Uncyclopedia:VFH/old

Nominated Article

This article has been nominated for highlighting on the front page—you can vote for it or nominate your favourite articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH. Please see this article's entry.

Sign below an article you find excellent. Unsigned or undated votes and nominations will be thrown out. IP votes carry less weight than votes cast by a registered user, because anonymous IPs are grovelling insects in our eyes.

If your vote or nomination does not have a timestamp, it will be ignored.

Feel free to add an article - new ones at the top. You may nominate and vote for your own articles if you so choose - please note it on your nomination.

When nominating an article, the template Template:VFH should be added to the end of the entry using {{VFH}}. A featured article should have the template Template:ArticleFH, using {{ArticleFH}}. Anything you add {{VFH}} to also shows up in Category:Feature nomination.

Failed VFH nominations should only be archived/removed by the sysops who pay attention to this sort of thing.

Previous featured articles can be found on the archive pages.

THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.

If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE. Violators of this policy will be SHOT.

Survivors will be given a DIGESTIVE BISCUIT.

Then we shoot them again.

Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )

SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must be at least a week old before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time.

VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.

VFH

• Nominated Again, to see if i could. ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Tee-hee. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Microsoft patant considarad valid

• Nom and for fuckin histarical! --LinkTGF 07:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against I don't get it... at all. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 12:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against No thanks. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It ams funny. --DeathByPie 17:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how it's possible not to get it, it's simple: Microsoft patented the letter "e". Oh, and self-for (although credit goes to LinkTGF for the image and Brad for the audio version). - Sikon 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I'd vote on it for it's subtle-ness.. but it's kind of hard to miss... really.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, but I feel like I'm giving these full for's away, using so many of them. This is a worthy article, though.--<<>> 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against I get it all right, but this ain't for the front page...It's a overused joke. Be original. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, SOMETHING from UnNews needs to be featured. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fight for your fellow tiny penis syndrome sufferers

I was alerted to this one when LinkTGF said on IRC, "that vote fish penis article has fucked my brain up". It does a pretty good job of the promise of the title IMO. Nominate and For - David Gerard 17:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. Mumble mumble mumble...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. Grumble grumble grumble... -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. Penis penis penis... --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. - Sikon 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, because campaign slogans almost never make any sense.--<<>> 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hide and Go Jesus

Restored Featured Article Voting After Page Was Undeleted Please forgive me Yendor33 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominate and For. A Jesus article that's actually novel and funny. The JesusCarton image is fantastic - David Gerard 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• For once it's not a variation of Jesus. If VFP was open, I would nominate the milk carton picture. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. I went to VFP to nominate the milk carton image myself - David Gerard 12:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yeah, this is funny.--<<>> 18:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For- wonderfully irreverant.--Claudius Prime 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. So well grounded. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Wow, there is still original humour to be had from jesus! Who knew? --Spang 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against I can hardly read this with all the bolding and italics, which are non-uncyclopedic as well. --—rc (t) 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Formatting goodered --—rc (t) 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Formatting eyesore. --KATIE!! 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• CON-DI-TIO-NAL-NEG-A-TIVE!!! I'll reconsider supporting it if the melodramatic formatting is CHANGED!!! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think I've fixed the formatting. I apologize for doing that wrong, but considered I've been at this for all of a week and a half (wiki in general, not just this site) I don't think I'm doing too bad. Yellow Dalek, thanks for giving a n00b the benefit of the doubt by letting me know there was something I could do to remedy things instead of just discouraging a newcomer by giving it an outright NO! vote. --Imrealized 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• And For - I better at least encourage myself before I lose all hope (I'm not that bad, am I)... right? --Imrealized 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I approve. But please, move the contents table. I didn't even notice it the first time I veewed this article. --Ж Kalir _{hippies! yay!} 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. mumble... yeah, the contents table... mumble...Hah! Hide and go Jesus! -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. But first you must find my vote! Look! It's over there! You win! --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Please note that Imrealized is disillusioned (his words) and trying to delete all of his work including this article. Yendor33 10:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear

• Selfnomification - Not political or religious. Just our furry, stinky friend, the bear. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 12:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is by far the most beautiful article I have read in a long time. --KATIE!! 13:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG-AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! God DAMN, WW, give me lessons! This is a gem! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Yea - You must have a team of comedy writers living in your cranium; either that or you're British. Thanks for more laughs. --Imrealized 17:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is the funniest thing I've seen on here in... well, for a really long time. You gotta love the dialect between the Bear and the Elk.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against, too British. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• for messa likes it! got something for everyone--ThEBaGmAn 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Tour de force (that means "it takes a good idea and does everything that can be done with it really well") - David Gerard 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Much Applause! For!. Good job... thumbs up... Pip-pip, cheerio and all that rot... TD ^{Complain here} MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here) 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: I never would have thought that I'd get that many chuckles reading about bears; kudos. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For- I give this article a C+ for Humor, but an A for effort.--Claudius Prime 19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. I'm with Claudius Prime. It's got enough effort to get a vote, and not unfunny.--<<>> 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For! I like it, I do. --Spang 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. very funny, well written (mostly). -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Hillarious --Yendor33 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This is exactly what the front page needs. --UtarEmpire 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Robot uprising

+ This one has a story behind it. It started out as Howto:Survive a Robot Uprising, but after consultation between Fasmine, Nytrospawn, and myself, it was merged here with my own material. Go and vote for, guys! --Hobelhouse 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. Eh, whatever.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Rataube 22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Claudius Prime 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Eh, not having Famine voting for all over this one makes this JUST good enough for a vote from me.--<<>> 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! Even if it is sadly lacking a Dalek contingency. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Unoriginal and uninspired. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agin'. Not very funny, relies on the word "fuck" to save it's sorry ass. IMHO as a n00b. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Planet Google

• Nominate and vote - Got to this through the News Links. Very funny take on a load of Google products rolled into one!--DrPoodle 19:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, as this is the second article I helped cultivate into apparently VFH-worthy stuff in one day. Hooray for me. --Spang 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, I will be getting my own gHouse soon. --OsirisX 02:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--this is hilarious. Nora 02:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. This is kinda humorous. I recorded the news story though, so I HAVE to vote for. Regulations, and all.--<<>> 18:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For because -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

John Cage

Nominate and Strong For - This is hysterical brilliance. It helps to know a little about Cage, but I think it'd be funny without that knowledge. Very well-written comedy. --Imrealized 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Silence... (Cough, cough.) ... ... ...For. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 07:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• 2+2 --Hubert Cumberdale 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIRM-A-TIVE --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, seeing as I wrote most of it. The only thing I know about John Cage is that he wrote 4'33", and that was enough to make it funny for me. --Spang 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and if you vote for, a keep in its VFD entry wouldn't go amiss. It won VFD. --Spang 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - nice addition to the composer pages :) --Lurgy 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Man, this guy WAS high on kittens...--<<>> 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Amusing, and 4' 33" is my favorite song so I must vote yes! -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Last spot in heaven taken; hundreds waitlisted

Self-nomination and for. Just testing the water. This seems like the best way to get feedback on things. And Todd's reading makes it really cool. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Boo religion jokes. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Religion jokes are bad only if they are ignorant, and I did my research. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• For, even if religion isn't as inherently funny as cancer, say - David Gerard 15:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Even though God is never available for a comment. Good stuff. --Imrealized 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I have never been so offended! Religion and comedy do not mix! — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 16:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Shame on your people for pointing out mathematical fallacies in a major religion. You're all going to Hell (as well as, apparently, millions of the faithful).--<<>> 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose so. We definately need an UnNews featured article, this is getting insane.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. If it's not obvious, I'm reading the recent UnNews stories I like the best (though it's been hard to resist the egotistical temptation to read all my own stories). :) ~ T. (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I agree with Tompkins --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 13:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Mild against. It's kinda funny, but not really funny enough to be featured --Joewithajay 14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. An UnNews feature would be good. --Spang 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• FOR A large FOR because the article is funny, Jehovah's Witnesses are funny, and anything about God is funny. Good one. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

127.0.0.1

• ... - Sikon 07:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Though I suspect I just don't get it.--<<>> 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  127.0.0.1 is a loopback address to localhost (your own computer). ~ T. (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • • Weak for. Gotcha, elaborate insult for those not good w/computers (like me). You win (weak for having to have it explained).--<<>> 22:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• 444.4.4.4 --KATIE!! 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• 4.4.4.4. Needs a little tidying and a picture, but it's a good joke - David Gerard 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. 127.0.0.1 got me =[! --OsirisX 02:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It may just be because I contributed to the article a little, but still... --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• 44.4.4.44 --Roger The Bum Full sig!
  <a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>
  CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 11:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against This ain't front page material. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 13:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against- We need articles on real or at least relevent topics people.--Claudius Prime 21:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How is this irrelevent? Is this not Uncyclopedia? Do you even know what localhost is? --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Response:Okay, maybe 'relevent' is the wrong word, what I'm trying to say is that many of the most basic articles lack completion or even humor, and someone (you?) is wasting their time on this...?!--Claudius Prime 22:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• For 127.0.0.1 is a relative topic. It separates nerds from men.-- Swami A. Suresh 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Has nothing to do with Uncyclopedia or the internet. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• NEG-A-TIVE. Cleverness doth not "teh funni" make. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: If you really don't get this, read this before voting against.

--POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. I must agree with Suresh on this one. --DeathByPie 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Teenager

• Nominate and For: damned punks always ridin' their rollerboards and drivin' too fast. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Damned hooligans. For. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. nication. good. *nods* --- - jack mort | cunt | talk - 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Because if I didn't vote for my own stuff, they wouldn't have a chance in Hell.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Like the whining 'In my day...' tone of the article. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I support this important public message. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• If I voted politically, it'd be a weak for, but I have to vote the way an article itself hits me, so I must say weak against. Sorry, Tomp, this just didn't hit me with TEH FUNNAY.--<<>> 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• for! I like it a lot, it's be a great addition to the featured article family. remember, every family needs a teenager. --ThEBaGmAn 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's my adopted son. --Boy Toy bitch at me 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Word-- Swami A. Suresh 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Sir Tripod2282 cun vfp talk Active ~ 09:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC).

• Comment: The best thing about this article: It came from VFD! User:TD 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, it seems that alot of the more recent noms have come from VFD...like... 3, interesting..   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• For--Spin 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Young whippersnappers!--(~Sir)Nuke || Talk v MUN v Not An Admin v Completely Unimportant 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! oil...can!... ...oil...can! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Tmopkisn. --KATIE!! 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Good topic, not very funny, has potential. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Women's Suffrage

• Nominate + for. This turned out really well, I thought. Is this the first article I've nominated? I think it might be!  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I liked it enough to make a brief edit. Good job WW.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's tragic, really. Great use of a pun.--<<>> 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• YES! and we suffer because we give, and we give, and we give.... Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is amazing. --KATIE!! 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Before this article, I wasn't aware of the problems that plague women. I now feel that much worse about being a male. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For The article has a horrible masculine normative point of view. -- Swami A. Suresh 12:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is excellent...I'm going with For (and it's especially nice to see a red link on Tara Reid, meaning she's already become pretty obsolete.) --Imrealized 11:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: A favorite joke of mine. People can be so easily misled. I believe that the intelligent should rightfully rule over the stupid... and this article showcases an excellent way to rule out the stupid ones. I support "Women's Suffrage". TD ^{Complain here} MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here) 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! After some debate, I laughed. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-aggrandizement

• Self-Nominate because it is infinitely crucial to the survival of the Uncyclopedia and the entire Universe. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk)
• For - this actually inspired me to write Humility.  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For It's vanity, yet not. Great idea! -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  06:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For!—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. While I don't think this article is quite as funny as the Humility article below, I cannot in good conscience vote it as any lower. Good job on the original idea, Xiao Li.--<<>> 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This article beats giants.--Rataube 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I like the concept, but it could be just as effective sustituting a general "I" in place of a user name, I think. ~ T. (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, if only because of the adaptation of {{vfh}}. --KATIE!! 05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• I, as in me cast my vote FOR this article. I insist, its the least that I can do. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against- To short, and how many times do I have to see that stupid tree getting hit by lightning picture in this life??--Claudius Prime 15:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Not really all that witty. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire and Brimstone

• Nominate. Subtle and lovely - David Gerard 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes indeed. ~ T. (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for I laughed.--<<>> 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. If Brad votes for it, it must be good.....oh, hang on..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 20:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. This is absolutely terrible; a disgrace to this website and everyone on it. Oh, and please don't take it personally, okay?  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, cor blimey. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely For--Claudius Prime 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Um, what? Maybe this article is too British, but this is only mildly amusing, not front page material. Against. --Hobelhouse 14:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It's a bit funny but confused and the formatting is almost as bad as my articles. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT click any links!

• For - this is very much featured material --Kaizer_the_Bjorn [talk] MUN F@H ]] 23:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nominate - tour de force - David Gerard 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Article 4, section 3, paragraph 9 of the "Uncyclopedia User's Guide" DEMANDS that I vote for my own stuff when it get nominated.--<<>> 18:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Would I get credit for this article given the fact that I am responsible for the whole asplodure of Brad's computer? --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against because I'm a jerk.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, because I'm not a jerk. --OsirisX 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's good to see a truly educational article at Uncyclopedia. --Rabidwombat27 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against because I completely agree with Mandaliet.  :) Oh, and it's fluff. ~ T. (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against because I have no mind of my own...I vote how Todd votes. :) -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  08:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Autofor for self-references. - Sikon 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Educational, but not well written. --Zyrac 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I made some slight changes. Anyone think it's funnier this way? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. An Uncyclopedia article that's actually useful in the real world. --66.27.9.105 21:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)eggman n3
• For. Aye. --- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry, doesn't do it for me. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For because clicking is essential to human interaction, 84.230.190.148 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC) but am i allowed to vote?
• Against - Just not enough meat. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. veeeeeerry good, very topical, apt. I clicked a link tho and was disapointed not to be better punished, so only 9/10. --Jack Mort 17:26, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
• For because I kept fearing Goatse would come up, and then it didn't, and that means puppies didn't cry. Jlove1982 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Really humorous, I like very much R'son-W 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Plusgood I enjoy how far it goes if you do click links. --Kalir, Savant of Utter Foolishness! (yell at me) 16:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. One of those articles with no real meat, but is all in the way it is written, like redundancy and Alliteration. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against: Lame. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against:Lame because it doesn't even have 500 words, are people just getting lazier??--Claudius Prime 15:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I don't have to give a reason because I'm an American, goddamnit! -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Goa Tse

• Nominate. Nice riff on what you may have thought was an exhausted meme - David Gerard 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nein. The very word "goatse" causes me to vomit. - Sikon 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Did you read the actual article, Sikon, or are you just subscribing to the Do NOT click any links! philosophy?--<<>> 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. This article is very, very well done. I just can't bring myself to vote for anything goatse-related for the front page. Especially after Yesterday...--<<>> 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also strong against. Rocky Mountain Oysters was bad enough, then sexual innuendo, can't we keep the front page SFW? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"SFW?" "So Fucking What?" (yes, I know.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• For.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I'm too lazy to click on the article link and want to read it on the front page. Guinness2702 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It could use some more content. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  08:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. So disgusting, so wrong. But I couldn't care less.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Biased but For -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Enhanced by Mhaille - me too steps out of the closet. -- Swami A. Suresh 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For with a smirking grin. --KATIE!! 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For want pie now --Willy on wheels! 12:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For the quotes alone are hilarious :) --Huffers 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Too deep for me. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For YES! good. an original take on goatse that won't make you gag. --JackMort 12:45, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
• For. A Goatse on every computer in every school by 2007. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against - In what appears to be a sadly predictable trend for me. Even though the subject manner is handled cleverly, it's still one big anal sex joke at the end of the day. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak NEG-A-TIVE. I like this. I really do. It's smart, and I laughed. But I have to agree that the front page is starting to get too predictable in its display of crassness. I'm all for smutting it up, but too much of a good thing, and all that... maybe later. Yeah, definitely later. And no, not like that, you filthy bastards. I'm a trashcan. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No Goatse!!!--Anon32 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• OH my fucking god, that is so disturbing! FOR! --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sure --Roger The Bum Full sig!
  <a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>
  CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against:This article is funny, but for the front page..?--Claudius Prime 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Subtle and funny: I like it. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

War on Humor

• Self-nomination and for. I may have waited too long to put this up for voting, but I still find the idea hilarious.--<<>> 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I especially like the part starting with the Jains and ending with the Teletubbies.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Heh, yes, and I thank you for your help, Some User.--<<>> 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Of Course.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. Not good enough for the front page.--Rataube 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I downloaded that picture.--Mrasdfghjkl 11:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I added the Scientologists. - David Gerard 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• $\sum _{k=0}^{1}\left(2k+1\right)$ 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Two PG Tips thumbs up. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against, it could be improved. Make it Unews, and make it like "A way on humor has been instated by the UN." --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Good writing, funny, makes fun of religion... these are the reasons it smells good to me. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Murphy's law application for antigravitatory cats

• How is it possible that we missed that impressive piece of rational delirium? --Zig 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It tried and failed at VFH in Nov `05, I think. ~ T. (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote for this article today! --Ж Kalir _{hippies! yay!} 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Vote for funny and creative! --Soma 11:19 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I tried this with my cat, and it didn't work. But both made me laugh. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp ^{sex & violence!} 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. It starts off good, but after that first section it gets real repetitive and such.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This is worthy.--<<>> 18:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This I enjoyed Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 22:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong for, Antigravity Cats are the way of the future. --OsirisX 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Funny, although not as good as Douglas Adam's improbability propulsed spaceship.--Rataube 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Unoriginal humour. The "Laser_kittens" joke has been around for years. VFH should be for outstanding original contributions. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• 1/4 for - it's an old joke, but it's a good expansion of it - David Gerard 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• FºR ∆nd comment what the hell happened to the VFH page? The edit links are phyukked up --Roger The Bum Full sig!
  <a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>
  CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. A decent article, but the front page should feature originality. ~ T. (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - we need more physics on the front page. - Sikon 07:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For And it really works! ... R'son-W 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For If Schroedinger had known antigravitory cats it would clearly has changed the course of quantum physics. Besides, the formation on the pixels on the screen send optical signals to my brain in which electrical processes induced chemical signals to mu muscles to overcome the tense friction in my jaws. Hence I giggled. -- Swami A. Suresh 17:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Quality programming for all ages. --Electrostatic 06:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

for http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Laser_kittens

• Strong For - this is genius...definitely belongs on the front page. --Imrealized 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for pssible cleanup required before it hits the glare of the front page? --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For! For! For! - Heck, the image alone is enough to make the front page! -- Charles "KaRoLuS" Tindall 12:44, 24 March 2006 (EST)
• Blase For - Excellent image, very funny, needs to be a little cleaned up. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 15:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Distraction

• Nomiforated -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• <!--for-->   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for I did, in fact, chortle.--<<>> 02:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - nice one - David Gerard 17:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Week four?—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• AgaFornst. Speaking of four (blah blah blah)... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I think... Hey guys, what's that bird over there? - Sikon 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I dig it — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Is the part about the celtics true?--Rataube 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of it... I had just read an article in National Geographic the night before. So, I tried to remember as best I could. So, in conclusion, there may be one or two facts in there...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That old woman next door

Amusing. --Hobelhouse 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Doesn't make me laugh.--<<>> 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Lurgy 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Been there...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Just because she watching me, right now. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This article scares me. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, because that's just how I feel at the moment.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - great piece of writing, original, really uses the encyclopedia parody aspect as well. Everything you could want from an exemplary Uncyclopedia feature - David Gerard 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. (Insert reason here.)—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Wow...Bradley, you're such an ass.  ;) -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I can't help it! I didn't get enough love as a child!--<<>> 18:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes you can. As Sophia tells us "To receive love, you must give love." Love The Old Woman Next Door and your life will change for the better. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• For It made me think of Grey Gables and Little Edie and all those grand old times. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I literally laughed out loud R'son-W 07:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nah. ~ T. (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Humour? Satire? Where? --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Something most can relate to... my wife fears becoming that psycho old lady some day. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

• This is only the second time that I've nominated my own stuff, but since it's been implied that I'm a washed up, has-been writer, I'm submitting one of my newer articles for consideration Nominate'D and For'D--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Made me chortle.--<<>> 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sure. Meh.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 07:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - The dialogue makes it. Makes it good. And funny. — Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP (Witty Remarkes) 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, but is there a picture Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have photshop, and wouldn't know how to use it if I did...Paging RadicalX--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Ah, my son is home for the weekend. Better yet, he's in a mood. Perhaps if I torment him a bit he can think of something. 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know its bad to do this, but I tweaked the article and replaced Kirk Douglas with James "Buster" Douglas, and went ahead with a graphic of Abraham Lincoln getting ready to throw a dirty punch. I hope I didn't step on toes. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No worries pretty, I rewrited it to fit the "new" Douglas, and added more!!! Nice pic BTW

-slack

• For. Amusing. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wildeboys

• First off, don't be hatin'. I know it's Oscar Wilde (omg clichézilla!). However, take the time to read this article. Its subtlety brings me to nominate a band article, which are the bane of my existence. It's satire at its best fairly good state okay...ness. --KATIE!! 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. I wrote a cliché once, well sorta... It was kinda just one big cliché, making fun of clichés... you get the idea.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 04:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - Light, breezy, stupid. I likes it. Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP (Witty Remarkes) 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Fourth. ~ T. (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but this didn't make me laugh.--<<>> 18:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Wow.....its so rare that I get to For my own article....might as well make the most of it. :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. And I now need to write Clichézilla. - David Gerard 07:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• For » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 11:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Dunno what you were thinking of doing a band article ;p Wilde used the way he was supposed to be (wittily). --JackMort 18:17, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
• For - I really enjoyed this one; then again I'm new so I am still enjoying the Wilde-thing. But this was a very unique approach. --Imrealized 11:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against - Anything involving Oscar Wilde is funny. But I didn't feel as if this is exerting its full humour potential. Maybe a mock discography, and other additions could make it funnier. --Charles "KaRoLuS" Tindall 12:37, 24 March 2006 (EST)
• For. Funny, witty, and above all, witty. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 16:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Nabokov

Nomination and strongest possible for. Ok, it's short, and if you didn't read lolita don't bother with this one. But if you did, OMG! I almost cried. Billiant, brilliant! Best written-in-the-style-of-the-title article ever!!!!--Rataube 07:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Half a for. Needs just a little more cowbell. And a pic. Possibly something anime. (Yeah, I've been tweaking 4chan again.) - David Gerard 09:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  Full for. That picture had me reaching for my sporks - David Gerard 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Against.--Winston 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• YES! OH YES!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Gamiac 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For I added a picture (not especially creative, but I like it) but it still needs a caption. Somebody with a copy of Lolita on hand could probably find something pretty easily. --Spin 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• For?—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• "It makes me feel like a moth attracted to the light; I know not why, just that I must."- Nabokovpretty, FOR Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, please God yes. It was a scintillating tingle traversing from my palette to beyond
  • Unsigned. --—rc (t) 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ehhh, For. Why not.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. If it can make me laugh when I don't even get it, it's worthy.--<<>> 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 19:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, by jove! -- Major Major 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Brilliant!--67.172.96.154 05:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bah, only losers sign in when they vote. -- Rabidwombat27 18:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk)
• For--Squelchtoad
• For--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. LMSO. -- Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT Delete this Article

• More self-reference! - Sikon 15:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why the heck is it NRV'd? That's awesome! FOR in bold capital letters. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't NRV'd, it's a joke. It always shows the current date as the NRV placement date (Spl4rk@ 1$ 73h h@x0r!). - Sikon 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. Eh, didn't make me laugh...--<<>> 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why the hell did you nominate this? Eh... w/e, For.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• A totally selfish for.Tom Veil 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't delete this article, even if I wanted to. That would make me a vandal. As the Vandals said, "Hitler Bad, Vandals Good." Indeed. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp ^{sex & violence!} 11:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 14:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for -Deathz0r 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Phöre--71.225.60.215 02:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• for --His Royal Majesty, Simulacrum Caputosis the Great 02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• No funnies lie in this comment, and no secret messages either. --Roger The Bum Full sig!
  <a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>
  CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against.--Winston 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yelling is fun. EmoElmo 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. EmoElmo, you fail at yelling. THAT'S how it's done. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Too funny. --Gamiac 22:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Very creative. This should be added to HTBFANJS.--Jtaylor1 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. But of course, some vandals had to blank it! Err, well... For the blank too. --El Dac Vin 16:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weaker For than is actually possible, this might as well be a "Why not, it's not like it's going to kill me if we dont.": It's a vanity page... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Heterocidal Tendencies There 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete this (for) vote. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry Tompkins, but I really really want to delete this. And not to be ironic either. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. *insert generic "do not" comment here*--~ sin($) ^tan(€) 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• FOR Funny, original, creative, what's not to love? R'son-W 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Marcel Proust

• Nominated for delightfully subtle hilariousness(!). --DWIII 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well I was just about to vote against this, but then I started reading further, and noticed that there was not a single period in the entire aritcle, i thought this odd and began to imagine how i would yell at you for nominated a stub with the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen, however, I noticed that there was a quote on top which made the entire article very funny indeed, so now I will vote For,   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. Oh, once again, more literature and less mathematical crap :) But remove the Style Joke template, a joke is not funny if it needs to be explained. Just add the "so called expert" template.--Rataube 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For (half vote). Remove the extraneous template and I might change it to a full vote. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against Proust deserves better than this.--Claudius Prime 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against Funny? Yes, but hard on the eyes.--Bradaphraser 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• For Hard on the eyes? Isn't that a good thing?--Scythe33 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. I expect RC can chop it off at some arbitrary poin David Gerard 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Doug 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, but really this should be on Edward Bulwer-Lytton. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Although I admit I am largely unfamiliar with Proust's style, the quality of the parody shines through. I would like to see a little formatting, however. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 13:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes! Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, and I thought I voted for this before.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• OuiDame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• For and a half - This is what we need more of. --Imrealized 10:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For If one could have not realised that parodic genius was flowing through the author's viens at that then very moment, then one was not to have lived; not have flown across milions of miles of oceans of metaphors; not witnessed the end of the world and the extropolation; the death, demise, doom, denoenment of the very thing which we all hold so close to our, hearts, the ultimate, powerful, all-mighty gift of Sophia, Uncyclopedia, as the many unillustrious and unenobled, crass, cretinous, cheap and poor attempts to write humour and satire devolved into a sprawling mass, then plastered on the wall for all to see. (In other words, just what we need for the front page!) --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Le Corbusier

• God I hate this guy. Nominate - David Gerard 14:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Machine For Yes-Vote - --Some user 14:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (and I like the custom VFH tag, too - thanks David!)
• For I don't get most of it, but I can still see the humor here.--Bradaphraser 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Never heard of him, but funny nonetheless. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ask the so-called experts. The man responsible for modern architecture resembling dystopian sci-fi movies - David Gerard 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm way too lazy to click that link... could you put it on the page for us uneducated losres?--Bradaphraser 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) [Done - --Some user 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)]
• For -- Droopy 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Machines for voting. --Hobelhouse 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very funny. For those who don't know who he is, I think this line in Wikipedia sums it up: "Le Corbusier's theories were adopted by the builders of public housing in the United States. For the design of the buildings themselves, Le Corbusier said "by law, all buildings should be white" and criticized any effort at ornamentation." -- Rei 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. The end is a little too repetitive, a machine of repetition.--Rataube 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry but this isn't front page material.--Unissakävelijä 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. As rataube said the end's repetitive, and the rest of it is just too normal, not very twisted.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For Had Corbu lived to read this, he would have dubbed it bourgeois, and thats good enough for me! Prettiestpretty 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Purrrrrr Had he lived to see this, it certainly would have killed him. Me like. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nah. Been thinking about this one for some time now. ~ T. (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek:Voyager

• Nominated - David Gerard 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Acknowledged. --Andrusi 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for Man, I hated this series, but the article is funny.--Bradaphraser 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• For --Caiman 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think I'm even done writing it now. For. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• For! This is teh funnay. --Morlark MUN NS (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• For I give it a 7 out of 9! Though it sadly may be too factual, very sadly--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• For KHAAAAAAAAN! Oh, wait, wrong Trek. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. The song is awesome, but the sections after that are more snarky than funny.Tom Veil 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see what you mean and have tried to adress this problem by adding more content that has a serious tone. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. Blame Spock.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• OMFGZYAIS FOR: At first glance it seemed factual and uninteresting but as soon as I actually started reading it, I came to be aware of what genius this article is. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Although, it's probably necessary to have a basic knowledge of Voyager. Otherwise it may seem factual and uninteresting. There's a whole lot of references to pop culture, historical events, etc that make it especially funny. Very subtle humor for the most part. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Despite my attempts to destroy the competition by repeated and reckless copyediting, this article is still good.  ;-) Subtle, yes, but I really like that. We get plenty from the other side of the spectrum. ~ T. (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against - Makes me want to watch Voyager so I understand the jokes. Very well-written, though. Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP (Witty Remarkes) 12:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maozilla

Chron suggested we nominated it again. I can't believe it wasn't featured. For. --Rataube 19:40, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, for. I must confess, this made me laugh.--Bradaphraser 20:37, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Kakun 21:43, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For --Chronarion 22:58, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• ForForFor. --KATIE!! 00:21, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For and may I say very clever too. Prettiestpretty 00:40, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For - I like his take on Tianemen Smowton 00:51, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:02, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 14:08, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Probably the highest quality article on this page. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:32, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• 32/8. Sikon 16:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against - (yeah, I know, this makes me a pariah here, but I just didn't find it humorous.) Insane? Check. Well-executed? Double check. But no gut-buster, this. --King In Yellow 16:50, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, erh, Against. ^_^. I quite agree with KIY. I have read this article repeatedly and just cannot appreiciate it enough to be neutral on it.--Winston 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• McFeast. This is funny in its own way. Worth featuring IMVHAIO --Dr. Pepper 21:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. I hate mosters. Ever since that damn SimCity...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. 毛主席万岁! -- Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Previously Featured

Westboro Baptist Church

Featured --—rc (t) 06:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. I saw these guys picketing a presbyterian church (god hates fag Presbyterian churches!) and a highschool graduation (god hates fag highschool graduates!)it was disturbing yet strangely hilarious, especially when we started picketing them. This is a great article.
• Like Hurricane Katrina, sometimes the trooth is teh funneh. This is one of those cases. Fred Phelps is like a walking Uncyclopedia in and of himself, but without the sense of humor. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Wow. Good job adding the Wikipedia tag. I'd never heard of these people, thankfully. They must be mocked...--<<>> 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, IF World's Greatest Asshole Comeptition gets written. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Phor but I think his name is speld Phred Felpps. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. XD! --OsirisX 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak (1/2 vote) Against. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh hell ja! I hate this prick... slander away! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Aye! Arrr, good article. --DeathByPie 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• HISSSS A parody of a parody. How clever(Yawn). This article is like making love to a Shrimp Boat Captain; it leaves one cold and clammy. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Made me giggle, in a good way Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, I know this isn't a popularity contest, but W.W. is a cool dude.--Claudius Prime 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Just can't bring myself to do it.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• For I can --Willy on wheels! 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. As Ozzy said: "I've never seen anything so bizarre in my life, you know?" --Dr. Pepper 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For Could use some work, but it's conceptually very good. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - Yes, I'm voting for my own article. It makes me laugh, anyway. —Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP (Witty Remarkes) 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• FOR FOR FOR - you're the boss!
  • Unsigned. --—rc (t) 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Because the man deserves to be lolled at, mostly. Crab

• For I enjoyed this article, especially the captions for the pictures. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I had no idea these people existed until I saw this, so I learned and I laughed. Then I cried because these people exist. --Imrealized 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Osama bin Laden awarded star on the Walk of Fame

Featured And I can cite a precedent if necessary. :) --—rc (t) 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and for - David Gerard 07:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I am for awarding people with stars!  – Mahroww a.k.a. Rooney Arith Metise  07:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - High-quality writing and on-target satire. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Two thumbs up, could become the next Ed Wood.--<<>> 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For the article, not Bin Laden (and why can't Bush find him?) Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For what reason would Bush want to find him? Sadly, his still being out there is a handy excuse for attacks on fundamental US rights, such as the so-called "PATRIOT act". --Carlb 14:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Sure. I appreciate the votes, internet friends. --—rc (t) 03:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See below --—rc (t) 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Me gusta muchisimo. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Kubrik, Kirosawa, Bergman and Passolini would approve.--Rataube 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: I just wish that I could attend the ceremonies. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: Todd's dramtic reading of it for UnNews audio sealed the deal. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Todd has the perfect "News Caster" voice.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks. Too bad it isn't a great paying job, or I might've stuck with it.  :) For. ~ T. (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Ah-ha-ha. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I struck out my first vote so that I could vote for the post-Todd Lyons broadcast version instead. Awesome. --—rc (t) 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4