. God I know he's TKF!!! Does that even mean something??? Mimo &maxus 22:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC) But sockpuppeting is okay if you can't use your original puppet. My puppet wants to watch "Being John Malkovich" again, but I tell him no. Al minutes later What I'm saying is that Scarletpantalones is Argylesocks' (otherwise known as TKF) sockpuppet --Mimo &maxus 22:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Yes we know, you've already said so. And what I'm saying is that...ah forget it. This'll fail anyway. No biggie innit? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:31, 15 Mar 2014 It doesn't look like I was talking to you. I was explaining to Aleister how I'm not accusing Argylesocks of being a sockpuppet of TKF. Your random reminders of how you've given up on trying to make me understand are rather pointless. --Mimo &maxus 22:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I just ran a CheckUser on Scarletpantalones and there is no evidence pointing towards it being TKF. Also the use of a sock to edit the wiki while you can't access your regular account is a thing that happens. What is against the rules is using multiple accounts at the same time. TKF was talking to us on IRC the whole time he was editing. -- The Zombiebaron 22:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC) I WAS HASCKED D: --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC) And this is relevant how? That 'you are not logged in' bit it rather obnoxious, btw. 99.240.218.250 04:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Zombiebaron you are so cool and sexy, when I die and reanimate I wanna be just like you Madclaw @ ^talk 22:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC) lol --Argylesocks (talk)