Uncyclopedia talk:VFH/Great Britain

Okay, so I read the entire thing again, with keener eyes to try and see what exactly people find funny here. But now I just feel inclined to switch over to a strong against and to add a comment that strays from being as hurtful as possible. This is yet another article that falls in line with IC's clichés: aiming for the "articles that most people visit" (and naught else, which causes a strain on genuine humour potential that could be found elsewhere), awkwardness of combined user cohesion, pointless fear of using the most expected and tasteless humour (such as putting a picture of Hitler in the article of Jew. Yeah it's not VFH, but will it ever?) as well as planting it straight on VFH (sure, you got a positive review, but by now it's getting quite annoying that there is an assumption that everything created by a oversized group of writers has to be featured. I remember seeing a far better version of this article that was alsmot certainly done by British users only. Not that I'm trying to sound like the BNP, but it feels to me that the best writers for the GB article are those who can replicate British humour the most, rather than the people who overuse the same Thatcher/crumpets/empire/Blair/upper class jokes over and over and over and over again to the point where I want to stab my head with a TV remote to get the cliché out of my head. The article leans far too much into several areas (America and France are mentioned way to much. Who the fuck cares about them? It's an article on an entire kingdom of nations for god's sake), not enough in others (Thatcher as the queen? Sooooo hilarious. I'd have satirised her PMship instead) and none at all in the most obvious subjects related to Britain (such as seperate sections on England, Scotland and Wales. A section on British sports, namely football and rugby, as well as the upcoming London 2012 olympics. A section on cities that has nothing to do with the empire. A section on food, leisure activities in general and youth culture. A far more thorough section on history that peruses full humour potential. Holy fuck, I could go on). So my opinion in essence: featured status? God no. I could do far better on my own. I could even stretch this comment further, but I think I have my point made by now. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• So what you're trying to say is that you completely don't get the article. -- 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 15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Any one who DOESNT VOTE for this article doesnt get it. FUCKING HATERS Djdorama 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, just those that detail every point of why they don't like it and how said points correspond with the point of the article don't get it. -- 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 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not exactly something you can claim about someone else's opinion. It's humour intended, etc, etc, but I don't find it funny. King? ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• You know what I'm starting to find quite annoying? TL;DR comments on nomination pages. You obviously don't get it and you don't like it. Fine. Your commentary on IC and how you think they could have done better? Fascinating. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:57, 14 Apr

• Opinion X number of words = not necessarily something you ought be riled by. Cheer up, eh? ----kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Since we're being "clever" now: Words + more words + even more words /= importance. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but crossing out a perfectly adequate vote just to replace it with a huge pointless rant just screams "I WANT SOME DRAMA". That makes two active nominations you've proceeded to use for your drama whoring. Piss off, eh? -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:15, 14 Apr

Anything to state my full opinion really. Some articles I feel I have little to say about, others a lot. I don't see what is wrong with cricitising anything on the site, no matter how short or long it is. To negate that right from me is to betray the purpose of discussion on this site: to talk about anything in whatever way to whatever length (I'm unsure if you understand this concept: discussions can lead to a better product, you only have to respond civilly)- unless someone wants to assume it's 100% poison, contrary to the author's original intention. It's better than having the audacity to reduce a lengthy insight into an article to "omg drama" whilst letting it get to you and having a hissy fit on the talk page. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 10:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The point, my wordy friend, is that your lengthy dissertation is not appropriate for a VFH nomination page. You are always welcome to give your opinion on the appropriate talk page, stop by IC and tell us what we could be doing better or even do a pee review. I welcome criticism and advice, but not on VFH nominations. -OptyC Sucks! CUN 14:52, 15 Apr

I'd be happy to do so soon! One has it in mind that it will be lengthy once more, howevers. I'll be sure to bring up ideas that could potentially contribute. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

HUGE FUCKING BLOCK OF TEXT! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes! We're in a discussion page! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is better to continue a point here rather than on the main VFH/VFD pages unless they are brief point/counter point arguments/discussions.--Romartus 12:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 22:33, Apr 15