{{CommentBox|Top 3 of January:|[[Really Big Tree]], [[My Journeys with the GPS]]<br> and [[Blackbeard Catering Company]]!|#0066ff}}
−
{{VFHRules}}
−
−
−
__TOC__
−
−
<div align="center">
=Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * ) =
=Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * ) =
</div>
</div>
Line 17:
Line 8:
<span style="color:red">VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.</span> If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to [[Uncyclopedia:Pee Review]].</big>
<span style="color:red">VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.</span> If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to [[Uncyclopedia:Pee Review]].</big>
<!-- New entries go on TOP! TOOOOP!!! -->
<!-- New entries go on TOP! TOOOOP!!! -->
+
+
==[[Mr. Beluncle]]==
+
{{S|+1 Extra Innings}}
+
+
*'''N+F'''. Pure comedy, shot direct to the medulla oblongata, via the syringe of words. {{User:Hardwick_Fundlebuggy/sig}} 06:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[UnNews:Cardinals beat Tigers in 5 games to win World Series]]==
==[[UnNews:Cardinals beat Tigers in 5 games to win World Series]]==
Line 25:
Line 21:
*'''For''' An oldie, but a goodie. --[[User:Composure1|Composure1]] 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' An oldie, but a goodie. --[[User:Composure1|Composure1]] 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' {{User:Jack_mort/sig}} 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' {{User:Jack_mort/sig}} 01:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Forforforforfor''' (and I'm a Mets fan). --{{User:Crazyswordsman/sig}} 05:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[UnNews:Police reunite for murder case]]==
==[[UnNews:Police reunite for murder case]]==
Line 97:
Line 92:
*'''For''' --[[User:GAMESPOT=666|GAMESPOT=666]] 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' --[[User:GAMESPOT=666|GAMESPOT=666]] 03:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' Really hard to come up with funny puns for "For" these days.--{{User:Atomic Disturbance/sig}} 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' Really hard to come up with funny puns for "For" these days.--{{User:Atomic Disturbance/sig}} 19:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' --{{User:Crazyswordsman/sig}} 05:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
== [[English gods]] ==
== [[English gods]] ==
Line 413:
Line 407:
===I just want to let you know...===
===I just want to let you know...===
You've probably already heard, but Mordillo and I are working on an audio for this. If I had some time, I'd work on a reskin as well. --{{User:Crazyswordsman/sig}} 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You've probably already heard, but Mordillo and I are working on an audio for this. If I had some time, I'd work on a reskin as well. --{{User:Crazyswordsman/sig}} 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
==[[HowTo:Deliver a Baby, A Concise and Easy-to-follow Guide Developed, Tested, and Approved by the AMA (No, Not that AMA. The Other One) and Reprinted with the Permission of the JAMA (Also a Different One)]]==
−
{{s|+17 Octopi}}
−
'''Featured''' {{user:Rcmurphy/sig}} 06:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
−
−
*'''Nom and for''' Absolutely hilarious! --{{User:Cap'n Ben/sig}} 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' Cap and Ben said it all. {{User:Braydie/sig2}} <small>02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)</small>
−
*Go '''for''' it. --{{User:Andorin Kato/sig}} 05:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' I saw Modusoperandi moving a bunch of redirects to this page around on recent changes earlier today, and talking up plenty of space whilst doing it. Also, its a funny article, with good drawings. --{{User:Zombiebaron/sig}} 06:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' more pages with octopus. Oh, and babies. Both are ''adorable''.--{{User:Modusoperandi/sig}} 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Mild 4.''' --[[User:Zork Implementor L|L]] 12:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*I try not to vote for too many HowTo articles, but this one is great. '''For'''. {{User:Cs1987/sig}} 15:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' -- Pretty damn good. Even better if I sign my vote. --{{User:Contestant/sig}} 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For'''. Long title -- did Squiggle possess MO at some point?--[[User:Procopius|Procopius]] 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For'''. Bad boy Modus. I love evil stuff. -- {{User:NeedABrain/sig}} 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''FOR''' {{User:Jack_mort/sig}} 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''', but I swear that I did not write the title. {{User:Squiggle/sig}} 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For'''--lives up to the warning at the top--[[User:Shandon|Shandon]] 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' --{{User:Jedravent/sig}} 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' and only because Modus started the whole affair. {{User:Prettiestpretty/sig}} 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' heh. [[User:Phantom Grammar|Phantom Grammar]] 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
−
−
==[[Protect and Survive]]==
−
{{s|+19 Tubular}}
−
'''Featured''' {{user:Rcmurphy/sig}} 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
−
−
*'''Nom and For'''. Fundlebuggian hilarity. {{User:Wehpudicabok/sig}} 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' PROTECT AND SURVIVE! --{{User:ENeGMA/sig}} 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Weak for.''' --[[User:Zork Implementor L|L]] 03:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For'''. A thoroughly informative document, which will be of as much use as any other when the bombs fall. [[User:El Zoof|El Zoof]] 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' a great satire on the pointlessness of nuclear war. Loved the line "''We made it! Now it's just us and the cockroaches!''" {{User:§ǚρωξλ£μĦΦφ≈€ƏξßÐÆØΞ/sig}} 05:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For'''. Oh freakin hell Wehpudicabok! I was gonna nom this...you know, eventually. --[[User:Anyone|Anyone]] 14:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''For'''. {{User:Mordillo/sig3}} 16:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' --{{User:Jedravent/sig}} 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''F☭r''', {{User:Tom_mayfair/sig}} 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' {{User:Jack_mort/sig}} 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' --{{User:Cap'n Ben/sig}} 08:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Yes.''' --[[User:Emmzee|Emmzee]] 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Hell yeah'''. REALLY FUNNY.--[[User:Xzeta|Xzeta]] 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For'''. It reminds me of growing up in the 50's. Except I didn't grow up in the 50's. And I didn't grow up. What were we talking about?--{{User:Modusoperandi/sig}} 04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Strong for'''. This is why HF is Writer of the Year.--[[User:Procopius|Procopius]] 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' I thought it was pretty funny.--[[User:Jsemmens|Jsemmens]] 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' ''Duck and cove --- '''BOOOM!!!''''' Up it goes! [[User:The Humbled Master|The Humbled Master]] 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' Now I can't wait for the warning! --[[User:Kenvalyi|Kenvalyi]] 14:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For.''' An interesting slab of foibles. {{User:Hardwick_Fundlebuggy/sig}} 06:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )
</div>
SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must spend at least one week on pee review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).
VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Nom and For - I think that this article should be featured because it accurately describes true events that have taken place in the recent past. --142.167.211.0 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For - Can't vote against my own article --Uncle J 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom and Strong For - I nominated this article a while ago but unfortunately it didn't make the cut, I hope everyone will give it a second chance. It's one of the funniest articles I've ever read on uncyclopedia --Uncle J 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Re-Nom and for. The best thing I've taken off VFH in a while. This article definitely deserves another chance.--<<>> 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. this was only removed from vfh two goddamn days ago, my vote hasn't changed in that time - jack mort |cunt| talk - 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The article has, however, if only slightly.--<<>> 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow....and I was just about to vote for this....FORE! -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if the little boy had a bit of quiet time before being rush back for judgement here, he might be able to examine why he didn't make it last time against. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Originally Nomed and Strong For -- Awesome article but you could have waited a bit longer to put in back on VFH, why did you take it off in the first place instead of vote for it? --Uncle J 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Around Christmas, we had maybe a half-dozen articles that were removed, renommed, and then featured. I don't know why everyone's making such a huge deal about it right now. I didn't vote for the first time, because there was crap in it before. Now that crap is gone.--<<>> 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For It made my eyes well up.. in a very manly way. --Kenvalyi 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For Wow, it's here once again. Anyway, before voting Against please note that some crap has been taken out of this article since last time...
For, again --GAMESPOT=666 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For - My first "style joke" article, and I believe it came out rather swimmingly. --Sir Judgement F@H UmP VFH {talk} 17:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an entry in an electronic registry affirming the quality of a licensed submission to a web site, known by certain laypersons as a vote for. --Alksub - VFHCMWARV {talk} 18:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The man sat down in front of a square screen, with an unusual number of small buttons mounted beneath him, each with a letter of the Roman alphabet. Drawing himself up, he typed for.--Procopius 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Altough I'm ashamed to tell that I could not read it until the end, not that I am an unpolished working-class thug (yet still a sensible human being) and instead I may add the point regarding the article's prolixity, that is an writing style on itself but become somewhat unfashionable during the XX century when, by the way, all sensibilities become a little blunt, I'm afraid to tell. -- herrdoktorneedsAcharge[scream!] 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For Such a DICKens- --DAME::FoxyBabe::TALK 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak for. For me, the test of a "style article," as Judgement put it, has been to know how and when to plant a different kind of humor. There's not that much of that in this article, but it's funny nonetheless. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom, and a vote for. Really well written news article that is funny without having to mention kittens or grues etc.--Benny Goodman 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I tried to buy a Wii. After failing to locate one at any local store, I was reduced to wandering the streets yelling "Wii!". Send bail money. Fast. Bubba's got this look in his eye. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against It's funny, but a lot more could be done with it besides the "breaking pots" angle. Throw in some chicken abuse, lawn defacement, etc. and I'll gladly remove my Against. —rc(t) 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For- I can't believe no one has thought of this already lol --Uncle J 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That was unintentional... I hadn't read that article. Though it is interesting that I happened to write it within a close vicinity of time after. I never intend to plagiarize, I'm not a Carlos Mencia. I attempt avoid that at all costs, and I actually did a bit of searching on here for any UnNews related to Link/Zelda to make sure it wasn't too similar to anything. I happened to miss the fact that the RPG article, which has conceptual similarities, could have any resemblance. - AhhDiddums 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom,Writer,For&Comment All grammar mistakes are intentional or assumed intentional if I actaully made a few mistakes.--Lt. Wyoming 05:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Like "actaully"? JK; we all do.—Lenoxus 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For The pictures really help the article.--Gaberou 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. It's well-written, but unfocused.--Procopius 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against - What have I told you about formatting, silly bean? Sir Judgement F@H UmP VFH {talk} 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak for They are right it could be better but it's still good.--Dr. Fenwick 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. it does need ..streamlining, bloody good though - jack mort |cunt| talk - 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The current name doesn't quite seem to fit the precise concept; I've proposed several possible moves on the talkpage (though not a template on the main, because there is more than one possibility). — Lenoxus 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For if only for the cartoons --Zarbag 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For Now, that the grammar is fixed, I think it is awesome!--Meteshjj 03:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For Never has an Uncyclopedia article taught me so much... I must spread this new-found knowledge to Eastern Europe... And making this aticle featured will be the first step, Comrades. -- The preceding unsigned vote was added by Gazco. Diff: [1].
For clever, funny, good pictures. A little piece of joy Phantom Grammar 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For... er, F☭r. Dammit, just ☭☭☭. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
SnF. Gloriously quasi-featured with 15 (hell, fifteen!) votes. I guess it deserves a second chance. -- herrdoktorneedsAcharge[scream!] 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For Not only is this by far the best Jesii article, it's also very good by the standards of a normal article. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 03:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
For, and I'd like to go on a ramble about how this is the best example of rewrite I've ever seen: It is not only terrifically hilarious, but it accomplishes this while including most of the content of an article that was terrible in the process. In the future, I'm referencing this to educate others on how rewrites should be done. :)--<<>> 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For, as an active fnord participant fnord in fnord public fnord school fnord, which fnord I fnord consider fnord brainwashing. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 01:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For. It was a sad day for Porchesia, but perhaps by remembering them they can live on.John1728 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, thanks. Internet memes, vandalism apology, not factual but a little obvious. Sorry. -- herrdoktorneedsAcharge[scream!] 02:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The last paragraph (not a Moridillo piece) sort of explains the joke and spoils it. Remove it and I'll vote for.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment agreed and removed, with my apologies to infinitemonkey. ~ 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For. I laughed through the entire thing. (By the way, a false article deleted by a Wikipedia admin doesn't exactly count as a meme, does it?) --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 06:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
For. /me bows my head honoring the people of Porchesia. ~ 11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna say yes for the same reason I felt compelled to edit it. Plus, the plight of the Porchesians must be heard! -- HindleyiteConverse 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
FOR Great work of investigative journalism. ((User:Ayatollah Gurkhmeini/sig}} 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I've unintentionally created a storm of confusion over the naming: First, I proposed a move to Porchesian Holocaust (where it is currently), then Flyingfeline went ahead with the move (which I didn't notice, not having updated the page in enough time), then I changed the move template to Porchesia, but this was removed by Flyingfeline out of an understandable exasperation. (I also changed my explanation for this on the talkpage, but have since moved that to Flyingfeline's talk after it got blanked (again understandably) in the middle of my editing. So... yeah. We'll all get through this, I'm sure. —Lenoxus 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You might as well vote for the bloody thing :) ~ 12:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess, but it's just that I'm, well, so anal... I mean, is this an article about the Holocaust or the country? It's brilliant either way, of course. Oh, screw it.-- Lenoxus 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For I'd better vote for it too. A shame that Porchesia became our own little Alderaan and that Danny was our Grand Moff Tarkin. Moff Danny, anyone? --チンドカ 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For despite the stupid name confusions. -- Lenoxus 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For I went there on vacation last summer. It wa*User Gamiac deleted, for reason "He never existed"*
For Really well written. It's funny that a non-existent country could slip through Wiki's nets for so long. --Benny Goodman 22:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nom and For. This may struggle to get featured, due to its Britishness, but I really want to give it a go. In a nutshell, David Cameron is our leader of the opposition and has been often criticised for focusing on style over substance, most notably with his video blog: WebCameron. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I have no idea what it's talking about, but I liked it. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. The Britishness isn't a problem at all. It seems like the same political bullshit thrown around in any democracy. Pretty good.--Procopius 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Against Ya I get what he is trying to say and I understand the struggle of labor vs. conservative in England but its too political and not enough funnyness (my patented word) Weasel3689 18:00 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For Britishness (or Britishocity) is no problem here, it's a very good satire on politicians trying to be hip in general. Very good article. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. It's good. --Zarbag 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time voting Tory. I feel dirty. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Not that I'm a thatcherite or anything... not that I'm saying you can't *think* I'm a thatcherite, you can if you want - it's ok by me --OliproAnchorKUN (Harass) 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For I don't vote much, so this deserved it, prepare for launch.... (yes it's back, albeit in a shorter form) ...3...2...1...
For I was laughing by the end of the first paragraph. It may be focused on a UK politician, but it's also a satire on a variety of political types. Phantom Grammar 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Don't know who he is, don't need to know. Beautiful concept. --So So 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Against, sorry, I didn't find it that funny. He doesn't come off as sufficiently out of touch. How about using outdated youth terms like 'bodacious' or 'mad for it'?--Nydas 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For Fantastic, honorable mention at PLS. —Braydie 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
He's my friend when things get rough. THIS was my childhood people, thankfully it has had no lasting vegetable marrows. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Just like an acid trip, but without the flash backs. Iddy Bitty 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is based on and don't really want to know. All I can say is For. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for freakin' out man! Aah! Bugs on my skin, bugs on my skin! --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For ....hey is that a flute over there? - jack mort |cunt| talk - 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
PHOUR CUZ I ER SEW JAKKD UP RIET NIOW. I loved this show. Not really, but this article is nice. --love, gustavtalk at menope 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
N+F. Damnit, this is a great article and should have been featured in its last swing around VFH. Do right by Kwakerjak this time.--Procopius 01:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong ForKwakerjak was a visionary, and he got wasted by the system. We squeezed him for all the cheap laughs we could get and threw him in the trash. It was an injustice to make him a one-hit wonder with Napoleon Bonaparte. He hasn't contributed in a while, but dammit, he could have been one of the greats. Sorry for rambling, and maybe I wouldn't have cared at all if he hadn't added to my own French Revolution article in the first place, but Kwakerjak is one of our most underrated authors, and the least we can do is posthumously feature something of his. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 03:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak against. Reads too much like a newspaper column from the time — a very clever column, mind you, but not much else. I'm picturing the speaker as an engaging, personable history teacher sprinkling lectures with fun commentary like this; I'm not picturing Featured. Then again, that could definitely be my own vague bias against commentary... —Lenoxus 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For. Both mostly true AND hilarious. This is what I picture the best Uncyclopedia articles being.--<<>> 13:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong for I am flipping my Whig over this article! And that its written with a hint of newspaper style is part of its charm. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
weak against Although this article is good in many places, the history teacher Lenoxus is referring to must be biased in a way I didn't find funny. Is saying a candidate ran as a stupid redneck over and over that funny? --»His Majesty King George VI(the boxes) 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. What's funny is a party embracing that image, and getting the populace drunk enough to buy into it.--Procopius 02:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Not only that, but the article highlights the fact that this strategy, which anyone could easily see through, wasn't an isolated incident to this particular election. His cross-referencing other cases of the same ridiculous plan working throughout American history were what made this a gem.--<<>> 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Yeah... yeah... but... to me, that's kind of, I don't know, geekish. It's like an article discussing some strategy in World of Warcraft and repeatedly pointing out how the strategy shouldn't work but does anyway. It's like a decent standup routine, or lunch-break tale ("so then Harrison was all like, 'I'm a redneck, yo!' And man, you just know that one would slide."). As a basically liberal American, I'm all too used to the "redneck strategy" working; I'm way past the point where it's either funny or depressing in itself: it's just another tool, you know? grr... out of words... —Lenoxus 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For enough that, I have to admit, I'm a little turned on right now. I can't be the only one...I am? Oh. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 18:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
for. you're never alone modus. *jacks* - jack mort |cunt| talk - 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For -- the "look at me, I'm a redneck" line near the end clinched it for me. -- Rei 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I generally like the idea and am currently working on some subtle ways to change it, mainly by making it seem more like the "bad content" really is part of the article (not just "This sentence contains the word contains"-type stuff), so that it rings truer. —Lenoxus 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For Just random enough to be hilarious, the thumbs are up -- (Elmis 11:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC))
Weak For I smirked a little, not the top article but a good one and better than many of the article already featured --Uncle J 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For Is this a vote? What does Humorous mean?--Dantoller 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against Come on this is predictable and not funny. Having this as a featured article would be just wrong! It should be huffed (yes I know the irony in that) --Marto 85 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I'm still annoyed that he yelled at me after that whole Golden Calf thing. Zealous prick. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Wow, you know the site is good when a page this great only warrants an "honorable mention." --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Niiiiice. --El Zoof 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For Mae West would've contracted and died of AIDS had she lived past 1980. Sorry I didn't light your fire mhaille. --AmericanBastard 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I am disappointed to see so many red links in a Procopius article. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Score: +12 damn times that Squiggle has gone and put a really, really long title on a page. I mean, really, it just goes on forever and ever...
Nom & For: I submit to you another PLS entry, winner in the "Best Illustrated Article" category, from Squiggle himself. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I didn't just pee it for self nomination - I wanted it checked over after I saw RadX's review, which included this: "I think we have a winner in Captain Petey, though, as an article it's not fantastic." But yeah, the nomination is appreciated. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 03:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom & For: another PLS entry; winner in the "Best Article" category. Definitely deserves to make it on the front page. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
ForA common lie: George washington could not tell a lie. This is a lie perpetuated bu the liar who in fact lied once to tell you that he could not lie. Weasel3689 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For Very funny. All that without Oscar, Chuck or T (not that there's anyhting wrong with them!). The habitual liar was gold! --Marto 85 07:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For Chester A. Arthur hilarious!--Gaberou 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For This Article was absolutley side slapping. The style of writing and command of the english language in this article only benefited the witty humor and clever ideas.Zim64
Self nom and for. I put a lot of hard work into this article, to make it look like a movie trailer. I think everybody will get the jokes. PF4Eva, the King of ImaginationtalkContributions 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I've been watching this one since it was started, and it's come a long way. <baritone>It will be featured.</baritone> Nice job, PF4Eva! --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 07:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Perhaps a few too many quotes in the way, but other than that, quite funny. ;) -- Rei 23:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. The only funny part was the Youtube vid. --So So 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
For This featured article is not yet rated.--Dr. Fenwick 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. For obvious reasons Mr. Briggs Inc. 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Eh?
I just want to let you know...
You've probably already heard, but Mordillo and I are working on an audio for this. If I had some time, I'd work on a reskin as well. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)