Uncyclopedia:VFH/Easter Bunny

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Easter Bunny (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Easter Bunny	Score: 15 holiday courses
Nominated by:	T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
For: 15	Nom and For, now that the PLS is over and VFHing is, like, legal and shit. Another masterpiece from Thinker. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Aye -RAHB 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) sDig thanks TKF! And while I agree with Kip, well.. that's like, far away man.. :) --THINKER 04:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) For Anyway to schedule it for feature on Easter next year?     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)      14:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC) For. I always wondered how Easter came about. Now I...still don't know. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC) For -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 22:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC) For --THE 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) For Me likey.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC) For --General Insineratehymn 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC) For Since apparently my opinion otherwise isn't worth eggs. – Kip > Talk • Works •• For. -- Mitch 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC) For I love it! --ForestAngel Receive Blessings! 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC) For, Only on the grounds that I think it would be good for Easter. -- The Zombiebaron 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) For. Reskin, anyone. Delicious article! goshzillacorrespondence 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC) For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Against: 0	Weak Against Only on the grounds that I think it would be good for Easter. – Kip > Talk • Works •• Comment That's an awful reason. We can always put it in reskin next Easter. By "we" I mean "excluding me". Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC Apparently you have to vote on the merits of the article only. Who knew. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 12:34, 25 Jul 2007
Comments	like the article below, perhaps Kip's vote could be changed to an abstain due to it not relating to the merits of the actual article? I don't mind the against if there is more to it that the time frame. --THINKER 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Second -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Third-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Re Spang: Not only, but the merit of the piece should probably play some role in one's vote for said piece. As you can see below, Ekashp included a valid reason in addition to his original against, and as such, his vote remains. --THINKER 00:42, 25 July 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.

---