# Uncyclopedia:VFH/old

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 *)

## UnNews:Black iPods rob owners

• Now that UnNews qualifies for VFH, why not? 71.126.167.121 19:02, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• No It's funny and all but its pretty short and there arent any pictures. --Tompkins 20:02, 23 Dec 2005 (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)

## Lite brite

• Nominated, sorry i forgot to sign last time i thought i did but guess not. hope you dont mind if you do plz tell me at least. --Slash.f.m 04:12, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For lol it's pretty good --Greenirvana 15:08, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Much better. Not sure if it's ready for feature, but definitely an improvement. --KATIE!! 17:45, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## An

• An is a far superior article to The! 71.126.167.121 18:41, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against - It's only funny once. Besides, The is a definite article. Who wants to feature an indefinite article? Pheh! --Algorithm (talk) 22:19, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Indefinitely. I mean, no. --KATIE!! 11:07, 24 Dec 2005 (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)

## The Night After Christmas

• 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)

## Fghdfgbdfb

• For, or, dakugadugfa;odgufsd.hfsdhigidlashg/ishc/ichvl/nsfl/ighihe99572397549275947 --Stalin 15:59, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Againgf;jdast. Too similar to AAAAAAAAA!, which has already been highlighted at least once. --Carlb 16:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. Ditto on Carlb's comment. Kudos for the ASCII chart tho. -- T. (talk) 16:16, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Good but no feature. --KATIE!! 00:08, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Random humour is so last month. Besides, this one isn't as funny as some of the ones we've already featured. Against » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:41, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• well I still think it cool, i guess its because I'm the only person who doesn't HATE fun...--Stalin 02:14, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I hate fun. I also hate freedom. Against--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:04, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• More like VFD material, in my humble and lowly non-admin opinion. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 02:51, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:42, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Peanut and butter

• For--Tompkins 22:17, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I actually don't hate this one. --KATIE!! 23:58, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Nah. Though it's improved since it was NRV'd. -- T. (talk) 08:28, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Might need a little work, but basically quite good. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:02, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## Censorship

• Yeah... 71.241.243.71 23:07, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Feature --Nerd42 20:46, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Oracleoftruth 02:12, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. --Isra1337 03:07, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Morlark MUN NS (talk) 05:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• This one is actually funny, and somebody went to the trouble of writing an article that can be coherently converted back from censored-ness, but it's still just a variation on a theme - Featured Article would be better used on something more imaginative, so I'm against with unnecessarily long explaination --Carlos the Mean 00:47, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For: Very suited to the main page --Joachim22 06:15, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• F o r - David Gerard 11:11, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Clever use of the censor thingy, but not a very fun article to read after highlighting. Against. --Hinoa4 01:21, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. --KATIE!! 04:28, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I think this article is the last article that should be put on the front page. I would never vote For. --officer designate Lugiatm 18:26, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Well, since so many morons think this unbelievably incredible article should not under any circumstances be featured, I presume I have no choice. However, I have to disagree with these bashers and vote against their opinion, as I think this article certainly deserves featuring. - Guest 18:12, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Stalin 19:26, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• AGAINST. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:01, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes: Why was this article moved up on the page? I motion for it's immediate deletion since a supporter broke the rules of VFH. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:02, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
A comment in the top section says, "move up the entry you vote for". - Guest 02:02, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Point it out for me, if you would. Thanks. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 03:02, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
[2] I don't know who added it, I just know it was there when I started editing the page. - Guest 08:19, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
You're right! Thanks! It has been removed to maintain continuity on the page. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:46, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. Is it just me of was this funnier when I voted for it the first time? --Isra1337 01:58, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. -- T. (talk) 08:36, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against clever but not funnny --Greenirvana 15:09, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Guys, I really don't know if your votes are for or against. Try not to be so "clever." --—rc (t) 21:53, 23 Dec 2005 (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)
• The picture can be a terminal prompt icon like the one in KDE or GNOME - David Gerard 11:18, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• 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)

## Clinjas

• 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)

## The Aristocrats

• Uncyclopedia’s versions of this joke are full of hilarity. This article is a true collaboration with significant contributions from many. --Sir KP GUN 18:23, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 19:48, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against because I'm stupid and I don't know what it's referring to. --KATIE!! 05:13, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I don't get the joke, either. Opposed » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Here's the joke. The Uncyclopedic twist is that the various retellings - at least the ones I've read - maintain the sense of just-about-to-go-risque without ever actually doing so. --—rc (t) 08:11, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 11:55, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. I can see this being hilarious to someone who knew the joke, but I think that a lot of people would just be confused. --Oracleoftruth 03:25, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For If this isn't wiki-humor, I don't know what is.--Bradaphraser 03:22, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For -- Brilliant! Anti-humor at its finest. --Rabidwombat27 03:31, 22 Dec 2005 (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)

## I Fucking Hate the Bermuda Triangle

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)

## Steve Ballmer

• For. This is THE Uncyclopedia classic. Whenever I refer someone to Uncyclopedia, the first article I tell thenm to see is this one. Leofan7 21:47, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. I think we're over the whole 'quote ballmer' nonsense now, and this is a good article. --Caiman 08:35, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. It's about time this got featured. --officer designate Lugiatm 20:49, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. --KATIE!! 04:38, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• A classic, but not entirely because it is good. I say through it on BestOf but vote against featuring.--Isra1337 04:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For Uncyclopedia needs closure on the terrible tragedy that was the Steve Ballmer running gag. Featuring this article would provide just that. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against. I actually think it would breathe new life into something that we should conspire to silently smother until no trace of it exists. Kind of an Anti-Wilde Project. -- T. (talk) 08:51, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For. It's very amusing. ;p

## 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)

## 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)

## 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)

## 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)

## The Cat in the Hat

• A bunch (that's relative) of people found this funny (they might be wrong) so I decided "Hey! Why don't I nominate this for a featured article?!"... and here I am. --Yuewolf 22:45, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For: gwax likey. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:03, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• R(z1+z2) where z1=3+2i and z2=1+6i - this is great --Carlos the Mean 00:01, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Meh. Doesn't do anything special for me. weak against, but only because we need to clean house. --Isra1337 04:03, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Mild for because I like the pictures. --KATIE!! 04:23, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against, though I'd like to see some of the pictures VFPed.--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:14, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

## EBay

• Guest 06:57, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Yay. Black Power. Feature it.
• ;) --Nerd42 22:13, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Great seller, quick ship. A++++ An asset to the Internet, would buy from again. Thanks! --Carlb 02:01, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For: uh yeah, this is teh awesome. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:13, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 11:25, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: dont know if this would work as a featured article, but it would make a great reskin... --Carlos the Mean 22:33, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I agree completely. --Katie loves you! 06:00, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• I created this logo when I eBay-ified the article, but I couldn't find a good place to put it on the page. I present it now to the world for use in any and all reskinning activities. --Brett Bretterson 07:49, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• for all of the above'--Whywhywhy 09:18, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• This made me weep tears of joy!. Everything I've ever done pales next to this. I say YEAH, VERILY! Prettiestpretty 02:16, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against as featured. For as a reskinning. --Isra1337 04:01, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• Against featuring --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:14, 20 Dec 2005 (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)
• 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)

## 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)

## 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)

## 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)
• For. --KATIE!! 04:28, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For.--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 12:46, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• For

## 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

## The artist formerly known as God

• 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)

## 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)

## Alternative Medicine

• 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)

## 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)

## 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

## 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)

## 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