# Uncyclopedia:VFH/old

(Difference between revisions)

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 page. You might also be interested in a list of featured articles sorted by number of votes.

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

## Nobody cares

Rejoice, for I have created an article! I promise not to do it often. And, what can I say? I'm lame and I'm nominating it for VFH. So take a look and don't be hatin'. KATIE!! 20:30, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Evil Scheme To Take Over The World

Because it's not only up my alley, it's about as crazy as AAAAAAAA!. Swordmaster 17:00, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Holocaust denial

• Nomination and Vote I couldn't stop laughing all the way through. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:13, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Starts out well but loses steam. Keep the hilarity coming and I'll change it to for. - Nonymous 05:18, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I am for this because I like it. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 05:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Wait. Isn't this up for vfd here?
• I thought this was pretty funny, but featured-article funny? Maybe. %% Mandaliet 08:13, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. It's a good idea, but it doesn't have much substance to it and it seems a lot like the real Kübler-Ross model with a few Holocaust jokes put in for good measure. Clever and funny, but not feature-funny. -- 08:19, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. It may be short, but it is clever and complete and not too different from some of the early features. -- 08:45, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I've seen pretty similar stuff many times before (not here, but yet, It is not original). And most of it should be sent to the Uncyclopedia:True Facts and Other Deleted Prose. --Rataube 14:42, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. There's a lot of potential, just not much of anything else. It seems way too short at this point in time. -JBob 21:27, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Without the parts that could easly be taken from Wikipedia, you're left with 1 1/2 lame jokes. What potential? -- Kakun 22:08, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Outer space

• Nominated and For. I rewrote this to replace the stub of an article that was there before, and I think it turned out well. -- 22:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Make a good image ilustrating the Pancakeball theory and you've got my vote. -- 23:04, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know if it's what you would call "good" but yeah sure, done. -- 00:35, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
For -- 08:16, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Nominated and For - the battle may be lost, but the war is not over. -- 11:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against - Johnny Commoner doesn't want to read about a feebly dramaticed moderation issue. ninebucks 17:51, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• You guys are missing the whole point. As soon as i deem it ready i plan to nominate the talk page of euroipods crusade. I'm just a little hesitent because alot of people might get pissed. 18:09, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I'm the idiot who feebly dramatcized it, so of course I'm voting For (and I'd vote for Tompkins idea, too!)--Bradaphraser 18:15, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For - Though I have met Johnny Commoner. His wife Linda makes a great cheesecake. Jlove1982 18:35, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I like wiki-in jokes, but this one is too much. It is actually funny, i like the never-ending argument over an arguement joke, but this will be funny just for really uncyclopedia-adicted people like us (i'm new but completely adicted allredy). I think the main page and its featured article should be for everyone.--Rataube 19:46, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
HAHA you used one D in addicted, and two L's in already. So your vote doesn't count. 19:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't count? Says who? According to which rule? Where is it written? Or may I assume that you are just pushing me to argue so you can nominate this page too??--Rataube 20:04, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Wow you can be my new idea man. Whenever i need a completely absurd or horrible idea I'll come to you. In return I won't have chuck norris round-house kick you in the face...yet. 20:19, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But i'm not afraid of chuk norris, send him if u've got the guts. Nothing frightens me, except from alien invasions, mad robots, Lord Voldemort and angry wicked kittens. --Rataube 20:35, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you didn't know? Chuck Norris is an angry wicked kitten! 20:37, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Noooooo! Please have mercy, I swear I will provide any amount of horribly absurd ideas you need, and I will attend my English classes more often. --Rataube 20:46, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
OK...but from now on you will only speak in Flamingo.

20:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Pink flamingo or nuclear-waste green? --Rataube 21:08, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For, but only if the arguments here on VFH over this article get added to the end of it. -- 21:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Strike that, Against. It was killed when a third article was nominated. -- 08:20, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is no such thing as a green Flamingo...uh, der 21:41, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Not yet. There's the seed of a good article in there, but it needs polishing up. --Algorithm (talk) 22:31, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Not yet Yes, it could be excellent with more commentary and clearer formatting. I'll hold off voting for it until then. --—rc (t) 23:59, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Who's "Johnny Commoner"? And why can't we get a break from this? --Johnny C. Raven 00:55, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Can't you guys see that this is just the kind of thing Rcmurphy wanted you to do when he featured euroipods? 00:09 2 Jan 2006
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:15, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I'd prefer Talk:Euroipods, but oh well. For. - Guest 06:05, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• AGAINST No more Euroipods crap. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:22, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against because this feels like an ED version of Talk:Euroipods. --EvilZak 22:59, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Monopoly

• Nominated because I've done a lot of work on it. --Alksub 04:21, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Nah. 04:56, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Focus of the article is misplaced. It doesn't even describe the game that the article is supposed to be about! -- 07:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. I like it. --Rataube 19:58, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Main Page

Nominated It's about time this gem got the recognition it deserves. - Nonymous 17:28, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For, although the nomination will get deleted... - Guest 19:38, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. Already one previously-failed nomination for this; if an admin has already deleted this garbage page, no idea why it was even recreated in the same form, let alone nominated for anything. --Carlb 03:24, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, so pretty much, this has been nominated before and probably suggested a bajillion times. It wasn't funny then, and it isn't funny now. So let's stop nominating it, okay? KATIE!! 03:29, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny. --Rataube 14:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny. --ninebucks 17:54, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. My name is on it. -- 21:17, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, what would it take to get you people to stop making these kinds of nominations? There aren't enough articles that people have spent time writing to nominate? Or do you just not care much for people who spend time writing articles? Call me a "humourless asshole," a "whiny bitch," a "spawn of Satan," or a "fucking twit" if you like. After all, those things describe me to a tee. But I wouldn't blame anyone for seeing this and thinking the whole site is just a big pork-blight waste of time. --Johnny C. Raven 01:09, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Against: I was about to vote for, but then reading Johnny C. Raven's comment made me rethink things; the meta factor isn't funny enough. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:13, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against, again And again and again, if necessary. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:33, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Meta-meta-meta-meta... I completely agree with JohnnyRaven's comment. My suggestion: if you really want this to happen, find a day on the aniversary calender with nothing on it, go to the IRC channel, then ask an admin if they would sponser a "Recursive Day" reskin. That way it is clever instead of tired and it lasts an appropriate amount of time. -- 08:25, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against ~ Enough joke noms. ~ This page is already unwieldy enough. -- T. (talk) 14:22, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Have to agree with Todd on this one. --152.163.101.9 21:53, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## University of Pennsylvania

• Nominated. Self nomination. Started as a slight modifcation of the original article on my own school. Kinda ran away with itself. :) --Zengei 04:32, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For lol long, but worth it. 04:40, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - On the basis of the school motto alone. --DrAwesome 07:19, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - because Harvard sucks, and they KNOW it... -Notman 17:41, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Okay. <-- Mandaliet 12:00, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Miguel de Cervantes

Nominated and For. It's my own article so i wont comment. If you think it deserves to be featured, thanx, if not, i wellcome any feedback that could help me to improve it, or improve my writing style in general. --Rataube 03:31, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Against it could be better. Too many small jokes and alot of red links...lol i hate those things 04:38, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'll correct the red links, although i think that some of them should be required articles. It's fine to make articles on Micheal Jackson and other silly and shallow pop culture stars, but i think uncyclopedians should better handdle wiser stuff. The jokes, are fine. Thanks. --Rataube 11:37, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against For now. However, it's essentially a good idea but it's too unfocused and random. If it were tightened up somewhat, it could be great. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:25, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you are right. The knight career is really too random. Maybe it is not ready yet. Any sugestion on how to thighten it up?--Rataube 11:30, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Finding Your Inner Sock Puppet

Nomintated and For. Great article and related image. -- 00:18, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For This really is a great article and has a rapier sharp wit. Prettiestpretty 01:01, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• This is probably the best in the series so far. An unqualified For. -- 01:08, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Definately For 04:35, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• In spite of my ever growing intolerence for wiki in-jokes, I vote for. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:29, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Very funny, intelligent, with high intertextuality. It even makes you think: Uncyclopedia needs more articles like this one. --Rataube 11:50, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For One of the best articles in a long time. Now, who is the puppetmaster of 'Some user' (they're obviously a sockpuppet themselves)? » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 12:00, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Aren't we all sock puppets here, Major Ken Kusanagi? --some user's sock puppet 17:08, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Love it. For. -- 00:25, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. Feature the socka. ---Kakun 03:28, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM :::14:49, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• This is about me, isn't it? It's always about me, me, me. Well, fuck you all. FOR. --Johnny C. Raven 01:10, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## 1=2

Nominated hilarious use of pretzel logic. Similar to all those other math things which "prove" illogical stuff but are actually serious. --Insertwackynamehere | Talk 19:38, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Weak For - It's really funny, but it's really new too. Jlove1982 21:45, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• ort of almost funny...but Against all the same. --Tompkins 22:43, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against - Eh. It's clever, although not original. Didn't make me laugh either.--DrAwesome 23:05, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. It's creative, but not original, feature-worthy, or really all that funny. -JBob 23:53, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against You can't divide by a-b when you've said a=b. These joke proofs are pretty much all the same and not original. Blah. --LOLMOLE 10:59, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. I must memorize this argument to confuse and piss off my friends.

## Babelfisch

Nominated Funny and accurate? Say it ain't so! Nonymous 18:03, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For. Well idea. Carried out badly, concerning plan. Excellent job.--Bradaphraser 18:25, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Weak against - It's sort of funny. But it either needs to have a new angle, or it needs to be longer, because in all fairness, anyone could have done this article in its current state.--DrAwesome 18:25, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I'm amused, but it could certainly have more. -> Mandaliet 04:13, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• My sister has recently informed me that it's spelled wrong. was that supposed to be a joke? 04:43, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• It's not spelled wrong; it's German. KATIE!! 04:44, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• That is the cleverist and most fantastic thing I have ever seen. I really mean that. Wow, I am a profoundly different man after that. Oh, my fuckinggod. Myfuckingjesuschristonastick,. Wow.
Anyway, back to Plain English, I'd just like to say that this article should be featured at all costs, man or material. Do it do it doit! --Sir Carlos the Mean CUN VFP CS CM CUNT (talk) 04:36, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For cos i havent got enough awards today. thanks goes 2 keitei for getting the translator to work 4 me and sparkla for the immoral support.

--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN3 NotM :::14:33, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Too accurate, too informative, too short, and not so funny. --Rataube 14:42, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Once again, a violation of the "Greater Than Zero Hitchhiker's Mentions" rule. --Johnny C. Raven 01:12, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Hazard (For, English->Korean, then Korean->English) --Xiao Li 09:30, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. An obvious gag, but damned if it ain't funny. --Zyrac 22:42, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Pat Robertson

This is my own article, with substantial additions and revisions by my fellow Uncyclopedestrians. It amuses the hell out of me, at least, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. --DrAwesome 08:36, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Vote for --Huzzah! 17:42, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I could swear I already vote For this. -- 20:01, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Rocky Mountain Oysters

• For: Mmm Good for the whole family! --Keithhackworth
• I have no clue how Prettiestpretty knew I was talking about these the other day, but this article is good. For » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:47, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For but only if we use the nutrition facts image and not the testicles image. --Sir gwax (talk) 16:27, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:54, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Also agreed - that image is already in use on Bull anyway, as BigNuts.jpg, only reversed. Oh, and for --some other user 01:29, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. ----OEJ 01:50, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against --Xiao Li 07:19, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For an' I think the testical picture is fucking amazing crazy awesome -- 14:25, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Blushing but really, the testicle image is what got me to thinking "why does this woman look as happy as the Sunmaid Raisin girl? because she is working at a wholesome and honorable job. The testicle image really tells the story and the story was written around the image itself. Prettiestpretty 01:03, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, but it should be a little less US-centric. Definitely some talent here, but "Prettiestpretty," please remember this is the Internet. --Johnny C. Raven 01:16, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Rocky mountain oysters are named after the range of montains I live in, which is in the US (and also Canada, but the culture is contiguous, even if the country isn't). It should be rockies-centric, it would make no sense otherwise. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 12:16, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Apatheism

• For: It amused me and I haven't nominated anything in a while. -- 06:01, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For: This is terrific, especially the political agenda section.--Bradaphraser 06:40, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I don't count: I moved the whole page to Apatheism because it was seriously bothering me. --Spooner 18:58, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Much more like it. --Wob 06:18, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Lee 07:54, 31 Dec 2005
• DEFINITELY more like it. Just shows what someone with a real sense of humour can do with a touchy subject. --Johnny C. Raven 01:28, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For, I hope my image & caption fit. -- Kakun 02:06, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Mediocre Britain

The story. This brilliant article, which is already beloved by millions and has references to it in tons of articles, was featured way back in march when we were about one hundredth as big. I featured it myself as it got enough views without being deleted to be considered good. Therefore it wasn't on The Official List of Featured Articles. SO, we could reach a decision where articles from way back then retain fully featured status, but just in case I'm re-nominating it here. --Savethemooses 14:56, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For official featuredom --Savethemooses 00:15, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For --Savethemooses 00:15, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --User:Mhaille 00:16, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Wasn't this already on here? Oh, well, Weak For. --Isra1337 00:51, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Update: Now that STM has explained, I change my vote to the same as Dawg's. It should officially be featured, but does not need to be put on the front page again. -- 22:41, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. There are enough references to this page on the whole site already. People know about it. It doesn't need front page space. This is really just a formality. --Savethemooses 19:14, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Should've been grandfathered in or something. -- T. (talk) 01:29, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Mediocre i dont really support past articles beingnominated again...and its a little short--Tompkins 01:49, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I am for this article becoming an official featured article, but I am not sure we need to feature it again. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:29, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For: I like it. User:Ibid. 14:35, 30 Dec 205 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:46, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Talk:Euroipods

• Nominated. Quite possibly better than the actual article. --officer designate Lugiatm 16:47, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Of course, dogshit is better than the actual aritlce. But nevertheless, this is awesome stuff. The picture is the best part. --Nintendorulez 01:57, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Get that flamewar on the front page RIGHT NOW! Seriously, it's great stuff! --Dac Vin 04:31, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Feature a Talk page? A brilliant idea. - Guest 14:19, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Truth, brother. --Savethemooses 00:20, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I was only kidding! But, okay... FOR. -- T. (talk) 01:38, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see how we could feature this. Against, unless we feature Euroipods again and link to the talk page instead of euroipods. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 13:00, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For -- 17:53, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - Nonymous 22:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - This is an incredible piece of work about war and the art of that concept. 4 stars, Oscar Winner, huzzah and all that. Jlove1982 03:29, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - Whatever you do, don't research antihumor, it will end this lovely flamewar prematurely.--Bradaphraser 04:07, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - lolz SpitValve 04:59, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against You guys are all morons, that isn't funny!!! --S P I N N I E 05:23, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: just pointing out that there is a front page link to this already (featured image). -- 07:04, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For- if only because of the person two above me. Let's put that on the front page, too! Like on International blog day... "Uncyclopedia: OMG u r all morons, WTF this is crap" --220.101.30.98 10:22, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• FIRMLY AGAINST As I pointed out in IRC and Isra pointed out above, the talk page already has a link on the home page from the image, which is far better than featuring. Let's feature something else. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 10:33, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• FIRMLY FOR Our children will read about this in their history books. This is a heartwarming, compelling tale about the how war can tear a useless, utterly stupid article apart, revealing the delicious caramel center. Leofan7 17:46, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion i think that the best plan would be to have someone write an article about it and then feature that article. --Tompkins 22:49, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Enormously for. This article should be made compulsory reading for children aged 7-15. I mean, the talk page, not the actual article, that was crap. Also, it'd be fantastically ARTY having a talk page of an already featured page featured. AND THAT MAKES IT FUNNY. DONT YOU FUCKING COMPLAIN OR... OR I'LL HAVE A LENGHTY CHAT WITH YOU!!!! --Sir Carlos the Mean CUN VFP CS CM CUNT (talk) 03:59, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've repackaged this as an article (Euroipods Crusade) to answer the objections of those who complained that we shouldn't highlight a talk page to get featured on the front page. This is definately front page material.--Bradaphraser 05:30, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Also See Talk:Euroipods Crusade 06:07, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against: for Euroipods Crusade instead. Just against. -- 21:14, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against, for what, the third time? --Johnny C. Raven 01:34, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For because if people don't read this, they won't understand why Euroipods was featured and think we're stupid or something. --EvilZak 23:03, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## External combustion engine

• For - To educate the public. 71.126.167.121 04:17, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 4 dudes, fire. Also, it's a funny play on concepts. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:33, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Dunno if it is feature quality, but I am giggling right now, so I give it a For --Isra1337 02:37, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Okay. >> Mandaliet 06:38, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. It's da bomb! --Doctors Mob 18:54, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Holiday cheer

• For i admit that this is my own article but if your not gonna do tods then we need something else, because i feel its absolutely imperative to have a holiday themed article during the holidays. if you dont like it than nominate something better. --Tompkins 05:38, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment ~ You're one of those guys that I see running through the shopping mall at 9:57 PM every Dec 24th, aren't you?  :) -- T. (talk) 11:28, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• lol you bet your ass i am --Tompkins 20:05, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, now I've copyedited it ;-) - David Gerard 22:11, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 'Tisn't the season anymore, but for anyways. Maybe this should be deferred though. --Isra1337 01:26, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 'Tis the season until 1st January. As long as the pain is fresh - David Gerard 08:23, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Lol it's more of a hannukah article anyway, how do you spell hannukah...? --Tompkins 18:21, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Grue

• For - Excellent, excellent article. Has all the components of a Feature. --Jimothy 04:21, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For-- Might be the funniest article on this whole site. --Sir Cornbread 00:33, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, indeed. --DWIII 04:22, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - very funny I like it and zork. --Bloo 21:32, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - I seriously laughed for like an hour when I read this. --BILLY! 23:29, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - But someone edit it to include something about avocados, we need more of them, seriously. --202.180.83.6 05:13, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. But I would absolutely vote for it if someone would get rid of the "Murphy's Law" quote. --Johnny C. Raven 01:37, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Most Awesome Page Ever

• A great job. It got me when it put Descartes' Ontological Argument in the third paragraph - David Gerard 11:22, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, cuz it's the best!!!!!!! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:39, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Wait, do we even have to vote for this? --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 02:04, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I understand the page has demanded proof of our devotion and to show that we are smart enough to realise its awesomeness. The Page told me this personally, you know - David Gerard 08:21, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I miss the umlauts. Bring them back and maybe I'll vote for it. --KATIE!! 04:27, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• The umlauts are still there in the special characters section. --Xiao Li 05:47, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I get it, but it has a high annoyance factor for me. Weak against. --Isra1337 02:42, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For This is my own article. It would be both heretical and logically absurd to claim that the Most Awesome Page Ever was created by a mortal. --Xiao Li 22:57, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For 00:28, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Needs more superlativeman --202.180.83.6 05:13, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Score! --Johnny C. Raven 01:40, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## The

• Not the page, just the word. Make our definite article a featured article! --Algorithm (talk) 00:18, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely. --KATIE!! 00:27, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Excellent idea! » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:37, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. THE is (arguably) THE best article THEir is. -- T. (talk) 02:28, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For lol i dont get it, but w/e. --Slash.f.m 03:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment shouldn't it be Word of the Day?--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 05:37, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
•  :D Yes --Caiman 23:29, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Guest 07:40, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• FOR! - sure, there are better words, but the is the lord of teh ring words. 71.192.174.130 04:20, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - that last vote was from me. My browser's a little screwy, so it's signing me off, and then I forget to sign back in before I leave comments and whatnot. Jlove1982 04:26, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I approve of this proposal. --Andrusi 16:23, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 22. That's an awesome idea. Can't wait to see it on the main page! -JBob 00:27, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --S P I N N I E 05:40, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Du-Dum-Ching! Seriously, though, the pun is funny enough to put it on the list, but it shouldn't take up valuable real estate on the front page. -- 22:25, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Censorship

Original vote failed. Current vote for this version.

Against sorry...it's still just...eh. 17:54, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Comment -- There were at least five or six votes in the original nomination that would apply to this version. Could they be restored? --Algorithm (talk) 22:36, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## man uncyclopedia

• The original concept was great. I expanded it and think it's pretty good now. Vote » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 12:24, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• It has no pictures, but it wins anyways. --KATIE!! 12:45, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The picture can be a terminal prompt icon like the one in KDE or GNOME - David Gerard 11:18, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If it wins, I was going to suggest to rcmurphy that an image of unix prompt with "man uncyclopedia" and a cursor after it would be good for the article. I'd say it would be better than the icon, even. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:24, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Jawohl, man! ƔƔMandaliet 13:31, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Guest 14:26, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. --Ianweller 14:36, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yep - David Gerard 11:18, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Vote. -- T. (talk) 11:40, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Splaka 23:50, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For -- 17:52, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Clinja

• For... Nucking futs --Jimothy 16:42, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Stalin 00:57, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Of course. --KATIE!! 05:19, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• $\sqrt[4]{256}$ » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:08, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Oh the nostalgia! --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 11:53, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Friggin' For! That's awesome, definitely front page material. --Oracleoftruth 01:57, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against At least for right now, fairly funny but -hopefully- not the funniest in the nominee pool. Neegore 12:49, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Definately For the pictures are good too --Greenirvana 15:11, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• ' For! This page is awesome. That's all that I have to say. --142.161.107.6 19:36, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Funny, but just doesn't do it for me. Negatory. -- 22:21, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Okay, I guess I have a soft spot for ninjas. So sue me. --Johnny C. Raven 01:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Gerrymandering

• This very charming article could treacherously stab you in the back at any time. --Sir KP GUN 18:20, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Subtle, yet coy. Topical, yet deep. I can detect a hint of raspberries, no, wait, yes, its coming, YES! I'm sure its very, very currant. Prettiestpretty 18:40, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Not only clever but funny too. --Doctors Mob 07:21, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Nice. --KATIE!! 03:00, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. For. --Isra1337 04:13, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• What's up with the formatting? Outside of that, this is funny. Conditional FOR, if the formatting is cleaned or rcmurphy feels it is suitable for the home page. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:42, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Note. The article is about gerrymandering—the creation of political districts in funny shapes. What do you notice about the text? Do you get it now? --Sir KP GUN 12:32, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of that, but it's all squeezed into little thin chunks. It should look more like a demented chessboard with holes in the middle. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Though I think it would still be funny without the formatting, possibly even better since it's a damned headache Neegore 12:50, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Damn that's some good stuff there. Jlove1982 23:05, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Those diagrams were hilarious T.W. North 15:28, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)
Comment: These really were my favorite part of the entire page. They made the page. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 13:18, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Xiao Li 02:06, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, and I'm just going to have to make the leap of faith on your ability to translate the formatting joke to the front page. --Johnny C. Raven 01:46, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Moon hoax

I Somebody who's not me just finished writing this article, and I think it's definately worthy of the main page, and also main page-friendly. I saw Whoever wrote it seems to have seen this, and thought I they, whoever this mystery figure is, could do better, but instead I thought I'd it seems this unknown person was inspired to write an article based on it instead. Anyway, I'm for, and I wish this dark figure the best of luck in the future. --Carlos the Mean 14:33, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For - This is pretty damned funny Neegore 13:01, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Sure, why not? For. -- 22:17, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Ehhh, for. True, I'm not so keen on Carlos the Mean, and he should definitely learn to spell the word "definitely" correctly, but you have to appreciate the amount of effort involved here. --Johnny C. Raven 01:51, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Wikiphrenia

• And another. Great pic too - David Gerard 11:16, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Voting for myself - thanks David, I appreciate the nomination. --some other user 13:42, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - but I notice that amongst the nominated articles there are about seven articles about wikis in general and Uncyclopedia in particular. I don't mind in-jokes; I don't mind us highlighting in-jokes now and then, I think perhaps we may be getting carried away with them. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 14:46, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Not that in-jokey - Wikipedia broke the Alexa Top 30 last week and is currently number 27. It's a pretty damn mainstream website now - David Gerard 14:56, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I like this one best of Wikiphrenia, Wikithug, and Wikipedophile, so I'll cast my vote here. It is my belief that only one of those three should be featured. --KATIE!! 04:15, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• You may have something there. For--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Great article. For » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:15, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Against - I think Finding Your Inner Sock Puppet is funnier. -- 22:11, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I've got mixed feelings about this, but I'm keeping them to myself, because at least "some user" can write coherent sentences. So for, I guess. And the rest of you, quit giving us all this bullshit about how only one of these wikimindfuck articles can be featured, okay? Have you not noticed how long it takes for any article here to go from nominated to featured? Or do you all just have ADD or something? Sheesh. --Johnny C. Raven 01:58, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## I Can't Believe it's Not Murder

• Though I have no doubt some dickhead will claim it's liberal media bias - David Gerard 11:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Fore! --71.126.167.121 12:53, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Or possibly conservative bias. That's the wonderful thing about Americans; you can never be sure just which of the Two Approved Biases you'll be accused of at any given time. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 14:49, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I can't belive it's not featured --Paulgb 21:25, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Isra1337 00:53, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• If it's not biased, it's not Uncyclopedia. For. --Hinoa4 01:01, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, but not excellent. --KATIE!! 04:15, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, though the "you'll skip Club Fed" joke is slightly lame. Then again, I've certainly done waaay worse. (Then again again, how many of my articles have ever been featured? Zero, right? Figure it out, Johnny-boy.) --Johnny C. Raven 02:03, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Ninja Pirate

• For. C'mon, who doesn't like ninja pirates? They'll hunt you down and kill you if you try to vote against them. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do) 20:36, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Agai–...urk ±± Mandaliet 20:19, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Morlark MUN NS (talk) 05:49, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 11:28, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Awesome. --Chronarion 15:55, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For C'est magnifique! --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 14:53, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. If this doesn't make the front page, there is no justice in the world. --Hinoa4 01:07, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against Well-written. However, the entire ninja/pirate thing is far too overused and cliche. --—rc (t) 03:59, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed, overdone. Against. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:31, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Yay, Ninja Pirateitude! P3on 03:00, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure why, but this doesn't really do it for me. I'll take my chances with their wrath. --KATIE!! 04:23, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against -- 22:09, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. IMO the purpose of featured articles should be to impress newcomers with how funny/worthwhile the site is. It shouldn't be to reward old-timers for extending inside jokes ad nauseum. Fuck that. This is actually funny. --Johnny C. Raven 00:44, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Nike Revolution of 2006

• A major history-changing event such as this deserves recognition. I'm surprised it wasn't already featured months ago. -JBob 23:49, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I've been waiting for this one to happen since I first read about it in April or May or something. We need to educate the general populace. --Katie loves you! 04:28, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• The map is hilarious. The article is just funny, but well-done. Mmm, well-done. Now I'm hungry, dammit. -.- Mandaliet 06:25, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I assumed an article this good had been featured. Why wasn't this featured? Feature this, dammit! -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 20:49, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Not sure why I waited to long to read this. Musta been drunk, I guess. --Johnny C. Raven 01:13, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
The fact that this still hasn't been featured yet proves that the so-called "democracy" around here is a travesty. Whoever is keeping this off the front page should be ashamed of himself. --Johnny C. Raven 00:46, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, this article changed a lot since I started it, changed for the better! For! --Darkdan OUN 03:29, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Guest 03:17, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Has this really not been featured already? Wow. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 14:56, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For At some point THIS ARTICLE MUST BE FEATURED because it is AWESOME. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:14, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. But isn't this more UnNews than Uncyclopedia? 06:10, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Writer's Block

• For - This is... uhh... very... umm... good. Damn. --Carlos the Mean 22:41, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Good one! - David Gerard 23:06, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, this is definitely one of those things. It's odd that it's been around so long without anyone pointing it out. /////Mandaliet 09:24, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, with all of my being. Me on many an occasion. --Andrusi 23:05, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• We need a picture though... hmm... --Carlos the Mean 02:38, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• --Don't know if it's funny, but I did my best. --Spooner 23:08, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Brilliant! --FlyingFool 22:17, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I don't count --Spooner 00:01, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Great pictures! Even more brilliant! Would buy from again! --Carlos the Mean 05:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• This one is good good? come on, think of something more descriptive...--140.184.74.107 15:07, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 04:28, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Weak For. --Isra1337 04:38, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:43, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Funny, but don't feature. Stand alone it works. Standing on the front page it falls over. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 13:24, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• What Dawg said. --S P I N N I E 19:48, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## GNU Emacs

• Perfect. - David Gerard 14:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Awesome. Guest 16:32, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• --Chronarion 06:04, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Excellent piece of work. --Morlark MUN NS (talk) 04:22, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Linux rawks. -- T. (talk) 08:14, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. 209.209.113.34 18:01, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Linux = good. This page = daunting to read, and not extremely funny. --KATIE!! 04:38, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• vi forever! Analysis:
1. I like how the war is portrayed in a 1984 style. Good show. In that respect it's brilliantly funny. I acutally like the article overall.
2. I don't like that it lacks a picture.
3. 99.9% of readers won't get it and the little prompt screen makes it funnier, which is not possible on the Main Page.

» Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:09, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The screed would be good as the Main Page intro - David Gerard 21:54, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Very Weak For. It is clever and has a few funny spots, but it is daunting to read for us non-Linux folks. -- 22:04, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Gratuitous Anime Panty Shot

• For: it's so not what you'd expect; it's great. --Sir gwax (talk) 22:30, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 1/2 vote as yet - Preeeety good ... needs to be longer - David Gerard 15:40, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For: Really, if the article just consisted of the ship and the phrase "alive and kicking just high enough", I think it'd be worthy. --Petie 17:09, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Hell yeah! --Dac Vin 05:57, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 1/2 vote for to make it a whole number again. --Isra1337 03:15, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Actually let's make it a whole vote for. -- 21:57, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 04:28, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For.--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For
• (unsigned vote is from this edit) -- 21:32, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For! - That's incredible. I wish it were a little longer, but hey, it's SOOOOO good. of course, to keep the effect in place, that picture should not show up on the front page, but that's just me... Jlove1982 00:19, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 13:31, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Did I vote for this yet? I'm all for it! Strong RadX 13:45, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• A powerful For by me. ADD 7:37, 1 Jan 2006

## Courtnology

• ++ - David Gerard 07:58, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Writing this one was probably the funnest thing I've done on Uncyclopedia. For, acause I am vain. --Just Tenn. You were expecting Sophia? 12:54, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For That is majorly creepy. I couldn't even imagine what would happen in this scenario... (shudders) --Putz 21:13, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Huge For - I laughed so hard, I coughed up my rum and coke through my nose. While that was unpleasant, the article was great. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:56, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• LOL—for --Ianweller 23:02, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Isra1337 03:27, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I'm creeped out by this just enough to give it a for. --KATIE!! 04:38, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Manhattan Engineering District

• Well written, lots of good images, spiffy formatting. --—rc (t) 05:36, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, very good. This gets my Good Stuff seal of approval. -Putz 08:41, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• ++ - David Gerard 10:55, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For --Isra1337 08:04, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I would. Nrbelex 05:07, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• comic nerd says FOR 64.59.144.22 17:48, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Lovely. --KATIE!! 04:38, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:48, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yes give it to him Prettiestpretty 00:43, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For
• (appears to be an anonymous IP voter, as per this edit [2]) --Isra1337 00:08, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Neutron star

• --DWIII 18:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Very funny  ;) Rei 20:38, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Good one! - David Gerard 14:05, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Creative, thoughtfully constructive, humourous. Vote. -- T. (talk) 20:12, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• I love it, for --Caiman 03:24, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Brilliant. Very Douglas-Adams-esque. For --Isra1337 09:51, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• I'm very chuffed (not huffed) by the nomination. Thanks! As most of you know, all the characters except poor Mohat really were involved in understanding stellar collapse and/or neutron stars. The article is just slightly skewed from reality, which is what made it fun for me to write. -- OEJ
• At a glance, this appears to contain no content and be pleasant to read. For. Maybe I'll read it later, or when we feature it. --KATIE!! 04:54, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:53, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Holocaust

• I ran into this a couple weeks ago, and just re-ran into it. It's a gem, and deserves to be featured.  :) Rei 22:30, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• -- David Gerard 12:57, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC) I like it. Needs some $mathematics$
• I love it! -- isra1337 (clarification: For. --Isra1337 04:34, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC))
• Do it! -- Daaaaang
• Best article I've read on here for a long time. Genius. Jellypuzzle 16:39, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Very funny, for --Caiman 03:23, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• I don't understand a flackin' word of it --Myronic 07:41, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• No pictures. The rest of it might be bad too, but I wouldn't know cause I didn't read it. --KATIE!! 05:02, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Why are you voting on articles that you haven’t read? --Sir KP GUN 12:36, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For I don't understand a word of this, but then my knowledge of maths only goes as far as trig, and I've forgotten most of that. I'll just assume it's funny. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:59, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Heh. Mindspillage 01:56, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Kitten-related human fatalities

• Yeehaw. --Savethemooses 21:29, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Kittens are always good. - David Gerard 20:50, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Meow. - Mandaliet 15:39, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Reasonably funny. Rei 17:52, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Good stuff. Careax 18:06, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For.Reminds me of my cat.Swordmaster 17:50, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 05:03, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 13:04, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Meh, weak for. -- 21:55, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## Worst 100 Movies Of All Time

• Started on DUMP from a seed by Cap'n Ben, and it's filled out marvellously - David Gerard 19:01, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• As one of the major contributors to this fine article, I'd like to suggest we sort out some better pictures first. I'd do some myself, but I'm lazy. --81.178.67.27 22:29, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Expand and sort, then feature More info for each one, a few subcategories of some kind (maybe a runners-up category? Just something to alleviate the sheer overwhelmingness) and then put it up - it's pretty damn funny if I do say so myself. --Poofers 05:10, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Feature without delay. It's far more cleaned up and complete. GOOOOOO! --Poofers 01:58, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• I don't think it's going to be possible to expand on each entry without ruining the humour. Look at the "Close Encounter of the Third Reich" entry, or even more so "Programming Perl". There's nothing more that needs to be added to those without overdoing the joke. - Categories and whatnots are a good idea. --Bonjo Nelson 08:58, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Don't expand in situ - link the title and write a separate funny-rather-than-stupid article - David Gerard 13:28, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up - Very funny article, but theres a few more than 100 on there. I think the article would be better with only 100. Clean up the crap and I'm all for featuring this. --Paulgb Talk 20:05, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think you missed the joke - David Gerard 16:20, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
No, its just that I've seen so much of "hey, its a list of 10 things, so it would be funny to have 15", that I would rather vote for an article that gets its humor through more original jokes. This article has that potential. In my opinion, this list would be better if someone picked the top 100 ideas from the list and got rid of the others. --Paulgb 02:22, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Meh. I think J00 R R0NG!!1!! and I like it as it is ;-) - David Gerard 14:42, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I am for featuring this article, but my comments still stand. --Paulgb 23:22, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN 14:53, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• --User:Noamsml: VOTE!
• This Is My Vote™ --..-/-------/.-/- Mandaliet 21:14, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Sure. --KATIE!! 05:10, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For they ended up having to eat eachother. lol. --Tompkins 02:40, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. Kakun 22:27, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against Great idea and gets an award for getting a whole lotta text in one place, it lacks wit. Satire is weak as well, although "The Cumming of the Lord" starring Ron Jeremy is pretty fun. Sorry, Prettiestpretty 22:52, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry, but it just doesn't do anything for me. Some of the images are good though. -- 21:52, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## No More Room In Hell Act

• I just had to nominate this one. Good stuff, could maybe use a good zombie picture. --SOdhner 16:19, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• I am tickled a slight rosy hue. And I'm working on a general-article picture, maybe somebody else could mock up a Zombie Cultural Center? --Monthenor 16:41, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Mindspillage 14:26, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• -- David Gerard 14:33, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Quite worthy indeed  ;) Rei 20:52, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like front page material to me. --Silius 07:16, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For --Isra1337 03:55, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I'm gonna say against cause I can't make up my mind. --KATIE!! 05:10, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP

# Previously Featured

## Alternative Medicine

Featured Reaching back into the magical world of old VFH nominations. --—rc (t) 07:05, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• I'm just trying to imagine what Uncyclopedia would be like with John Gohde on - David Gerard 12:04, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Against. Not bad, but not front-page material. Rei 03:33, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• For. I like this. Needs some funky pictures, though (but preferably not of extreme colonic irrigation). -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 01:10, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I added a couple of funky pictures. --Spintherism 05:34, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• We are amused, and by "we" I mean "I". - Mandaliet 21:21, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• teh For --Willy on wheels! 00:03, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For. Good stuff. Mindspillage 21:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. So that's why people where those Che shirts. --Isra1337 03:38, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• One Too. Sj 01:06, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For I'm going to start voting for my own articles, now that it's getting so competitive. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 14:28, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Sure. --KATIE!! 05:10, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For because my image is on it. --S P I N N I E 05:42, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Please FEATURE THIS ARTICLE. It's very high quality. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:13, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## The artist formerly known as God

Featured --—rc (t) 05:03, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Damn fine. Even subtle Q jokes mixed in - David Gerard 22:00, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Very, very nice! I can not see anything wrong with it. --Chimzar 15:30, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Whee! ---Mandaliet 06:30, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• I support the nomination of my own article. --Isra1337 02:56, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• You may accuse me of nepotism, but this article warrants another "Aye!" --Fudgesickles! 05:13, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• -For. --Hobelhouse 22:37, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Original. For --Logixoul 17:41, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• The title is clever enough. For. --KATIE!! 04:41, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Sheer genius. I can't believe I didn't vote for this before.--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:51, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Great effort. For --Caiman 13:02, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## I Fucking Hate the Bermuda Triangle

Featured --—rc (t) 07:01, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For Desperately needs to be featured --71.126.167.121 02:04, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Stalin 03:16, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Proof that an article can be factual and funny. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:02, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Doctors Mob 01:47, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. --KATIE!! 03:21, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For YES Ashibaka 06:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Upvote! </Nazi Submarine Captain Impression> » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:15, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For! --Dac Vin 23:27, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• for lol best article since voice chat...which was like a couple days ago..but still funny as hell --Greenirvana 21:54, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Big for - A very well executed rant, one that defies the convention that rants usually suck and actually works. 2 thumbs up. Neegore 12:51, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I like it Glug...glug...glug...glug T.W. North 15:34, 24 Dec 2005 (EST)

## The Night After Christmas

Featured --—rc (t) 05:31, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I like this one better than Rudolph. Agree? Vote Don't agree? Fix it. We's just wants something Christmassy and satirical on the front page near Christmas, preciousss... -- T. (talk) 16:50, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I LOVE this one. Todd = grand master of Christmas. --KATIE!! 23:57, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For -- This is a Christmas no-brainer. --Algorithm (talk) 00:22, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Great job! For. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:38, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Woo hoo! --203.214.138.61 04:38, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Whoot! This is awesome! Love it! --T.W. North 17:43, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)
• 1/2 vote yet, and that's only because the one thing missing is a picture - David Gerard 11:17, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) Full vote for - David Gerard 08:25, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Picture added! Much thanks to Strong RadX. -- T. (talk) 20:56, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Hysterical! --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 02:03, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• for A Christmas freakin Miracle! --Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 04:33, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• FORE The Christmas spirit lives on... Chrismukhah's too. Jlove1982 05:34, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For this better be featured by december 26 or im gonna be so pissed. --207.69.137.40 17:43, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• BIG HAIRY ARSED FOR -- 19:38, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Invalidated I suspect at least half of these votes are from Todd Lyons' sockpuppets. Come on Todd, show some class. --—rc (t) 04:11, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't a'been for you meddling kids. -- T. (talk) 11:19, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## North Korea

Featured --—rc (t) 07:26, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I like it --Kennyisinvisible 03:36, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• I enjoyed it.  :) Rei 20:59, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• --David Gerard 19:14, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• An amazingly clever article - possibly the funniest thing I've seen on Uncyclopedia yet. Zkion 21:13, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Very good! --Caiman 17:24, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• This isn't so much different than actual NK press. -2+6 Swordmaster 18:01, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For - --Johnny C. Raven 06:10, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• FOR! --Chronarion 08:22, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• This article definitely deserves to be featured. --KATIE!! 04:48, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:52, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• for lol i love how unbelievably horrble the pictures are. --Tompkins 02:13, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## John Seigenthaler Sr.

Dawg says "feature," I say "for how long?" --—rc (t) 04:31, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• For - Hillarious! 85.100.153.35 16:33, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Funny article, would make a good featured article in light of recent events. --Diafel 06:50, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Okay. != Mandaliet 07:44, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Needs more coherence - no vote yet - David Gerard 10:49, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC) Perhaps I should reread the article first. For this version - David Gerard 11:01, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For! As part of a perverted publicity stunt we should try and get Mr. Seigenthaler to go on TV and say we libeled him.--Jsonitsac 23:54, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - I totally agree! If he thinks en.wp is bad, he hasn't seen anything yet. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:07, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, but not until someone e-mails it to him for a response. --Spooner 00:42, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Isra1337 01:50, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I am for rampant slander. --KATIE!! 04:54, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For I liked this article when it was written (by me of course) but people have made many improvements, it is good now. Ashibaka 06:45, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Hey rcmurphy, would you please FEATURE THIS ARTICLE ALREADY? Thanks. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:21, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Now that I finally looked up who this guy is. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For, For, For!. I haven't looked at the article in thirty seconds and I'm still cracking up as I type. Rei 23:42, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Noooo! I just spent all morning clearing out dozens of seigenthaler-related complaints sent to the Wikimedia Board address. I'm sure I'll find it funny eventually, but right now it just makes me cry. :) Angela 06:58, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## New "voice chat" feature proposed for mobile phones

Featured --—rc (t) 04:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I R t3h l33t. l33t l33t l33t!! *does l33t dance* - David Gerard 08:30, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For There are some really excellent articles in UnNews, though it doesn't get the love and recognition it often deserves. Between the sarcasm, truth, and technical commentary in this article, I was rolling on the floor laughing. I also like how it makes certain things that are really archaic sound very modern and hip. Awesome. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:19, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yes! --71.126.167.121 10:47, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, my own work but I like it enough to consider it featureworthy. (I could have more Uncyclopedia features than Wikipedia features!) - David Gerard 10:49, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - Very well-written. --some other user 13:43, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Awesome. - Guest 17:18, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• LOL --Nerd42 18:32, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Nice --Paulgb 21:21, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• yay! I mean For! --The Hedgehog 22:47, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. --Isra1337 02:14, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• *4[send] An utterly ridiculous idea (voice chat? eek! that'd quickly become even more annoying than 'phones with cameras!) but amusing and original. --Carlb 21:17, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For I'm not popular enough to be different. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:24, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• its a prty dum idea its like sayn 'lol' out loud lol bt 4 newayz --KATIE!! 04:19, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Definately for, my friend told it to me and i believed it at first, it took about 2 seconds for me to stop and think lol--Greenirvana 01:01, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• FOR with no ambiguity. Very few things I read can make me giggle just thinking of them. --k3vin 21:47, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

## George Bailey

Featured --—rc (t) 04:15, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• -toots own horn- --Silius 19:25, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Well written. A+! Rei 21:32, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• For. Inventive. -- T. (talk) 00:18, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Didn't click till I got to the end. Good one - David Gerard 13:59, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For I didn't get the joke until the last paragraph either (which is part of why I'm voting for it) --Putz 10:03, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Aye very good article Staxeon 06:38, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• For - it would be hypocritical of me not to vote for this. --Johnny C. Raven 15:39, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - made me laugh out loud, great twist at the end --Doctors Mob 08:28, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Poland

Featured --—rc (t) 06:06, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• --—rc (t) 17:37, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC) With all the Polish activity lately I decided to finally read the Poland article. The Education section in particular is great.
• I reluctantly accept this glamourous, highly paid position. -- ERTW MUN 04:49, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• great really great
• We want more wudzia!! :)) This article should be on the frontpage PERMANENTLY :)
Just a note here: if you want your vote to be taken seriously and counted you need to sign your votes by typing ~~~~ after your post and you should be logged into an account that actually contributes material -- ERTW MUN 15:25, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• I vote for YES. This should be on front page as long as possible... :) MaDeR 06:34, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Great! Should be on the front page. --Silius 03:24, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• Great article, especially the maths bit with the flags --Joachim22 07:50, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
• 90% hilarious. Rei 00:52, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
• Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Poland * But Were Afraid to Ask
• For ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:09, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• for too Sj 01:06, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

# Archives

Nominated Article