Uncyclopedia:VFH/You (IC)

Article: You	Score: 0 articles you could be writing now
Nominated by:	TKFU 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 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
For: 9	Nom + For. The guy on pee review liked it. -- TKFU 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 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) For. I liked it, and I think you need to lighten up EMC, if you are going to judge an article on something other than it's own merits, then could I not say that I don't like you on the basis that lots of other people vote against on VFH?? It's idiotic, the IC may be being unoriginal but we shouldn't consign them to VFD and our general disgust because of that. Otherwise I think your comments are valid, and you are entitled to them. -- – Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefjusticeDS (talk • contribs) (oops, I forgot to sign) Comment I wish I knew what you were talking about. --EMC^[TALK] 09:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC) For. Though I agree with many of the points made by emc and it's not the best article of its kind, I still think it's funny enough for a feature. Also, I don't think any of the writers were really aware that the format in question was already used in a lot of other articles. Rather, it just seemed the most obvious choice for a format for an article like this. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC) For. Because I think it is funny, and emc's comment is too long to read. On another point, the link from the nomination template on the actual page goes to an old nomination, before it was colonised. Which, on an unrelated note, emc voted for. Nameable • mumble? • (UnScr:PWotM) 15:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC) For. because of the pee review given in the against; besides I like first person. Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 05:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC) For. Definitely Featured material. Dorsalfrog Prime 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC) For This was fun. ~ Readmesoon 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC) For MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC) For. So true... InMooseWeTrust 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Against: 9	Strong against; Yet another article written in the first person or second person (in this case, both) climbing its way to the VFH and probably to the front page. I have, in the last year, had a general repulsion for these types of articles simply because of their format's overuse. It tends to create a borefest of unoriginality, which is ironic since most of the classic pieces from this POV are particularly hilarious. The use of this format ad nauseum (trust me, the categories for articles written in the first and second person isn't nearly all of them) is best seen on the front page (which is usually featuring a page of this sort) and in the recent trend of writing here on Uncyclopedia which errs off from the aim of being a parody of Wikipedia. But the general POV from which it is written is only the first criticism. Why is "you" bolded every time it's used? Is a pronoun, or the reader to whom it is referring to, really that important? This page also bears a striking resemblance to pages like Being cut off in the middle of a sentence, Alcoholics Anonymous, You Are Dead, and New Age Psychology with the (yet again: unoriginal) insertion of dialogue that, in this page's case, just gets confusing on top of whatever the hell else is going on with the distasteful concept. Why is it distasteful? Because it doesn't make sense. The page on "you" ought to be a bit more...you know...directed to the person reading it, shouldn't it? Instead, there's an unfunny exchange between nobody and "you" that makes me feel like I'm intruding on some private conversation. In fact, halfway through the article, I thought it was about somebody named "You" and was no longer addressed to me or [insert reader here]. It's not funny, particularly towards the end where the premise (and only joke) of the article has been stretched too long. The IC project deserved to die for this abomination. --EMC^[TALK] 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Against Not feeling this one. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Against. It insults the reader. That got old in like 2006. Plus, everything EMC said. And did I mention that all the bolding of words throughout the article got really annoying, and I don't even know why it's like that? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 19:45, Jul 27 Strong Against. Per EMC. This feels extremely forced, and like a cross-between a really desperate writer-recruition Uncyclopedia commerical (if there was such a thing) and You Are Dead, except much less funny. It probably would have been better if IC had gone the route of the extremely obvious, and just insulted the hell out of the reader, i.e., "You are a loser. There are few people who are legitimately worse than you," etc. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Against Per the long paragraphs above. Staircase CUN^t 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Against. I get it! The article insults you, so the "against" votes insult the writers of the article! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Against, per everybody else. Sir Groovester \| Contributions \| Talk Page 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 'against as per opty. although i won't spit acid in the face of IC like a certain chihuahua, i can't say this is IC's best work. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Against.. All I can say to You is No.--*RomArtusImperator ®** (Orate). 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments	In retrospect, and thinking about the concept of frames discussed in HTBFANJS, I agree with emc re the use of first (and second) person. On the other hand I think it also has funny in it. I'm so damned tied up on this one because I want to vote for, but just don't think it's good enough to be a feature, even though it is damned good. So I'm quite happy down here on my fence. Pup t 01:11, 28/07/2009 Abstain. Sorry IC, but I really have no idea how this ended up on VFH. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:33, 28 Jul If you really wanna know, VFH was just really slow and it got a good pee, so I put it up. -- TKFU 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 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)