Uncyclopedia:VFH

1. Of course, because if I don't do it nw somebody else will. And I fully expect <insert name here> to vote against. Wanker!
   
2. HELL YESSS Probably the biggest for I've ever given. Because I'm in it bitches!!!! Che } 01:02,23December,2009
3. Drama vote. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 02:02, 23 December 2009
4. For. Smug? Self-congratulating? Me? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I can't see how you could come to that conclusion. Then again, perhaps that's because I'm awesome. ---Matfen815 02:51, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against. Unbearably smug and self-congratulating. mattlobster. (hello) 00:03, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against. I liked it, but I've always been of the opinion that FAs are meant for the general public, and I don't think the general public is gonna like it. Although, in fairness, they'd like it a lot more than they'd like User:Mhaille (what the hell is going on over there?) pillow talk 02:58, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
3. Against. per hype. Mn-z 04:13, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

1. Nom and For A gift to my little brother at Xmas. --I'mthedaddy 22:13, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
2. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 02:00, 23 December 2009

No against votes

1. I found this after it was whored over on VFD by the guy that wrote the book on how to whore your article on VFD. That in itself made the whole thing worth while. But then, I actually read it, and after numerous failed attempts to keep my sniggering down at work, I finished it and now am nominating it. In short, I love this article because it is hilarious. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:38, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
2. For I have to agree. This is fantastic. mattlobster. (hello) 23:27, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. As long as it's not my Haggen-Dazs ~ 00:06, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 01:59, 23 December 2009
5. Self-for. I guess if I'm gonna be a whore, I ought to go all the way. After all, whores that don't go all the way often end up shot. pillow talk 02:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. Great read. I thought of nomming this myself, but someone else seems to have done it for me. ;) —Pelargonium MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦
7. For. per above. Mn-z 04:12, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

1. Nom & For. Poo poos? --    19:55, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
2. Murderous For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Self For, even though voting for this is probably killing the earth. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 22:09, December 21, 2009
4. Totally For I thought it was hilarious, and fun to read out loud! --Theroachyjay 05:25, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against. The writing isn't that great, it rambles a lot, it's long, especially for a UnNews article. Sorry, I didn't like it. rev. zim_ulator (Talk - Edits Logs) I am the dirt under your rollers. 15:13, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against I kinda agree with Zim. Not that it's too long (I don't mind long UnNews articles as long as they stay interesting or funny throughout, and this isn't even that long in my opinion. I've seen much longer. This is where you think penis.), but rather it doesn't do a well-enough job mocking the idiocy of saying that our pets are destroying the Earth, not our gas-guzzling ways. Plus, such phrases as "Have these fish given thanks to earth for this? Have they kept their rented homes clean? No!", "A more gruesome outcome, I shudder to fantasize about.", and "The nerve!" don't fit with the third-person tone of normal news articles. There are also a few minor grammatical errors that need fixing, but those bother my dangles enough to fix them myself. And yes, I said my dangles. Dangles is apparently a word. Urban Dictionary has some sort of hockey-related definition for it. Surprising. Pleb KUN Dexter111344 • Complain here • Vote now! 15:56, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
3. Needs more work per Dexter. Good concept, some funny lines, but I think the writing needs a little more tightening before it's good for feature. Sorry. pillow talk 02:54, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
4. Against. per above, concept is ok, but the language needs to be tightened. Mn-z 04:17, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

1. Nom+4 That's just sick! Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Talk to the Pole} 13:13, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
2. For. I thought I would comment something but... The  Rulebook 13:22, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. I fuckin' lolt, hard. The Ugandan Government Should Cease Existence. Yoweri Museveni can go die, too. Fuck Uganda. 20:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
4. Four. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 20:55, 21 December 2009
5. For. Is there still time to order one for Christmas? --Sog1970 23:25, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. You people make me sick. Sir Modusoperandi ^{Brute! Boinc!} 02:25, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
7. For. A welcome addition to the Mein Wenig Fuehrer (My Little Fuehrer) toy range. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:14, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
8. For Every child should have one. --I'mthedaddy 22:17, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
9. For. per above. Mn-z 04:20, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

• Comment. VFH tag? The Ugandan Government Should Cease Existence. Yoweri Museveni can go die, too. Fuck Uganda. 20:41, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

  You're it! Sir Modusoperandi ^{Brute! Boinc!} 02:25, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

1. Nom + For I like it it and should have done this before--I'mthedaddy 15:09, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
2. This is good stuff. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 15:16, 20 December 2009
3. For RAWR! Pleb KUN Dexter111344 • Complain here • Vote now! 15:32, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. Sog rarely disappoints. He hasn't here. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 22:37, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
5. For. I did a review a while back, enjoyable then, enjoyable now. ChiefjusticeDS 22:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. Beat me to the nom! ---Matfen815 01:24, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
7. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 15:53, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
8. Self For. --Sog1970 16:38, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
9. For. Holy good article Batman! --UU - natter 11:23, Dec 22
10. For. Was I not expecting to like that. mattlobster. (hello) 00:11, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
11. For. per above Mn-z 04:22, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

Chief's useful pee here

1. Nom+For. Another masterpiece from DrStrange. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 13:09, 20 December 2009
2. Freaky.  –     (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN 06:54, 21 December 2009
3. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 14:38, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. A bit like a 'Back of The Bike Sheds' guide to sex but still funny. Not Suitable For Virgins. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:04, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
5. For Worth it for the Elmo image. --I'mthedaddy 22:19, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. per abovez Mn-z 04:27, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

1. Self-nom + For. I don't think I can add anything anymore, and Why? helped me a lot with it. ~☎ 09:57, Dec 19, 2009
2. It's good enough. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 18:38, 19 December 2009
3. For. This borderline-Decemberists-fan likes it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:08, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
4. For.    moonshine   • 21:03 • Sunday, 20-12-2009
5. Weak For. I had to do some background reading before voting. A well written piece though perhaps the humour is more of a chuckle than a lol. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 23:05, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
6. The punishment for this failure is called a Grammy. Once I saw that I knew I had to vote here. --Nikau 01:32, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
7. For I had no fucking clue who this guy was, yet found it hilarious. Although I found the last paragraph a bit redundant, it's still good enough. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 11:01, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
8. For. Thought it was almost featurable before my Pee Review; think it's ready now (and I didn't know Colin Meloy either, but am scrutinizing the sagacious songsmith simultaneously while scribing this studied synopsis).     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  19:17, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

1. um if this makes anyone other than Decemberists fans/haters laugh I'll be kinda surprised... well, not all of it, I don't want to give it too little credit... —talk 18:26, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
2. I did not lol. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:28, 19 Dec

• Pee reviews on the talk page. ~☎ 09:57, Dec 19, 2009
• Ok, Fag, that was painful. You make the worst comments on VFH, well, maybe not all of them, I don't want to give them too little credit. ~☎ 01:07, Dec 21, 2009
• http://www.colinmeloy.com & http://www.decemberists.com     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  19:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

1. For. Submitting a rainbow for bulls to trample. The  Rulebook 05:52, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
2. Revolutionary. FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 05:54, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
3. no now i am even more of a cobweb —talk 05:55, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
4. Allllllllllllllright! —RomanDogBird (Talk•Morgan Freeman•eat my shorts nigga•Hawkman•suck my balls) 06:07, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
5. Piss poor I love it! -- Kip the DipTalkWorksTreat WHORE! ☃ 06:10, Dec. 18, 2009
6. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 09:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
7. For. Because I'm in it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 12:04, 18 December 2009
8. For. Per Romartus' misunderstanding of what an in joke is. Also, it's pretty funny and I voted to feature the article and this would go along nicely with it. Feature 'em both at the same time. -OptyC Sucks! CUN12:19, 18 Dec
9. For. It made me laugh. mattlobster. (hello) 15:41, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
10. For Because everyone below are unfunny, over-thinking, idiots (When voting. I think many of them are quite funny writers). And that really annoys me. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 15:53, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
11. For I don't even know why ---Pelargonium MUN (Talk) (Contribs) (Survey!) 05:25, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against because I am incurably biased and hate everything • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Friday, 10:36, Dec 18 2009

   Did you think someone needed a reminder or what? -- The  Rulebook 11:00, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

   Touché, Multi. Touché. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Saturday, 11:38, Dec 19 2009

2. On the usual - and good rule - about avoiding placing in jokes , user pages etc up for a VFH. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 11:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
3. Against. Because I am a "tightass" and my first reaction on seeing this was not to seek out the author to congratulate him, but rather to check who needs ban patrolling for vandalising PEE review. ChiefjusticeDS 15:11, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
4. Against. Even though I wrote a tiny part of this, my anal retentiveness makes me vote no. I don't want to encourage people screwing up the Pee Review process.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  21:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

   since when would this affect pee review in any way. also CDS i was asked to review the article in an appropriate manner, which I feel I did. need i add that i was a respected pee reviewer long before you were even on this site —talk 21:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

   I realise that you have done reviews, I didn't suggest at any point that you couldn't, I simply communicated my feelings upon looking at the page. You also appear to have misunderstood, my point was it looked like vandalism, I didn't say it was, also, no you didn't need to add that you have been doing reviews longer than me, as it isn't really relevant. I feel it shouldn't be a feature because I didn't find it pleasing to look at or to read. I have nothing against you personally or as a writer, but I have no interest in discussing the way I have voted further, I'm against, and that's how I plan to stay. --ChiefjusticeDS 23:17, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

   I have no problem with someone doing a joke Pee Review; I've thought about doing one myself--but not in the Pee Review space. And also regardless of intent, I can imagine a swarm of would-be comics jumping on legitimately wanted pee reviews and screwing it up for those who sincerely want to be reviewed. If this is moved to somewhere outside of the Pee Review space, that's fine. But I still wouldn't vote for it as a feature, even if I found it hiliarious, because no one who doesn't know our Pee Review system would be likely to get it.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  02:39, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

5. Against. per above Mn-z 06:14, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
6. Against. I've done a couple of joke PEE reviews, but when it comes down to it I still try and put in meat into the review to actually help the person writing the article. In fact, I just completed a review done in the style of and then came here and saw what the comments on this are. But the long and the short of it is that although I have written reviews of a similar nature, I would never expect any of them to be nommed for front page, and I would likewise vote against them. I have nominated stuff like this for the humour factor of seeing it nommed, but never with the expectation of seeing it on front page. So while I think this is funny, and I enjoyed it, I think it's only funny to me because I'm on the inside of it looking out. To an outsider, this looks stupid.
   

   Fail enough, my Puppy - which outsider were you thinking of? There are quite a few of them out there. Some of them even have similar sense of humour with you. -- The  Rulebook 09:39, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

   Take this discussion to the talk page, don't continue it in the middle of the votes. --UU - natter 09:42, Dec 20

7. Against. Illogicopedia already exists. Plus, while this is a fairly well-dresses word salad, a word salad it remains. I just don't find this funny, and as such I have to cast my "tightass" vote. --UU - natter 09:42, Dec 20

   Voting against this because you don't find it funny is in no way tightass. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it is the best reason to vote against something. I actually give you a pat on the back for this, though I have no authority to, and my hands are greasy from eating all those potato chips.... should have gotten pringles. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:42, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

   I completely agree. You gave the best possible against reason UU (i hope that doesn't come across as sarcasm cos it wasn't supposed to...) —talk 17:45, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with UU, but totally disagree with Fag agreeing with him. -- The  Rulebook 18:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

oh no words —talk 05:57, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

• The first bull. Would work great as an addition to Jones if that were featured. But on it's own it's not really that funny. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 08:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Yeah and of course nobody can find the article after reading the Pee. Stands to reason. The  Rulebook 09:01, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Good point, although made in an unecessarily sardonic way. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 09:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC

OK - sorry about that. -- The  Rulebook 09:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Romartus, since when was this an injoke, and there's no Userspace here so there's no rule against it being nominated —talk 12:30, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

We could fill up VFH with in jokes for the next six months. I think it would be a HUGE turn off for new writers. If I had seen a page like this on the front page , that would be my reaction. --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said or what, cos that wasn't even a response. And I like how wherever you go you automatically assume yr opinion is shared by everyone else —talk 13:47, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yes I read your reply. I don't know if my opinion is shared by anyone else but when ever articles like this have been placed up for VFH , they have usually been voted down for the reasons above in my NO vote. I am making the point of agreeing with that and that I am also concerned that if this gets the nod for VFH , it will just open the floodgates to all future articles like this getting here and getting voted on. Since what grounds could it be said not to be eligible ? --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 14:08, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you want to eliminate the democratic process? "Oh no, if people vote for this, they might vote for something else I disapprove of! We can't have that, now can we?" The Ugandan Government Should Cease Existence. Yoweri Museveni can go die, too. Fuck Uganda. 17:18, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Would you mind continuing the discussion on some talk page, this or the article's, Mr Rule? The  Rulebook 14:19, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
• I have not read the actual page, so I am unable to comment on its funniness or not, but after reading this page, I must make my neccesary link to User:The Woodburninator/RulesVsFunny, and walk away. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:29, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

  I love you man. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:34, 18 Dec

• Recommendation. In the unlikely event that the tightasses actually let this get featured (as it should be) I would recommend removing all the comments before the review. They actually add nothing at all to the humor. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:43, 18 Dec
  • I tried to do that with Talk:Sania Mirza, (deleted unimportant comments that didn't say much, or add to the comedy) and nearly got banned for it. I doubt it happens. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 17:54, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I enjoy the way it all comes in on something otherwise fairly civil —talk 21:28, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. wow - Chief Justice is getting tough on you Fag! -- The  Rulebook 21:30, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
  • chief justice ain't got shit on me dog i'm a badman —talk 16:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. In all honesty, if this was the first Uncyc article I read, I would definitely come back for more. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 20:02, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Oh yeah and before I forget: Yakkety yakety yakkety yak. Obviously not to you Black Flamingo. The  Rulebook 09:40, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Yo, againsts, spread the word too! I nominated this just to have a bit of a dickfight here. It's not front page material for such a mediocre site. The  Rulebook 10:54, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

1. Self-Nom and For. My 1st UnNews, and after a glowing review by Chief, I considered it done enough to put up here. Enjoy!--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 01:13, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
2. For. Sog1970 11:34, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. The  Rulebook 19:52, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. While I think that it feels slightly unfinished, I still think it is a worthy VFH contender. ChiefjusticeDS 22:40, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
5. For. Per Chief. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 08:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 12:11, 18 December 2009
7. For. 68.2.218.207 05:16, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

• Man, I really like this idea, but the implimentation was only half there for me. Too good for me to stand in the way of it getting featured though, so I decline a vote. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 21:36, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
• Per Woody. I chuckled at the concept of the article, but it was sort of all concept. pillow talk 02:47, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

1. snf A few pee reviews here and there and I have made all the suggested changes and here I am.
2. For. Mostly balls but I like it. --Sog1970 10:07, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 10:44, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. Despite there being a superfluous space in the title. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 11:05, 14 December 2009
5. For.. Out of the dozens of relationship-with-a-volley-ball stories I've read, this one has a nicer bounce.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  22:54, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. Great idea ! RomArtus Imperator(talk) 12:06, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
7. For. See the reviews. ChiefjusticeDS 22:39, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
8. WILLLLLLLLSON!! -- Kip the DipTalkWorksTreat WHORE! ☃ 06:26, Dec. 18, 2009
9. For. 74.64.86.208 14:34, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

1. Sure, why not? He's a cool guy. Ж Kalir _{where's my house?} 21:43, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
2. For the next 144 minutes (and counting- down.) » DJ "Reaper of Fail" Gentoo, now with wit, sarcasm, and even more obscure folk metal. Now in lime green! 21:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
3. Why has this not already had a feature? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
4. four Without a doubt, one of the coolest users around. Definitely worthy of a front-page mention.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   21:49, Sunday 13 December 2009  
5. For!!!!!! Love,   02:51, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
6. ☃ Snowman. This made me laugh, raucously. The author, while he is a huge faggot, is a genius. FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 02:54, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes! Yes! Yes! But seriously, remove that Bold text at the end. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 10:59, 14 December 2009
8. Weak-For Although, it could use a little more Mhaille. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 19:20, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
9. MHAILLE —talk 01:24, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
10. For. MO got his privates featured, why not Mhaille?    moonshine  
11. Who? -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:57, 15 Dec
12. For. Monkeys! rev. zim_ulator (Talk - Edits Logs) I am the dirt under your rollers. 22:47, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
13. For. Grand General Wizard Etc x2 and Senator G/K/O/CUNT.K.F. WHORE! ZOTM MAFE VANDL UOTM WOTM TOP10 FP PMOTM UWotM 09:45, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
14. For. Let's support a userpage feature... Marshal Uncyclopedian! Talk to me! 00:20, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
15. Seriously. Only the best page ever.  –     (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN 06:25, 18 December 2009
16. For. FUCK YOU!! The  Rulebook 18:37, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

    Not you Zana, you know what I mean. -- The  Rulebook 18:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

17. For. Reverse Genocide Cockatrices 13:22, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
18. Za. Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Talk to the Pole} 13:17, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
19. For. Northern Solidarity... ---Matfen815 22:42, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
20. For He's the greatest dancer!. mattlobster. (hello) 00:17, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

1. Invalid nom User is a judge for ATDB. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 21:47, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

   This argument makes no sense. I move to strike it as being unfairly biased based on namespace.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   21:49, Sunday 13 December 2009  

   Your face is unfairly biased based on namespace, but I'd strike it anyway even if it weren't. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 21:52, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

2. Against. Too foreign. Sir Modusoperandi ^{Brute! Boinc!} 00:56, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
3. Against. Just say No to egomaniacs. --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 07:30, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
4. Zombiebaron. --UU - natter 09:48, Dec 14
5. Against. Too English. ~ 09:58, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
6. Against. What he, he, he and he said ^ -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 18:19, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
7. LOL WUT pillow talk 19:09, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
8. Against. I'm an Everton man myself. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 08:50, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
9. Against. per not nominating userpages. Mn-z 17:02, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
10. Against. Cool user page? Yes. Featured article? No.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  22:26, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
11. Against. ChiefjusticeDS 22:51, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
12. For raping Mhaille. Against featuring him. Pleb KUN Dexter111344 • Complain here • Vote now! 15:42, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
13. C'mon Guys... —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 20:11, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Yakkety yakkety yak. The  Rulebook 19:17, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Yakkety yakkety YAKKETY yakkety yak. The  Rulebook 07:07, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

  The time I was nearly raped by a Yakkety yakkety YAKKETY yakkety yak during my sojourn in VFH.    moonshine   • 15:39 • Sunday, 20-12-2009

1. For. The  Rulebook 06:53, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
2. For. El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 10:50, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 14:28, 13 December 2009
4. For. Elves of the World Unite... RomArtus Imperator(talk) 18:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
5. Elf-For --Sog1970 20:11, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. As an "evil commie", I love all union stuff. This is great. SuperBario 08:15, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
7. For! Obviously - considering this guy's pro status My Tree! 09:14, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
8. For. If something is to be featured on Christmas day I guess it will be this. Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 13:29, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
9. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 08:32, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
10. For. Not entirely original but nicely done. --I'mthedaddy 10:19, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
11. For.    moonshine   • 16:26 • Tuesday, 15-12-2009
12. For.. Elves not living past 500 years? Terrible.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  22:06, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against. I feel like I've heard this joke before at least once or twice. pillow talk 22:25, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against. Political correctness ruining christmas is a pretty old joke and I tire of hearing it, I'm sorry :( —talk 08:35, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The concept may not be entirely original, but then I haven't seen anything about Christmas that was entirely original since Dicken's A Christmas Carol--unless you count South Park and the Christmas Poo.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  22:08, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

1. Nom+For. DrStrange just finished another article. And it's quite an article, I might say. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 19:22, 11 December 2009
2. For. Clever idea and the writer has made it work here. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:42, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
3. For. First made me think, then made me laugh, then made me think again.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  17:24, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 10:48, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
5. For. ~☎ 13:51, Dec 13, 2009 13:51, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:10, 17 Dec
7. For. The  Rulebook 18:39, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

No against votes

• Comment. Just one problem. Header spells it Red Herring but article uses Redd Herring. Should that be change ? RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:44, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

  I wanted to retain the proper spelling of the term "Red Herring" so that it simply looks like a page on terminology instead of a faux biography when looked at from the "outside". You do bring up a valid point because that particular effect would be lost on the front page as opposed to merely seeing a blue link in a list. Hmmmmm. Any opinions?--    13:59, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

  Would a redirect from Red Herring to Redd Herring (or visa versa) help?     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  17:25, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

  That would be fine by me. Redirect Red to Redd. Of course, Mongo only pawn in game of redirects and that technofear of not dealing with such issues on a regular basis.....could you help me? I'm just a caveman. When a plane flies overhead, I think it's a giant bird in the sky and I cower in fear.--    18:02, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

  So the article should just be moved to Redd Herring, right? Alright, done. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 12:45, 13 December 2009

  Socky done fixed.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  02:42, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

  Way to fuck up the joke. Abstain till it gets changed back. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:04, 15 Dec

  Go to Red Herring and you'll see the exact same article you saw before at Red Herring (with the addition of a little redirect notice).     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  19:13, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, is that how a redirect works? Thanks, I don't know what I would have done without your vast wiki editing experience. Abstain. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:38, 15 Dec

  You're welcome.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  22:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. How about my saying this doesn't flow to be satisfactory, the way I define it? The  Rulebook 18:41, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
• Gah I know there's a deeper meaning in the article, but I'm just not finding it. :( • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Saturday, 12:30, Dec 19 2009

  I was shooting for: Politics is nothing more than swaying the sheep with pointless arguments meant to steer the public away from real issues and every political party plays the game just as bad as the other. Republicans and Democrats? Or just a bunch of whining toadies that don't represent much of anything? --    14:02, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

1. Nom and For. - This article was a bunch of garbage before Zana got to it.  TALK  FRESH MEAT  ♥ talk to me 23:17 10 December 2009
2. I can't believe it's not featured Ptok-Bentoniczny^{Talk to the Pole} 10:44, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
3. For per what Fresh Meat said. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 12:06, 11 December 2009
4. Four I seem to constantly be getting this magical vote number. I feel so special.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   12:41, Friday 11 December 2009  
5. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 19:47, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. - I never would've thought this would be nommed. Here's to hoping it passes!  –     (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN 02:28, 13 December 2009
7. For. 94.194.214.62 15:58, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
8. For. The  Rulebook 18:36, December 18, 2009 (UTC)
9. For my favorite sex lube. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:51, 19 Dec
10. For. Vote change after Zana's recent expansion of the article. Now spreads a lot thicker. --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 22:02, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against. I liked the hotdog photo and caption, but the rest to me was largely "butter is great." To me it needs more work to be VFH.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  17:01, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against. As per Rabbi, some good stuff in there but a little rough and rushed to be featured --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 10:41, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

#Against. Needs to spread a bit further to be a feature. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 19:36, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against as per Why. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Saturday, 12:26, Dec 19 2009

• I liked this, however I think to be featured some of it needs to be strengthened, particularly the opening paragraph. It's too random and doesn't suit the tone of the rest of the article, which sounds like it was written by someone working for a desperate butter manufacturer. My advice would be to keep this consitent throughout as I found it very funny. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 10:20, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I fixed the image and added some more to the first bit. Hope that helps. Cheers!  –     (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN 19:37, 11 December 2009

It really does. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 19:47, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I've 'spread' the article out a bit as suggested. I really don't think this subject calls for too long of an article.  –     (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN 08:39, 19 December 2009

1. Self-nom and For. Been reviewed by almost two people, ranks pretty high in Google and covers the subject way better than Wikipedia. -- VFP Eincyc (talk) 20:59, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. Great article. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 10:49, 10 December 2009
3. For. as per Black_Flamingo. The  Rulebook 11:15, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
4. Four     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   11:22, Thursday 10 December 2009  
5. Für. • MAHMOOSHA 2.0 • • • 12:13, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
6. פֿאַר. Well constructed, some good laughs. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 17:09, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
7. For. —talk 14:48, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
8. For. I lolt. FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 21:25, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
9. For. Colin lolt. Good enough for me. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:31, 17 Dec
10. Weak For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Saturday, 12:23, Dec 19 2009

1. Against. Awesome concept but only really laughed once (at the Best Winslet Oscar). --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 10:29, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against. Some nice writing in parts, but didn't find it funny.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  16:56, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
3. Against. Laughed more at what I thought might be the contents than the actual contents (aka good concept, unfunny execution) El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 10:36, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
4. Against. I'm not sure I even understood what I just read. pillow talk 04:14, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I like the fact the writer has tackled an interesting subject - though I am pretty sure the inspiration for this has come from one of the episodes of Extras. I think it could do with some more work before coming back for a VFH. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 19:39, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

  AAAAAAGH! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE. It's not "a VFH". It's just VFH. Vote For Highlight. If it wins, then it becomes an FA. Featured Article. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:31, 17 Dec

  Point taken. Make sure to remind me if I/when I do it the next time - in CAPS if you prefer. --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 14:15, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

  Nothing personal mate, it's just a pet peeve of mine.  :D -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:55, 18 Dec

1. Self-nomination and a vote in favor. I couldn't believe this article concept hadn't been taken yet, so I wrote it myself. I got an excellent review from Chiefjustice, and hopefully improved the article after almost a month of procrastination. Do you guys think it's ready for featuredom? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:24, Dec 2
2. For. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! 02:33, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
3. So... rad.... • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Wednesday, 07:42, Dec 2 2009
4. Totally For and stuff, like whatever. ChiefjusticeDS 09:47, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
5. For. They were soooo much cooler before the Southern Strategy. Now they're like your parents. Sir Modusoperandi ^{Brute! Boinc!} 09:53, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. I didn't read it or anything, but it's by TLB so it probably doesn't suck too much. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:33, 2 Dec
7. Obvious For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 20:10, 2 December 2009
8. For. 193.61.254.27 21:33, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
9. For. Gee, I wish I could have thought of this...--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 15:41, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
10. For. 98.221.153.215 21:29, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
11. For. Tubolitionist, dude.     GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, film critic 21:43, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
12. Radical. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 08:38, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
13. For.--    00:55, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
14. For. I don't find it too funny either, but what the fuck. Some do. In fact, it was funny in some ways. The  Rulebook 10:50, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against. To me it's modern slang thrown into the 1860s, and I don't find it funny.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  20:07, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against. Too scattergun for a VFH. It's overstuffed with enough ides for at least three articles. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:32, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
3. Against. Per above. • MAHMOOSHA 2.0 • • • 18:12, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

• PEE is here. --ChiefjusticeDS 09:49, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain. Per Why, only less so. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 08:09, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

1. Nom+For. I just remembered Sycamore used to write quite a couple good articles, so I'll be nomming a few to fill up VFH a bit. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 05:33, 28 November 2009
2. For. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 09:08, Nov. 29, 2009
3. For. Chyel 01:24, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
4. Ah go on then. It was pretty funny and a good concept. Weak for, I guess. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 12:01, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
5. For. It's amazing how this article has retained its timelessness and become increasingly relevant in our world... • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Wednesday, 00:34, Dec 2 2009
6. Weak For - Wasn't hilarious, but I'm sure other people will enjoy it more than me. -- Kip the DipTalkWorksTreat WHORE! ☃ 07:01, Dec. 5, 2009
7. For. I remember this. I remember helping a little with this. I remember quite liking it at the time. I still quite like it. --UU - natter 13:33, Dec 10
8. Very Weak For. Exactly per Kip teh Dip. • MAHMOOSHA 2.0 • • • 13:52, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
9. For--Reverse Genocide Cockatrices 13:08, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against.. To me it reads like a list only with more description. The article doesn't seem to go anywhere.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  07:35, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
2. Meh. Not that I don't agree with most of this, but that doesn't really make it funny. -RAHB 05:57, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain. Per all the Weak Fors. Che } 11:56,11December,2009

1. Nom+For. I just remembered Sycamore used to write quite a couple good articles, so I'll be nomming a few to fill up VFH a bit. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 05:27, 28 November 2009
2. For. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 09:07, Nov. 29, 2009
3. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 13:01, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
4. Damn Good, and I laughed several times quite inappropriately. Most excellent!  –     (ooh!) (aah!) ...·º•ø®@» LEG CUN 04:54, 3 December 2009
5. For. Extracting humour from a very unfunny situation is very good. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 15:34, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
6. For. Best laughs here for some time ever. The  Rulebook 17:25, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
7. For. One of those there "good read" things that I like. --UU - natter 13:30, Dec 10
8. For. It took me awhile to get into the 'meat' of this article, but it's really quite good. Nice and tender!  TALK  FRESH MEAT  ♥ talk to me 23:14 10 December 2009

No against votes

• Comment. I suspect Socky nommed this because it has a sock in it. The  Rulebook 17:26, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

  I can see how you might think that... —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 11:50, 7 December 2009

1. NF - a wee bit of history from Master Operandi. Read, children, and smarten up. You're all uneducated rednecks. ~ 12:14, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
2. Ja. • MAHMOOSHA 2.0 • • • 12:28, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
3. For the part of history they never tell you. And give a listen to Mordillo's amusing audio. Sir Modusoperandi ^{Brute! Boinc!} 16:15, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
4. For. El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 10:24, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
5. Yesh. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) KUN SotM UotM PMotM 15:04, 11 November 2009
6. For. I really liked it. ChiefjusticeDS 20:00, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
7. For Can we change the top date from 2007 though? --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 05:42, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
8. For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:41, 14 Nov
9. For. This is news indeed. The  Rulebook 19:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
10. For. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 08:58, Nov. 29, 2009
11. For Sir Roger 05:19, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
12. For. Reverse Genocide Cockatrices 11:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
13. For. Finally got around to reading it properly (all the other times I was staring at it without taking anything in). --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 14:30, December 15, 2009 (UTC)
14. For. 193.63.122.20 15:21, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
15. For. Could you believe after all these months I've refrained from reading it because of the boring title? Anyway, I managed to muster a click on the link, and now its a for. ---Matfen815 22:39, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

1. Against. Didn't find it funny.     Rabbi WHY??? (shmuesn)  21:46, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
2. Against. It's a decent article, but not FA worthy in my opinion. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM PotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H~} Wednesday, 18:34, Nov 11 2009
3. Against. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 17:59, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
4. Against.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   21:55, Sunday 15 November 2009