# Uncyclopedia:VFH/old

• Sign below an article you find excellent. Please add new nominations on the bottom.
• Initial nominations do not count as a vote For. Please use "Nomination and For" or some iteration thereof if you wish to vote for your nomination.
• Unsigned votes and votes without timestamps will be ignored, so make sure you sign your votes with ~~~~ or the "your signature with timestamp" button on the edit screen.
• 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}}. 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 pages.
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.

If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE. Violators of this policy will be SHOT.

Survivors will be given a DIGESTIVE BISCUIT.
Then we shoot them again.

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

SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must be at least a week old before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time.

VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.

## Yahoo!

Score: +4
• Self-nomination and for because I'm feeling too good lately, and I need my ego to be taken down a notch.-- 04:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• For, great! It's a hell of a lot better than what was there before. Shouldn't Yahoo redirect to Yahoo!? Bloopy 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• For, Clever, subtle satire of Brobdingnagian proportions. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 08:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. No ego depreciation for you. Spang 11:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Self reference is getting rather old. Sorry. Not this thyme, friend.--Anon32 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Le Corbusier

Score: +13.5
• God I hate this guy. Nominate - David Gerard 14:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Machine For Yes-Vote - -- c • > •  14:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (and I like the custom VFH tag, too - thanks David!)
• For I don't get most of it, but I can still see the humor here.--Bradaphraser 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Never heard of him, but funny nonetheless. -- 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ask the so-called experts. The man responsible for modern architecture resembling dystopian sci-fi movies - David Gerard 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm way too lazy to click that link... could you put it on the page for us uneducated losres?--Bradaphraser 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) [Done - --Some user 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)]
• For -- Droopy 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Machines for voting. --Hobelhouse 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very funny. For those who don't know who he is, I think this line in Wikipedia sums it up: "Le Corbusier's theories were adopted by the builders of public housing in the United States. For the design of the buildings themselves, Le Corbusier said "by law, all buildings should be white" and criticized any effort at ornamentation." -- Rei 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. The end is a little too repetitive, a machine of repetition.--Rataube 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry but this isn't front page material.--Unissakävelijä 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. As rataube said the end's repetitive, and the rest of it is just too normal, not very twisted. 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For Had Corbu lived to read this, he would have dubbed it bourgeois, and thats good enough for me! Prettiestpretty 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Purrrrrr Had he lived to see this, it certainly would have killed him. Me like. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nah. Been thinking about this one for some time now. ~ T. (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• There's no question, I'm For it. Wait, I do have a question... what the farth took me so long to read this bleak brilliance? Loved "openable windows". --Imrealized 09:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against -- Bloopy 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. -Conniption 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. ~ 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Right on the button --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 20:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. well written, quality, clever, but many of the jokes and touches will be lost on someone who doesn't already know about Corbusier - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --Severian 13:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• OK FFS - highlight this one now. Good subject, smart picture, a bit ranting but whatever. And the guy made Chandigarh. Think about that! --{{User:Suresh/sig}} 09:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For LMSO Get saved! 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Distraction

Score: +12
• Nomiforated -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• <!--for--> 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for I did, in fact, chortle.-- 02:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - nice one - David Gerard 17:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Week four?— 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• AgaFornst. Speaking of four (blah blah blah)... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I think... Hey guys, what's that bird over there? - User:Guest/sig 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I dig it2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Is the part about the celtics true?--Rataube 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of it... I had just read an article in National Geographic the night before. So, I tried to remember as best I could. So, in conclusion, there may be one or two facts in there... 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• For this is great! --The Rt. Hon. 10:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --71.213.200.43 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. -Conniption 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For, but I am almost out of for so...

talking of being out of four, or four, the Greeks did not have a word for four, well they did, but nobody cares. Anyway, it's a very weak for. Talking about four weeks... ~ 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• For loops are a quite useful construct in computer science. They allow you to... --Andrusi 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is really rather good, it snuck right up on me. More like [tangent] than [distraction] though - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For nice --Severian 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

## War on Humor

Score: +11.5
• Self-nomination and for. I may have waited too long to put this up for voting, but I still find the idea hilarious.-- 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I especially like the part starting with the Jains and ending with the Teletubbies.  c • > •  01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Heh, yes, and I thank you for your help, Some User.-- 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Of Course. 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. Not good enough for the front page.--Rataube 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I added the Scientologists. - David Gerard 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• $\sum_{k=0}^1 \left(2k+1\right)$ 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Because the above 4(For) is so damn hilarious to me (yes, I worked it out) --Olipro 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Two PG Tips thumbs up. --The Rt. Hon. 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against, it could be improved. Make it Unews, and make it like "A way on humor has been instated by the UN." -- 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Good writing, funny, makes fun of religion... these are the reasons it smells good to me. -- Get saved! 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --71.213.200.43 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. -Conniption 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fore! I was amused, I do see potential for expansion, but I am inspired myself.--epynephrin 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For, as per the UnNews Heaven Jehovahs Wittness nomination. ~ 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. I'm amused and the idea is there, and i especially like the pro-islam picture ^^ but could be expanded perhaps User:Sqsz/sig 13:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• AgainstFor Got a nifty template out of this one... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, even if it is biased of me. I added to it. --epynephrin 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against It had a documentary feel that wasn't funny to me per se --Severian 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very good. Proper uncyc topical satire, A+ - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I got bored in the first paragraph. Even if it's funny elsewhere in the article, a VFH article should make you laugh in the first paragraph. It's a good idea, though. Just needs a little work to be rewritten with a different approach. --Sir Tripod2282 cun vfp talk Active ~ 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

## Goa Tse

Score: +10
• Nominate. Nice riff on what you may have thought was an exhausted meme - David Gerard 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nein. The very word "goatse" causes me to vomit. - User:Guest/sig 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Did you read the actual article, Sikon, or are you just subscribing to the Do NOT click any links! philosophy?-- 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. This article is very, very well done. I just can't bring myself to vote for anything goatse-related for the front page. Especially after Yesterday...-- 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Also strong against. Rocky Mountain Oysters was bad enough, then sexual innuendo, can't we keep the front page SFW? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
"SFW?" "So Fucking What?" (yes, I know.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• For.— 23:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against. -- 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I'm too lazy to click on the article link and want to read it on the front page. Guinness2702 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It could use some more content. -- – Mahroww a.k.a.  08:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. So disgusting, so wrong. But I couldn't care less. 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Biased but For -- 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Enhanced by Mhaille - me too steps out of the closet. -- Swami A. Suresh 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For with a smirking grin. --KATIE!! 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For want pie now --Willy on wheels! 12:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For the quotes alone are hilarious :) --Huffers 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Too deep for me. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For YES! good. an original take on goatse that won't make you gag. --JackMort 12:45, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
• For. A Goatse on every computer in every school by 2007. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against - In what appears to be a sadly predictable trend for me. Even though the subject manner is handled cleverly, it's still one big anal sex joke at the end of the day. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak NEG-A-TIVE. I like this. I really do. It's smart, and I laughed. But I have to agree that the front page is starting to get too predictable in its display of crassness. I'm all for smutting it up, but too much of a good thing, and all that... maybe later. Yeah, definitely later. And no, not like that, you filthy bastards. I'm a trashcan. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No Goatse!!!--Anon32 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• OH my fucking god, that is so disturbing! FOR! -- 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Subtle and funny: I like it. -- Get saved! 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Jump on the bandwagon. --The Rt. Hon. 19:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against. This would require an NSFWArticle for it to be featured, and it would mean some workplaces could block Uncyclopedia from their servers. --Sir Velair Wight 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Very well written. Ethereal 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I didn't want to like the page, but the quotes won me over. -Conniption 17:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• I haven't voted on this yet? What the hell? For. — 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It's goatse. Period. Full stop. Whatever. ~ 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong for I don't believe that this hasn't been featured -- Norwegian Kanaaääaäaalääaaaäaaää Attack! 10:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Although I support Yeah - votes - this one is double. -- Swami A. Suresh 23:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

## John Cage

Score: +12

Nominate and Strong For - This is hysterical brilliance. It helps to know a little about Cage, but I think it'd be funny without that knowledge. Very well-written comedy. --Imrealized 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Silence... (Cough, cough.) ... ... ...For. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 07:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• 2+2 --Hubert Cumberdale 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIRM-A-TIVE --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, seeing as I wrote most of it. The only thing I know about John Cage is that he wrote 4'33", and that was enough to make it funny for me. --Spang 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and if you vote for, a keep in its VFD entry wouldn't go amiss. It won VFD. --Spang 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - nice addition to the composer pages :) --Lurgy 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Man, this guy WAS high on kittens...-- 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Amusing, and 4' 33" is my favorite song so I must vote yes! -- Get saved! 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I like to say 'exuberant' often, not just for effect, but as a real descriptor. This writing is clever and exuberant, and made me chuckle. Well done, I say, well done. — Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I actually own a copy of Piano Falling Down Five Flights of Stairs in A Minor and it is some of his best work! Triddle 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - I've definietly heard 4'33" before. I haven't heard some of the others, but I was especially entertained by that section. --epynephrin 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Some good jokes (eg the extended dance remix of 4'33"), but it's quite badly written. Heaps of grammatical errors and sentences that don't make sense - including the first one of the article! -Conniption 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2 squared This really is brilliant... --Johnfn 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Amusing. — 00:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Couldn't you work in a Mortal Kombat Johnny Cage reference?--SLACK...ah ah...he'll save everyone of us! 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Because I'm awkward. ~ 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Because it zings with harmonious counterpoint.--Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against This article had a LOT of natural potential, which was completely quashed by stupid kitten huffing references that had no relevance to the complete insanity of this already bfi person --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 15:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very good, affectionate, i didn't know who the fuck he was but it still made sense and ammused - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• FORE! Hilarious. I especially liked the part where the trumpets don't come in. --Sir Tripod2282 cun vfp talk Active ~ 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

## Robot uprising

Score: +10
+ This one has a story behind it. It started out as Howto:Survive a Robot Uprising, but after consultation between Fasmine, Nytrospawn, and myself, it was merged here with my own material. Go and vote for, guys! --Hobelhouse 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Eh, whatever.  c • > •  00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. -- 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Rataube 22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. -- 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Claudius Prime 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Eh, not having Famine voting for all over this one makes this JUST good enough for a vote from me.-- 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! Even if it is sadly lacking a Dalek contingency. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Unoriginal and uninspired. 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I presume this vote is superseded by your later one... —rc (t) 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment They were intended to cancel out. 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agin'. Not very funny, relies on the word "fuck" to save it's sorry ass. IMHO as a n00b. -- Get saved! 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. --— 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. sry :( -- 23:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For --The Rt. Hon. 10:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. --User:Guffawing Crow/sig 12:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against - Some very bright moments, but too uneven. A promising start to the end of humanity. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 14:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Splendid --Maggot infested testicles 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Google™ --TimeStopper 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against
1) Too much of a list
2) Contains the word "shit" in the firskt paragraph
3) A historical event that never took place is more like an UnNews -- Swami A. Suresh 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It makes me laugh. Spang 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I have to say, I liked the original more. 21:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• For The most sterling piece of work I've seen in ages. And please not that Tompkins posted on opposites day. 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against Booo Das Boot 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - thedukeofnuke - 11:25, 19 April 2006 (GMT)
• Weak For. Before I change my mind. ~ 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against I think I already read this one, but it was a different article... wait... that would mean that this is unoriginal repetition of something that wasn't that funny in the first place... kinda like euroipods... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Could a bit less list-oriented, but it's good enough to get some laughs from me. -Conniption 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against The book was better. Modusoperandi 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for Too long and awkward now for a strong vote. 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. yee - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. Yeah, I'm seeing some repetition and its a list, but it's still funny enough.--Witt E, 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

## Insert title here

Score: +13
• [Insert for and self-nomination explanation here] [Insert complaint about how people don't presume nominations to be for here] - [Insert user name here] [Insert date here] 10:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• [Insert three letter word here] [Insert note that For is a three letter word here] [Insert signature here] [Insert 11:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) here]
• [Insert vote] [Insert witty self reference about including witty self reference in my for vote here] - [Insert username here] [Insert date here]
• [Insert vote here] [Insert some cruddy reason for voting here [Insert User Sig, Time and Date Here (Hindleyite 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC))]
• [Insert a SHUT THE FUCK UP Against vote here] --PiOfFive 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I'm out of fors. ~ 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• [Insert clever variation on "for" here] [insert oblique jab at everyone who voted against here] — 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. God, I hate Brad. He just ruined that great running gag.-- 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. This brings self-reference to a whole new level of exactly where it was before. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• This comment was funnier than the entire article. (Against) --Hubert Cumberdale 22:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• $\sum_{k=0}^1 \left(2k+1\right)$ 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 02:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Witt E, 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. If Redundancy was featured there's no reason why this shouldnt be too. --sqsz, 12:16, 22 April 2006 (+8 GMT)
• Against. If Redundancy was featured there's no reason why this should be too. --Imrealized 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For If we've featurred nihilism, then obviously we could not have Redundancy featured. Obviously. Twit! --The Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice 08:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Probably the best anti-cliche article, and a lovely self-reference. It's too injoke though...--Rataube 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against this is... boring, and played out.... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fortress --Andrusi 16:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• [insert affirmative vote here] - [insert voter here][insert voter's talk page here] - [insert date(24April2006) here]
• For. 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Only marginally witty and not really that funny. I vote for articles not ideas. --ENeGMA 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --Spin 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Now who wants to write a page based on this template, hmm? - Conniption 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against too cynical of uncyclopedia itself. --Flourentina 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against[insert insult here] unsigned vote
• For One of the most clever things here. --Johnfn 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• somewhat For - it's good. --epynephrin 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• [Insert support vote here]. -- Miserable Failure 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No work put into the article. Bilky Asko Talk Here 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• for. actually got sore laughing. Matt Kurz 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For! --So So 11:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• for a time, I was amused. Then, I finished the article, and I got bored, so I voted. -- Get saved! 15:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against I don't like articles like this...and it's similar to an old message board joke that never struck my fancy anyway. —rc (t) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I regret that prolonged exposure to AAAAAAAAA has affected my enjoyment of formatting jokes. I'm left wanting content.--Winston 16:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. In fact, I think we should even to an "[Insert Here]" skin for the main page on the day it's featured, like [Insert logo here] [Insert Featured Article Here] [Insert Link Here]. --Sir Tripod2282 cun vfp talk Active ~ 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• For - Lenin & McCarthy 06:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

## Homeless Nerds

Score: +8

Nom and For. I found this to be quite funny. What do you people think?-- 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• For and Comment: Could do with being expanded a little, but it's pretty good right now. — 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. 19:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Indeedy. --The Rt. Hon. 07:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• For ~ 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 14:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against Good initial concept, but needs work... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Good compact stuff --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For I'm a bit biased 'cos I added a few lines. I think it's definitely featured article material but I agree it can also be improved substantially. For instance "thick-rimed" glasses? Pocket protectors is an outdated stereotype- I don't know if I've even seen anyone wear one(and I know plenty of nerds), or if you can even buy them anymore. --InfiniteMonkey 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's funny because it's true. --KATIE!! 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --epynephrin 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This one made me laugh a lot.--Witt E, 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It's an ok article, doesn't have that thingy that takes it into hallowed VFH territory. I didn't get some references, probably because I'm an aging hippie <>s>old</s>. It could use something extra... Vienna Sausages, perhaps? -- Get saved! 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• FOR because it is MINE ...01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For"" --Spin 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For It's at least something original. Unlike that other one. I'm not even going to mention it. Don't make eye contact. Damn it, stop that.--24.183.61.204 03:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is funny, end of story. Did I mention it's funny?--Anon32 00:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• On second thought, the article needs more work. Weak Against.--Anon32 12:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Lawyer

Score: +6
• Nomination and For Not too long, Not too short- and funny all the way.--Witt E, 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Love the quote at the end.-- 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For- Bravo!--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 13:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For There were some rough bits, and it certainly should be merged with Lawyers... but it did make me laugh reading about the rolex... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against The jury finds this article, not guilty (of being funny)
• Unsigned.-- 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Could use some work, I agree, but it's a decent article. --ENeGMA 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

## The Uncyclopedia drinking game

Score: +7

Nominate and for. This could actually be a feasible game to play sometime... *writes mental note for next time I attend/throw some sort of party* --User:Nintendorulez 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• for This XTREME hot dog suffocates of hot dog. I audaciously toast Napolean with your XTREME hot dog. --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Nah--Rataube 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I just got back on Uncyclopedia recently to discover an article of mine had been nominated! :) -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)
• For --Severian 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For One of the first article I ever read. -- 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Love it, really do, but not on the front page. 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For does this mean that we have to add a "you find this article's VFH nomination" thing on there? -- Norwegian Kanaaääaäaalääaaaäaaää Attack! 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against-I have to agree with Tompkins--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• So wait, if you two like the article, why don't you want it on the front page? --User:Nintendorulez 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yah, that makes no sense Claud and Tom! -- 19:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Someone was bound to come up with this, and its not that bad. Dame  01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Not bad, to be honest, but this just doesn't strike me as VFH material.-- 23:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Good, but not great.--Winston 16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For! I know I'm playing this one sometime. -Dzugavili 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• ChugFor. — 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I'm with Tompkins, Claudius' and the Not Making Sense Party. --Spin 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

## Oscar Mayer

Score: +11
• Nom and For more inuendo. -- 13:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For (and thank you for nominating it). ~ T. (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Splendid. --Hobelhouse 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For this fine addition to the local meat market. --Carlb 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For all its meat-by-product wholesomeness(!). --DWIII OUN CUN 01:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Reminds me of sexual inuendo. No, not the article, I mean the thingy.-- 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For who would've ever thought mechanically separated chicken and assorted beef would be so sexy. --Severian 04:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. That first quote is a great prelude to an awesome article.--Witt E, 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Almost as good as Bouncy Castle. Dame  14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny. --So So 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Is this a record for most unanimous votes so far? --User:Nintendorulez 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against No.-- 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

## Wolf

Score: +6
• Just crying wolf! here for I am the boy who cried wolf! --Carlb 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ehhh... sure. But next time make the nomination a bit smoother, eh? --Kalir, Savant of Utter Foolishness! (yell at me) 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I LOVE EVERYTHING NOW!-- 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Warren Zevon is awesome.--Severian 04:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. Greatness of a kind that gives paws for thought. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 15:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. Yes. User:Ximm/sig 30 April 2006
• Against. Fairy tale references in there too... Ugh. --So So 11:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Hilarious. The picture of the coyote alone is worth a VFH vote. --ENeGMA 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against It's just not really very funny to me.--Spin 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Fashion Police

Score: +2
• Nomination Just throwing Spinny a bone here. —rc (t) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• The article is funny enough, and since those pictures are absolutely hilarious I dub thy nomination

FOR--Witt E, 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• AWEXOME SELF FOR And you can keep your goshdarn bones, Rc, I don't take no charity. --Spin 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yet another PLS entry overshadowed by the hypedmediaoverblockbusterwinners...hey! It's time for my medication. Mmmm, placebo. Modusoperandi 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Personally, the lingo started to annoy me after the first paragraph. But I guess if you like that kind of thing... --So So 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For, and if Spin isn't using the bones, can I have them? I always wanted two skeletons. --EvilZak 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Eh, gay jokes never were my thing. There were several decent jokes, but not VFH worthy, methinks.-- 23:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that there was only one gay joke. Just because the Fashion Police have some style doesn't mean they're all gay. --Spin 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For But I can't wait for the sequel - Fashion Police: SVU. Dame  12:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry, but I found the language cumbersome to wade through.--Winston 16:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

## Segregation

Score: +9
• Nominate and For because PLS should dominate the clearly inferior non-PLS articles on the front page. (also it's a great article) --EvilZak 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Heh, this was going to be my next nomination but you beat me to it. —rc (t) 19:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For It's a good, funny idea, but it's a bit short. - Lenin & McCarthy 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Short but sweet, and PLS to beat Modusoperandi 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Oh, absolutely. I loved this one.-- 19:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For- I wish it was longer, but it's still great!--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 21:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for Its a great base, but it needs to explore what happens to the Pure white when something hot and red gets thrown in with them - the stain of miscoloration. Dame  00:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Okay, seeing the support for this article, I must now expand it to win over those wary of its shortness. Strong Rad 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Wow - very witty! --Jester 02:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Great - very me. --Witt E, 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For --Spin 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Not yet. Needs more work. Good start though.--Anon32 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. A good article, but I think a lot more could be written on this topic. Bloopy 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Colossus of Barbie

Score: +12
• Nomination and For. Great article. 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. I agree.-- 23:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For, as the resident Egyptian Deity, this article pleases me. --OsirisX 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For and thanks ;-) Dame  00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Coolie, Colossus of Ken doesn't even compare. --Severian 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. Good idea, but it's a mess. For - Lenin & McCarthy 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For-Absolutely Wonderful--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 13:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against I didn't really think it was very funny. Amusing concept, but meh. --ENeGMA 21:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Very funny. Someone put a lot of good work into this. --Jester 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For but is it anatomically correct? --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 09:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. You can't go wrong with 2000 Kens.--Hardwick Fundlebuggy 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For We need to highlight a feminist piece. Get saved! 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• For  c • > •  04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Invasion

Score: -2
• Nomination More PLS goodness. —rc (t) 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's funny. Lenin & McCarthy 19:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against There were too many real facts. I've been to the sandbox and it's just not funny to me. --Severian 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against It's good satire, but it's not quite funny enough for this psychotic. Get saved! 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. A good effort, just not that funny. Bloopy 08:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Islam

Score: 0
• Nomination & For Lots of great jokes, especially the section on stoning. ~User:jezuschryzt 4 May 2006
• Against. I just think it has "it". -- 07:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"it," as in the stereotypical-uncyclopedia-article-formula. --Simulacrum Caputosis 15:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against-Didn't Laugh--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Just... reread the "Warning" section... that alone made me laugh... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For It made me laugh, especially the pic with Bin Laden and Evil Bernie. Get saved! 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Bloopy 08:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Score: -4

## Allah: The Annotated Version

Score: -3
• Nomination and For, I prefer this version of the Allah article, much more humourous. --OsirisX 08:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For dagnabit. Are there any other pages like this that we can nominate? (I'd add freedom of speech, which is sort-of on topic, but I never nominate my own stuff. Also, it's not all that good). Maybe we could get a theme going here... Modusoperandi 08:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against-Gratuitous and unnecessary--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 13:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For - gratuitous and unnecessary. It's like two articles in one. A dessert wax and a floor topping - David Gerard 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against it wa like reading two annoying and pedantic articles with no real humour at one time... I'm tempted to put it in VFD --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 19:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against --Spin 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. -- Why nominate an article that attempts to explain a joke? I don't like it.--Witt E, 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against Maybe I'm just too old and tired to summon the effort required to digest this drivel; Not that I have anything against drivel itself. Get saved! 14:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Bloopy 08:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Citizen Kong

Score: +13
• Nom and for - I did in fact laugh out loud - David Gerard 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Dame  15:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For-Delightful--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 16:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Swordmaster 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I Like It A Lot Jennay --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Very impressive. --ENeGMA 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Clever. Bloopy 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against --Spin 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Amusing, and it won't scare off new readers. Get saved! 14:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remember folks, a vote For Kong is a vote for freedom. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For Lenin & McCarthy 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For  c • > •  04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Brilliant.-- 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. I won't say it meanders, but it's... long.  :) But good. ~ T. (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

# Previously Featured

## The Root of All Evil

Score: +16

Featuredrc (t) 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nom and 4. A gem. -- 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. — 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. Of all the stuff I've written so far this month, I'm not certain this is this best of the bunch, but thank you thank you & thank you.  :) And For. ~ T. (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentFor <s>I can't vote for this one because every time I read "Root of all Evil"... I think wait... it should be "Route of all Evil" in this context... which distracts me from the article itself... and I can't vote against it, because if the word Root was replaced in each instance with Route... I would love the article...</s>Good Article... I re-read it... nevermind the crap i said before... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. The source idea is good, but the writing doth meander. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This one and Perfect Disaster were my favorite in the Poo Lit. Isn't someone going to nominate PD? ...Why don't I? 'Cause. --So So 07:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny.-- 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Nice Job, I've been to the Root of All Evil, it was pleasant and warm to the touch.--Severian 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Wonderfully subtle and just plain fun to read. --Johnfn 01:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Unfunny, and pretty boring. Done before. Bilky Asko Talk Here 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, stayed there for three glorious days and nites last year. Nice place, not enough sinning.

Modusoperandi 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• For, halarious!! id love to go and spend at week there.
• Unsigned. —rc (t) 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For because of a surprisingly good implementation of random humor. It's funny, and not just stupid. --Poofers 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• For A masterpiece of humour! --The Rt. Hon. 07:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Foramusing ...05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to vote For this lovely entry on a very important place in human history. 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

## Age of Umpires

Score: +16

Featuredrc (t) 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nominated and Four. This is a truly funny article... if you don't agree, vote elsewhere --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, being Australian it is my duty to vote in favour of this marvellous game. --OsirisX 23:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For And not just becuase Age of Emprires is my favorite game ever. It's a damn good article. (Forgot to long in.) --ENeGMA 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For If the quality of the writing matched that of the illustrations it would be great. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, even though I pesonally don't like the usage of one-equal-sign titles, I love the photoshop job. Lenin & McCarthy 06:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Gosh, yes. -- Sir Codeine KUN VFP Bur. MDA NS UotM CM +S (Harangue) 11:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Though I'm American, I still see the humor here. Incidentally, everyone who was complaining about this winning a Poo Lit can just ignore Minds' message up there.-- 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, what does poo lit have to do with people voting elsewhere? --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Peek & Pie Vacuum 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I spent ages on them pics... Hindleyite Talk 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Although I didn't get a lot of the jokes, the pics and such are funny. It just needs some more jokes that people who aren't British will understand. --User:Nintendorulez 21:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely For - I'm still unsure if Americans understand Cricket, but this article superb. Billy Bowden rules!!!! Das Boot 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• against, makes cricket sound just a boring as baseball. Which it is. Modusoperandi 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Four, not out. -- 08:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, Just truly brilliant, and the jokes are well phrased Bilky Asko Talk Here 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. My lack of being British showed when reading this... but I laughed enough times for this vote.--Witt E, 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --Spin 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For --EvilZak 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For --Definately for this article, it is really funny and hilarious!--Death motor 02:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

# Archives

 Awards, Decorations and Honours Awards Order of Uncyclopedia · Awards, Decorations and Honours · Admin Rank · Ninjastars Ranks &Honours Writer of the Month · Uncyclopedian of the Month · n00b of the moment Potatochopper of the Month Limelight VFH · VFP · Best of · Top Ten: 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · Hall of Shame Prix citron Useless Gobshite of the Month · Useless Gobshite of the Year · Sandwich of the Month · FFS Events citron Poo Lit Suprise · Aristocrat's Turkey Day Ball · The Article Whisperer Happy Monkey Competition · Other competitions