Uncyclopedia:VFH

Nom+For . A Zana Dark article worthy of appreciation and, hopefully, your votes. --RomArtus Imperator(talk) 12:04, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. 74.107.154.206 03:28, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

1. Self-nom + For: I've had this reviewed twice now (1st and 2nd), and after lengthening and editing it I think I'm ready to present it to you all. --Soldat Skinfan13 05:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Like the tone. Good job. mattlobster. (hello) 21:34, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. It deleted my vote for some reason. Well, I loved it. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 00:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

No against votes

• Comment. Oooooops. Can you delete one, someone? I looked at an out-dated page and thought... HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 00:40, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Got your back, glad to HELPYOU ;) --Soldat Skinfan13 00:19 EST 10 Feb, 2010

1. For. (MrN9000 rewrite) Funnybony 15:18, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Yea, it's a bit listy, but I think that makes sense in an article like this where there are so many different opinions... MrN  16:52, Feb 5
3. For. I'll be reading Terry Deary's Angry Aztecs on 20/12/12. --•••••• WAR KICKS ASS!!!!! PEACE RULES!!!!!! VEGGIES FAIL BIG TIME meat is MURDER EUTHANASIA IS WRONG MERCY DEATH IS FINE - Are you IN or are you OUT of the LOOP? 18:38, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
4. Four. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 11:58, 6 February 2010
5. Scared For Shook me to my core. Aleister in Chains 23:18 21 Dec. 2012
6. For. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 08:23, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
7. For. 95.149.241.250 23:14, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
8. For. 124.187.175.240 12:19, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against This has some good ideas in it but it's also a random mess. mattlobster. (hello) 14:20, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against for the same reason as Matt. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Monday, 09:52, Feb 8 2010
3. Against As above really, I couldn't get along with this one. --ChiefjusticeDS 12:22, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
4. Against. By trying to include too much this article has lost its direction in my view. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 12:47, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

• This article has been redone by MrN9000, those who love his style will enjoy it this go around. Funnybony 15:18, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Everything the man just said above is wrong on so many levels... This is Funnybony's article, and he will be getting the FA credit in the unlikely event that this is featured. MrN  16:52, Feb 5
• It's close, but I'm not quite there yet. I think it needs a bit of cleanup yet. It is still a bit random (Samuel Jackson?) and uses "I" maybe once too often. I like the direction though and I know with a bit more love MrN will turn this into something much better. so, for now, abstain. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:20, 6 Feb

1. Nom+For. A great article, in my opinion. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 15:07, 4 February 2010
2. for doesn't seem much point voting for anything atthe moment but I liked it --Sog1970 22:52, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
3. For - A very good read. Definately not your typical UnNews. The humor is irreverant, even when irrelevant. -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [1] • fu </span>g 02:01, Feb. 7, 2010
4. For. I had quite a few laughs here. Loved it. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 08:22, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

No against votes

1. Has this not been nommed yet? Jenny? 03:07,4February,2010
2. Yup. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 03:51, 4 February 2010
3. Well, yeah I'd vote for this eventually, so why wait. Nice concept. Aleister in Chains 4:12 4 Feb. MMX
4. Sure. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:13, 6 Feb
5. For. Well, I gave it a little trim around the edges and it now appears that Zana's Vagina is ready for featuring. MrN  19:37, Feb 6
6. For.--    21:50, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
7. For. This article is so helpful! Thanks! Puffskein 04:15, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
8. For. Completely. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 04:35, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. OK but not a feature. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 14:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against. It made me chuckle, but I think it needs some work. --Soldat Skinfan13 1206 EST 4 Feb 2010

   Have another peep maybe? MrN  19:39, Feb 6

• Comment The ending seems a little weak, and the graphic of the Superhero adds some "huh?" factor. But I'll probably come around to a yes vote, and am waiting to see what the reaction is to a "Not safe for work" page for VFH (I'm still new). My People Who Like to Fuck Naked is on VFG, and it'd be nice to move it here, but what is the policy for this, is nakedness going too far for VFH? (I know, this page contains no nudity, but hints) The question intriques me, as to censorship level on VFH, or is there any? Aleister in Chains 3:25 4 Feb. MMX

  I'd love to see that article on The Best Of. Jenny? 03:30,4February,2010

• Abstain. - Very funny. I wanna vote for, but I share the "needs some work" feeling. -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [2] • fu </span>g 01:53, Feb. 7, 2010
• Comment Small is good. Especially when we are talking about Vaginas. MrN  02:03, Feb 7

1. Nom+4 OK, I shouldn't nom without Pee but... I felt a strange urgency for nominating it immediately. It just ruined me. It's funny and idea is great. Yes, short. But IMO if something is good, then it doesn't need to be long. GlobalTourniqment, I salute you! Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 07:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

   Dude, you can nom other people's stuff as much as you like without a review - it's only required if you're nominating one of your own articles. --UU - natter 12:04, Feb 3

   I know and I knew it, but still I think that nominating something without Pee is a bit not cricket :P Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 15:30, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

2. Who Dat?^TM Short, sure, but it's also witty, clever, and topical. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 21:22, 3 February 2010
4. For. Seems a bit short for VFH, but OK.  GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, film critic 22:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
5. For. I liked it. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Thursday, 01:30, Feb 4 2010
6. For. HAAAAA!!! Funnybony 18:00, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
7. "I'll never abandon my beloved Saints, but the NFL can suck my ass^TM" -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [3] • fu </span>g 01:49, Feb. 7, 2010

No against votes

1. Nom and Fore. Review.
2. UnFor. Not bad for an in-joke. At least it revolves around something from the outside world. --Matfen 10:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. For (See my longwinded comments below).  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  23:51, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
4. For. Though it is lacking in Socky references. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 21:20, 3 February 2010
5. For He referenced someone named Aleister, which is close enough, and it made Why? laugh out of his mouth more than once (a miracle?), and I laughed as well, and the in-references seem not to take away or add anything in themselves. And Apple made a stupid name-choice, and should be called on it in more than one humor outlet. Ok, nuff said. Aleister in Chains 23:29 3 Feb. MMX
6. Still for. It may be in-jokey and self-refrential, but I still laughed a lot. That's what I base my opinion on. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 09:24, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. For two reasons: a) wayyyyyy self-referential. b) Didn't really laugh (Rosencrantzinpants notwithstanding). • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Tuesday, 07:13, Feb 2 2010
2. Against. As per above and previous opinions about self ref articles as features. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 10:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
3. Against. Despite the awesome nature of the characters in the article. As self referential as a very self-referential thing, and lacking the oomph necessary to overcome that. --UU - natter 13:00, Feb 2
4. Against. Lacking in OptyC references. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:02, 2 Feb

1. Abstain. On the one hand, I totally agree with UU. On the other hand, I sympathize with that Rosenkrantinpants guy. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:39, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Warning, I'm getting on my soap box. I voted for because of two main reasons. First, I literally loled more than once, which as stuffy as I am is a rarity. Second, I think virtually anyone who knows about copyright infringement and that there's such a thing as satire would get the jokes. I don't think any inside info is needed. Would anyone think this was insidey if he simply removed the links to Unc users? (And by the way, if you're familiar with William Shakespeare, his work is full of inside references that are hundreds of years dead. There's an inside joke in Hamlet that to get the joke you have to know who the actors were who originally played the parts and know what parts they played in another play. But people still like his writing because of the other stuff).  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  23:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, the bard himself... -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, film critic 19:12, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was not an appeal to authority--I didn't say Shakespeare said it so it must be true. I used it as an example that people like things for the parts they like even if there's injokes they don't get. To make the point, I had to point to someone who was successful in entertaining an audience that people here would recognize.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  21:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I knew that. I was just poking fun at you, a user whose substantial wit and intelligence I fully trust. If you look at the article, it even possibly defends your choice in this case where it talks about how an authority doing a thing can give that thing credence, if not logical defense. I was just satirizing your name-dropping. Oh, and as for the article, I dunno.... I fall into the middle. Maybe if it had had a reference or two to GlobalTourniquet and especially <insert name here>, I might vote for it. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, film critic 22:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I added that note just to show off my knowledge of Shakespeare. Did I tell you I knew Willy? Great playwright and a real ladies man, but couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Maybe that's because they didn't have paper bags in those days, and acting out of a burlap sack was rather difficult.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  23:33, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

1. Nom and For Just a child at heart. Aleister in Chains 12:48 1 Feb. MMX
2. For. ~ 12:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. Very good parody of an overused icon.--    13:19, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
4. For. DougalthePanda 13:43, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
5. For Kudos to DrStrange for massive format assistance. --Sog1970 14:11, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. Obvious Nazi For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 15:48, 1 February 2010
7. Outstanding (but seems he failed to graduate due to F mark of PE..., at least that would happen in Pooland) Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 17:05, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. Ja! Good stuff. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 17:12, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. I read Mein Kampf and I couldn't possibly agree more. Somebody should make one for another eccentric world leader. InMooseWeTrust 18:38, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
10. Heil Adi Though this is just one of my old reports with the name changed and that's cheating. --I'mthedaddy 20:43, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. For. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 20:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
12. Uberfor. This has instantly shot straight to the top of my list of favorite articles ever. I only wish that I had thought of it because, well, you know... —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 21:03, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
13. Weak For. I liked it, but sometimes it felt a little repetitive. If some of the subjects were omitted I feel it could be a lot better. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Monday, 22:21, Feb 1 2010
14. For. Jahwohl Mein Mittelfuerher...Takes originality to make a new story about Mr A.H. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 10:50, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
15. For. Catapulted on to my faves list. Good take on what could have been an obvious idea. --UU - natter 12:38, Feb 2
16. For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:08, 2 Feb
17. For. Ordinarily I cringe when I see yet another Hitler joke coming, but liked the foreshadowing here (and especially the troublemaking gypsy part). I think I would like it better if a little shorter, though, as some of it was a a bit repetitive. Still, liked it.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  00:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
18. For. As I said in my review, this is a great article, I would love to see it featured. --Soldat Skinfan13 2331 EST 2 February, 2010
19. Strong for -- [sire] EMC ^[TALK] 08:47 Feb 3 2010
20. For. Brilliant work. ChiefjusticeDS 10:37, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
21. For. Does this vote even matter by this stage? --Matfen 21:31, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
22. For. Cool... Funnybony 14:10, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
23. For. Hea! What happend, I'm sure I voted on this already! MrN  22:38, Feb 5
24. Did you know? When Hitler became president, he ordered his school to change his records and give him all As. You can do that when you're president. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 23:38, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

    Can that "fact" be true? doesn't matter I'll be boring people with it for years.--Sog1970 18:49, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

25. For Nice! 77.115.78.3 21:24, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
26. FUCK YES This is potential Top Ten 2010 material, in my opinion. —Pelargonium MUN ♦ Talkpage ♦ My Contributions ♦ 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
27. Bless. I agree with Nachalader that the Hitler jokes are getting a bit stale and overused, but this is no doubt a good article. Hopefully it'll be the last Hitler article, so we can go out with a bang. Doubt it though. Jenny? 00:50,9February,2010
28. For. Compulsion to see the score rise as high as possible. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 01:34, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
29. For. Reminds me of many of my own students.--<<>> 13:28, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

1. Using this vote to express fear of how der dicktator is constantly relied upon for humour. It's good to keep ridicule of the H-man alive, but he learnt more than anybody about the consequence of expansion. This article will hit the limelight anyway. I listen to Pulp. --"MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 21:06, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against. Not really very funny... Doctorwho295 21:13, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
3. Against. not very funny, very long winded and repetitive, like the same person who wrote the whole damn thing 218.111.67.237 06:12, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

did get Pee'd Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Little Adolf's School Report but after it got nommed so I don't like to change it much now.--Sog1970 15:29, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree with Nach, I laughed at this because of Sog's talent at writing, but I am sure that referring to what Hitler did has about exhaused itself in the way of humour. --Nikau 06:21, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • You mean you listen to Pulp too!? --"MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 13:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • I listen to Pulp. Let's all meet up in the year 2000 - oh, bollocks. --Sog1970 14:09, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • 2000? Please, they're 1990s Britpop. Or 1980s. Or 1978 when they formed. --"MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 22:37, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of the song, the follow up to Common People. I actually met Jarvis Cocker in the West Street in Sheffield in 1988. I had no idea who he was at the time. I think I may have pushed him out of the way to get to the bar. That was a week after telling Ian Brown that quote "No one wants to listen to a band with a shit name like the Stone Roses, you Manc Cock!" Happy Days. --Sog1970 23:09, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

/me is in awe. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:21, 2 Feb

Yeah, well they weren't famous then. Jarvis was a gangly geek who was in the way, Ian Brown was just some dickhead in a tie-dyed t-shirt trying to get me to watch his band when I wanted to go to the pub. A few days later he was on national TV. --Sog1970 10:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't want to listen to a band with a shit name like the Stone Roses. Or shit music like the Stone Roses, for that matter. And Jarvis Cocker still is a gangly geek, albeit one who has written some decent songs. --UU - natter 10:32, Feb 3

I'm not a violent person, but I deeply regret not punching Ian Brown when I had the chance. --Sog1970 10:43, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I deeply regret you not doing that as well. --UU - natter 11:17, Feb 3

I deeply regret the pair of you. --"MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 16:24, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said at the time. What changed, Nachlader? Where did the magic go? --UU - natter 16:29, Feb 3

I discovered... 00s synthpop? --"MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 16:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment, shouldn't this be featured by now? It has a score of over 20...or am I not right on feature stuff? HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 08:26, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Got to get through the articles of 09, I think. --Sog1970 08:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

1. Nom and For I don't think there is any more ground for this article to cover, so it either stands on its own or gets abandonded like a geeky sibling at a concert. Sequence 03:36, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
2. Leftist For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 05:39, 30 January 2010
3. I voted for because it's the right left thing to do. HELPME 05:41, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
4. For.This is brilliant! I'm halfway through it and I'm filled with a great urge to vote. I'm now going to go back and finish reading the article. ~☎ 15:46, Jan 30, 2010
5. For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:04, 30 Jan
6. For. A yes though I am puzzled why leftists are so positive about people driving on the right in the context of this article. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 08:01, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
7. For. MrN  10:37, Jan 31
8. For. Sure!!! Funnybony 16:48, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
9. For Sog1970 22:42, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
10. For. It's okay. "MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 17:39, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

1. Weak Against. It seems to be an article on how many puns can be fit into it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but to me it just didn't satisfy. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Sunday, 05:23, Jan 31 2010
2. Against. Factual inaccuracies and such. PM me for a detailed assessment. InMooseWeTrust 18:45, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Pee review is here. Sequence 03:36, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

• InMooseWeTrust: Er, pardon me for saying, but isn't this place for spreading misinformation? HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 18:50, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

1. Yep I'm missing the spotlight
2. For. That was a big-ass rewrite. --Matfen 11:30, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
3. Boot. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Friday, 15:04, Jan 29 2010
4. For. ~☎ 18:34, Jan 29, 2010 18:34, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
5. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 05:37, 30 January 2010
6. For. ChiefjusticeDS 14:20, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
7. For Nevertheless, Yanks still can't spell tyre properly. How hard can it be?--Sog1970 21:13, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

   In my own defence, this was a rewrite. I left the title as it was.

8. For. HAAA!!! Funnybony 16:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
9. For WanderingGuy 18:00, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
10. For. HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew) 19:03, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
11. For. Good. --UU - natter 11:30, Feb 2
12. For. Despite the fact you mispelled "tire" throughout the entire thing. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:12, 3 Feb

1. Against. WTF? I don't get it... InMooseWeTrust 18:54, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since this is a self-nom shouldn't there be a PEE review? --ChiefjusticeDS 12:47, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Valid point.
• Abstain. Took me a long time to decide to abstain because though I like this, it lacks that extra level to make it a feature. It perhaps needed more of a punch to make it a stand out. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 11:03, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

1. UnSelfNomFor. Have been procrastinating about trying to get this one featured for a while, for reasons I forget. Reeves convinced me to take a more nihilistic attitude and nominate it. "All we are is dust in the wind, dude." --Matfen 22:24, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
2. Whoa! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 23:48, 28 January 2010
3. Excellent. Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 03:06, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
4. For. You didn't mention he needs subtitles when on screen as he mumbles so much! RomArtus Imperator(talk) 09:44, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
5. For. This is actually one of my favourite uncyc articles. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 00:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
6. For. InMooseWeTrust 03:25, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
7. For. It's a little patchy in places, but there's enough good stuff in here to keep me interested. And I liked the Point Break joke in the intro. --UU - natter 11:12, Feb 2
8. For. ~☎ 11:23, Feb 6, 2010 11:23, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. As UU says there are a couple of sections that could do with a little more work, but it made me laugh anyway. ChiefjusticeDS 11:37, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

No against votes

• A whole slew of pee reviews and critical stuff on the article's talk page. --Matfen 22:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Meh. While it didn't inspire lots of lols, I can see that it's well written and I did laugh at some bits. So, meh. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Friday, 17:13, Jan 29 2010

1. Nom and For. I Pee Reviewed this, and thought it was great then. Now it's even better.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  04:27, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Leomann 23:17, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, suspendisse vulputate Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 23:39, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
4. Dig So very talented. And a good writer too. --THINKER 22:43, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
5. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 23:45, 28 January 2010
6. For. Fake shakeable boobies. Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 01:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
7. For. A shameless whore showed me this wonderful article.--HELPME 19:30, January 30, 2010 (UTC)HELPME, I've fallen and I can't get up!/ Talk to me or die!/ My daddy!(ew)
8. For. First Snow Globes..next plastic donkeys. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 10:42, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. InMooseWeTrust 03:27, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
10. For -RAHB 07:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
11. For. Works for me. --UU - natter 11:10, Feb 2
12. For. ChiefjusticeDS 20:07, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. I didn't find it all that funny. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Wednesday, 04:28, Feb 3 2010

1. Nomination and Vote - Another superb Modusoperandi article. The Pee review is here.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:28, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 15:20, 26 January 2010
3. For. I didn't write it. I only wrote some of it. Sycamore wrote the good parts. Then I stole them and took credit for them. I'm a bastard. Sir Modusoperandi ^{Brute! Boinc!} 20:57, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
4. For. Some of Socky's best work. Plus I voted for last time. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:11, 26 Jan
5. Definitely Very in-depth work, well written and presented. Mark it as an A+ professor. Aleister in Chains 22:38 26 Jan. MMX
6. This hasn't been featured? Now is the time --Asahatter (annoy) 00:38, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
7. For This is our Last Best Hope, oh wait, wrong scifi show. Starbuck is still better. --Puffskein 04:33, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
8. For. A handy guide indeed if your dream woman is an interstellar Barbie. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:02, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. InMooseWeTrust 03:28, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
10. For. Although I tried being Ming The Merciless. Turned out she didn't dig bald guys. --UU - natter 11:03, Feb 2
11. For. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Tuesday, 19:55, Feb 2 2010

No against votes

1. Comment. I know virtually every SF reference in this article, including Number Six, but not this Number Six (i.e. I haven't seen the new BG). I found it somewhat amusing, but suspect I wouldn't have if I wasn't a big SF fan. I may decide to vote for or against later--if this isn't already featured.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  00:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

1. Nom and For History the way it happened. Possibly. --I'mthedaddy 16:09, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak For. I liked it, but some of the ideas could have been expanded and it ends very abruptly. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Sunday, 23:58, Jan 24 2010
3. For. Sog1970. • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 00:15 • Monday, 25-01-2010
4. Slutty self-for --Sog1970 08:16, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
5. For. Unpschyelopedia 08:34, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
6. For A very well written page, and since I just used a photo from it in my UnNews article about Brett Favre, the least I can do. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Aleister in Chains 25 Jan. MMX
7. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 17:42, 25 January 2010
8. K per Necropaxx.
9. Yeah - Could do with a bit extra polish and more Wikipedia style formatting though.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:19, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
10. For.. Per my Pee Review. Also I got a clean U/A, so they kicked me out of the army. Damn tests.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  23:14, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
11. For. per the added closing. The formatting still looks off to me, but I can't put my finger on why so I can't very well hold that against Sog. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:39, 28 Jan
12. For. Excellent! Wow!! Funnybony 16:43, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
13. For. InMooseWeTrust 03:31, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
14. For. It's Jilarious 115.69.15.91 12:28, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. I rarely go against Sog but I think it is incomplete and perhaps a bit too broad as well. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 07:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against. If this was written by most anybody else, I'd give it a for. But this is Sog we're talking about here. I'd rather he took a bit more time polishing this up and then brought it back when it was more the quality I've come to expect from him. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:21, 27 Jan

• Why's pee - always good value. --Sog1970 21:30, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

1. I came across this old thing that I'd written that kind of got ignored last time it was on VFh. I made a few changes and figured I'd see how it does on here. -- loyal Ape (regurgitate) 22:32, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Thought it was pretty good. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 00:25, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. Voted against last time. Maybe it grew on me? Or maybe I just hate gay people. One of those. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Sunday, 03:47, Jan 24 2010
4. lolsnickers - I had forgotten about this article. -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [4] • fu </span>g 14:59, Jan. 24, 2010
5. For. ~☎ 16:57, Jan 25, 2010 16:57, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
6. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 17:19, 25 January 2010
7. For. ~ Readmesoon 06:11, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
8. For. Unpschyelopedia 12:18, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:44, 28 Jan
10. For. WanderingGuy 17:35, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. God and gays in the same article. Not enough to make it a feature for me. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 13:16, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against. Unfunny. InMooseWeTrust 03:33, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Interestingly, this predates a somewhat similar idea The Onion used.-- loyal Ape (regurgitate) 22:33, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain. I was going to vote against, but there was a bit of humor in there, and it reminded me of Snickers' Superbowl commercial 2 years ago. Jenny? 03:17,26January,2010

1. N&F This still ranks as one of my favorite projects (Along with Great Britain) from my IC days. Got quasi featured last time, let's see if we can't get it on the front page this time. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:50, 23 Jan
2. Subtle For. God, I'd like to fuck some little girls. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 15:55, 23 January 2010
3. For - I thought about nominating this quasi-feature a few weeks ago. That last time it was up for VFH was before MJ died. Would be our tribute. -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [5] • fu </span>g 17:40, Jan. 23, 2010
4. For Per Socky. Those who don't get it can suck my balls. So long as they are under-age. Best thing IC did. MrN  18:52, Jan 23
5. Yup --I'mthedaddy 19:08, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
6. For. My first IC participation. I sucked hard back then.. And still. Whatever. • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 20:05 • Saturday, 23-01-2010
7. For. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 23:46, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
8. Janet, Tito, Frito, and Cheetoh. All fine musicians. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Sunday, 03:21, Jan 24 2010
9. For. I love the fact those who preceded me avoided the obvious. Makes me proud to be part of IC.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  04:29, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
10. Weak for It wasn't one of the funnier articles I've read, but it's well-written and is a good counterpart to the "gay pedo lol" cliche in so many of our other articles. —Pelargonium MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 00:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
11. For. Its funny and its not what ppl expect. Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 01:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
12. Sure. It's funny and doesn't take the obvious, stupid angle. (You know the one) HELPME 01:38, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
13. Forth Yeah, read it again, studied it this time because I had time to do so, read the comments below, and, like Clarence Thomas carefully weighing the facts of "Bush v Gore", now understand the power of a few bucks in my pocket and a fifth of gin waiting for me in the cloakroom. Aleister in Wonderland 1:48 29 Jan. MMX
14. For. Opty did do a good job in repairing and repointing this article. In consideration and recognition of what has been done here I am going to support it. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 07:49, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

    Pardon? As usual, your voting rationale mystifies me.

    Yeah thanks Romaratus, but I had barely anything to do with this one. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:47, 2 Feb

15. For. FA for sure, although packed with "content" Funnybony 16:34, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
16. Fortnight Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 19:15, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
17. For. Doctorwho295 21:10, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
18. For. This could potentially set off a huge firestorm across the internet, but I'm all for it. InMooseWeTrust 03:36, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. Let's see, what did I say last time? "I think this is an amazing improvement job, and better than I ever thought an article on the guy could be. And I am a huge fan of deadpan stuff. But no, I think this needs more love to really make it featurable." Yup, still agree with that - this is a better MJ article than I ever thought we'd have, but I still think it's a decent article, rather than a really good one. Looks like I'm alone this time though. --UU - natter 11:59, Jan 25
2. Against. - Per UU--Sycamore (Talk) 09:21, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
3. Against. - I agree with UU, good effort, but not there yet.-- Sir Claudius CUN VFH (speak up) 07:53, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
4. Against. --Docile hippopotamus 10:55, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
5. Against. - Per UU--You know what the music means... Our time is up. 23:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
6. Against. thats not funny at all,its written by a fan boy Gufcghost2 17:45, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

   You sir, fail. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Friday, 23:23, Jan 29 2010

7. Against. Slightly funny, but not hilarious enough to merit a highlight from me Sakai4eva 04:50, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak against per my comments below.
9. Against. Per divisive comments a tenfold year back and that. "MORDILLO IS FUCKING FASCIST" 14:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. A commendable effort that is better that Wikipedia's ! However, it now reads a bit too straight . In fact it could appear in Wikipedia and no one would know the difference for a few hours. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 08:30, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

  I'll take that as a compliment as that's exactly what we were going for: a Wikipedia article written by a fanboy.  :) -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:46, 26 Jan

• Comment. I added the VFH template to the article. As adding a VFH to an article that's previously been nommed is a little trickly, for this one the template is {{VFH|nompage=Michael_Jackson(Second_round)}}  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  05:03, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
• Somewhere between for and against. I really like this article as it's a clever and humorous way to deal with a tricky topic, yet one that we need. But as for the lol factor, it falls short for me. Brilliant article, but not a feature as is, and I doubt it would be without a significant conceptual change. (And there is nothing wrong with the obvious as long as it's also clever.) And as I have contributed to this would that give me a half on HoS if it is featured?

Puppy, if you were in on the Imperial Colonization, yes. That's Imperial Policy, by Order of Her Majesty.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  19:56, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

The edits were post IC, but I was member of the IC when I made some of the changes... It's a grey area hence the question.

I doubt anyone in authority would have a problem with it. Unless, of course, it would give you more features than they have.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  05:05, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

We're all good then, because anyone with even the slightest bit of authority would of course have been part of the spectacular concept that is IC when this was first being done. Maybe I should actually vote for as I am a whore, apparently...

Wait, a male puppy who's a whore? Should you be allowed to talk about an article about Michael Jackson?  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  21:40, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Wait someone here has authority? Let's stop all that nonsense talk. No one here has authority. Cos I said so. See? Oh, credit would go to the IC members I guess... That's why you should join and edit IC. If you had made a really big change Puppy then I would look into it if you asked me to. Normally though... No. Probably not. You need to do a lot to start claiming FA credit. MrN  21:51, Feb 1

Actually had made a substantial amount of changes, and was advised not to do too much to it because it was an ex IC one, and have since joined IC... truth is that I don't really want to get half credits for anything unless it's something like Carebears which is a straight collab, and I am not a fan of doing the IC thing. Been there, tried that, but not my thing. I'm a lone wolf. Arooooo!

1. For. Funnybony 00:20, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. A nice article. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 13:44, 23 January 2010
3. For Much improvements since my review. I would love to see this on the front page--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 16:04, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
4. For Per Socky MrN  16:48, Jan 26
5. For WanderingGuy 18:21, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
6. For. I got most of the way through before I had any idea how I'd vote: for, abstain, or against. Several times it would sound like a straight article (no gay joke intended), then say something really stupid--only I found the stupid funny. Go figure.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  00:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. the over-the-top fanboyism doesn't make me laugh. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Monday, 00:01, Jan 25 2010

This went through about a year ago without featuring my bloody hero, Mr Hell-bent-on-suicide-Laird Hamilton, who makes both Jack Bauer & Chuck Norris look like whimpering pussies, and he does it for real. The surfing clip has to be seen to realize the extent of insanity of this real-life maniac subject. After one year careful consideration and condensing, and after just getting a friendly Pee score of 39 from the much feared "Iwillkillyou", and making recommended adjustments, I'm giving this a kinda hopeful self-nom. Long live Laird, you crazy motherfucker!!!--Funnybony 00:19, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain. It is written in a super surf fan boy mode but for me that is the problem. I checked the wikipedia link which appears to be a toned down version of this one. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 14:48, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Well the fan boy style has been calmed down a lot, a few more good bits added, and some of the less good bits removed. Maybe take another look? MrN  17:03, Jan 31
• Change to abstain - It's better, enough to null my against, but I personally would have liked to read an article trying to tear him down (i.e. he uses a jet ski to catch the waves and not by himself). • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Sunday, 23:12, Jan 31 2010
• Note: Laird would be hard to tear down. He uses a jet ski to catch waves the way a skier uses a helicopter to catch mountains. As a surfer I assure that it is physically impossible to catch waves the size Laird rides by paddling. As DD said, "You can't catch a freight-train with a tricycle--Funnybony 16:36, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

  Well, even an article trying to tear him down and then miserably failing would be pretty funny, IMO. Something to think about, I guess... • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Monday, 16:31, Feb 8 2010

1. For. My latest rare-and-random appearance here and I came across this gem. Would like to see how it fares here. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 17:05, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 17:29, 21 January 2010
3. Ape. -OptyC Sucks! CUN17:36, 21 Jan
4. Four. -- loyal Ape (regurgitate) 19:07, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
5. God Help UsThe article is so-so, but accented the photo caption, which I laughed and laughed at. So to me the entire article supports the photo and caption. I'm an embarrassed paedophile to be voting for this, and know that I have I seem to have crossed over to the dark side. Hey, it's pretty bitchin' over here! WoW! Yeah, sure, pass me that, thanks. (OK, read it again, the article is pretty funny. Must be that my pov has changed now that I've crossed over) Aleister in Chains Dark side, MMX
6. For. A bit short, but very funny. HELPME 22:41, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
7. Conditional For. I changed my vote on the condition that the article has an image that's not a real child. I still think the article's a little short, though.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  22:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
8. For. —Pelargonium MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!) 23:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
9. For. A bit short but funny enough. Nice to see you on here and doing stuff Sid. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 23:33, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
10. Lol Hehe, nicely done. Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 20:23, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
11. Yeah Could definitely be expanded, but I love the idea. Ya know, in a legal way. Jenny? 03:27,26January,2010
12. For. WanderingGuy 18:27, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
13. For. Controversia, but yes. InMooseWeTrust 03:38, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against the photo. I like the article fine and would vote for, even though it's a little short. But I don't like having a real-life little girl being displayed to the world as the victim of sexual assault, even as a joke. How would you feel if you were her mother or father?  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  22:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the photo to a temporary one, see my comment below. If think Why? is correct on this one. Although a better cartoon can be found, this is just a temp. graphic.Aleister in Chains a few minutes after Why?s comment, MMX

1. Against. Not a feature worthy article in my view. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 22:23, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against. Anime is NOT funny. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:34, 21 Jan

   I strongly disagree, but I do prefer the article with the last pic. -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [6] • fu </span>g 23:44, Jan. 21, 2010

3. Against. I think that there just isn't enough funny here to make a feature. ChiefjusticeDS 23:59, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
4. Against per above. It's kind of a one-hit wonder as articles go. Amusing but no feature. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 00:07, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
5. Against. Didn't do it for me. ~ 08:19, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

   Didn't do it for you sexually, you mean? Eh? Eh?! • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Friday, 17:01, Jan 22 2010

6. Ehhh... There was maybe one laugh. :/ • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Friday, 17:01, Jan 22 2010
7. Against. I rarely vote against on VFH. But I always say that when I do.  GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, film critic 17:45, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
8. Against. No, I don't think this is feature worthy, kind of disturbing to be honest. --Soldat Skinfan13 16:05 EST 23 January, 2010
9. Against. Sorry folks, I'm just not feeling this one. It's a one-joke idea, and I personally didn't find the joke that funny. --UU - natter 15:45, Feb 1
10. Nope In true Romartus style, I cannot vote for these as the geese were flying East this morning, and in the next town a dog gave birth to a serpent.

1. Why is likely right about the photo. Maybe look for one of those Japanese drawings everyone is crazy about, go through a couple of dozen little girl graphics and one would fit the page. It's good to have a level-headed user around, even though he's a pain sometimes. Thanks for the keen visions of parents in shock. Aleister in Chains now, MMX

I think the new image is fine. And thanks for callng me a level-header user and a pain. I'll accept both descriptions.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  22:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

FFS. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:41, 21 Jan

Statement by admin MrN9000: "Pictures of children on Uncyc is fine. Pictures of children in an article about paedophiles is very dodgy... That picture with that caption... No. Not a chance. That new image is much better."  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  23:44, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

New anime up, as a stopgap until the author chooses one. Aleister in Chains MMX

I like the other anime image better.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  23:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

The third one made me laugh. With the second image there is no way to imagine what's "in" and what's going on that's not seen. So I like the third, but it's actually none of our choices, but the author. I 'vote' for the third over the second. Al the phedo a minute or so later, MMX

It's the author's choice? Since when have we been respectful of authors? We don't need no stinkin' authors! (Seriously, it's usually the choice of whoever holds out the longest, unless an admin steps in it).  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  00:03, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Syndrome (I think) just put up a really funny anime. Better than the other two. Al MMX

The image as of right now I like just fine.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  00:09, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

This has my vote. -- Kip teh Dip • Talk • Works • [7] • fu </span>g 00:18, Jan. 22, 2010

Then vote!  :P -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:19, 22 Jan

If the article is about young girls who are unsatisfied with their molestations, why is there a picture of a happy drawing on it? I think I'm missing something here. It looks like this has something to do with some argument or something, but I'm not going to read it, because I don't really care. The image caption would be perfect if the image made sense. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 05:44, Jan 23

Led, if you go back through the article history you can see the proper image that made sense. It wasn't my choice to put some stupid fucking cartoon on it. -- loyal Ape (regurgitate) 11:01, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, it was a lot more funny with the original image which Ape used. Shame using that image would have meant that we were using a real photo of a real child who can't defend themselves as a sexual object. Hea, if someone here has a young daughter, or sister who understands the context of this article and they want to use their own picture in it then lets do that. MrN  11:26, Jan 23

• Just to be clear on what I just said above... My problem with the original image was the fact that (as far as I know) this is some random picture from the net, and we have no idea who the child in question is. Using this girl in this way cut all over whatever ethical standpoint I may have left because it's actually hurting that child. However... Being the sick bastard that I am I do totally agree that this image was by far the most funny of all those proposed. Using a cartoon was pants, and even using the current picture of Cyrus is pants cos she clearly knows what she is doing in that picture (in her pants) and so IMO is more than fair game. So... What we need here to make this article funny again is a real picture of a young kid. Wait! FTW are you talking about MrN??? Um. Well... Like you buggers don't have any pictures of yourselves when you were younger? How about a picture of your wife, g/f or mum when she was younger? It does not even need to be a female for the joke to work, although that's probably best. What I'm saying is... Scan through your own personal photo albums, and find a picture of someone who has now grown up and does not mind having their picture used here. For me, this would be totally fine from an ethical point of view. OK, it would be very hard for me to check if such a picture really was of a family member of the person who post it, but I think I would trust them, and anyway if I did ever find out that it was not I'm happy to trawl back through Uncyc deleting everything which they have ever done after they had obviously been blocked for life. So... Let it not be said that Uncyc is/or is turning into a bunch of pussies. We can have that joke, we just need someone to donate a picture. So... Who has some old photo albums? MrN  17:33, Jan 23

  How about this picture? I just found it on deviantART. She looks old enough. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 13:25, 23 January 2010

  That is not your mother Socky. You are such a fibber. MrN  18:00, Jan 23

  If I can find a way to get at my old family photos without my parents finding out I'm doing it I'll post up one of me. -- loyal Ape (regurgitate) 18:21, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

  What about It's Brooke Shields playing a 12 year old prostitute. Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 05:45, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

1. Self-for. This is something I've been wanting to write for quite some time; I just had to wait until Stephen Baldwin was poor enough. IronLung 07:56, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Perhaps not unrelated to his current starring role in UK Celebrity Big Brother ! RomArtus Imperator(talk) 12:22, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. Awesome. A article about a broke celebrity who runs a tour bus only to rob the tourist at the end is BRILLIANT!--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 16:12, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. Fourth You can see her leg sticking out of the dumpster. That's Entertainment. Aleister in Chains Golden Globe Boxing Day, MMX
5. For. See the review. ChiefjusticeDS 18:02, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
6. For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 19:35, 18 January 2010
7. For. Now this one, I like. --UU - natter 10:11, Jan 19
8. UnFor. Sick of the Baldwin boys? We haven't even covered Billy on Uncyc yet! Or King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem! --Matfen 22:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
9. For. After all, the Baldwins are Hollywood. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:44, 21 Jan

1. Against. This doesn't look much like how I would picture a Hollywood Article. And I'm sick of the Baldwin boys. InMooseWeTrust 16:09, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against but only because of the title. If this was renamed Stephen Baldwin, or Stephen Baldwin's Tour of Hollywood, or Tour of Hollwood, or Hollywood Tour, or some such, I would vote for. I'd like to see this moved to a different title and then have a Hollywood article that has more to do with Hollywood.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  22:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Pee here. IronLung 08:02, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Abstain. Doesn't really capture the craziness of Hollywood, IMHO. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Tuesday, 22:22, Jan 19 2010
• The title thing, I agree with the two against votes on that. I don't know why a Hollywood page hadn't been put up until you found the open name. But this low-level Baldwin probably doesn't deserve the honor of the name, you think? Aleister in Chains Baldwinized, MMX
  • I understand the objections made. There was actually a Hollywood article already, but it was appalling and I re-wrote it. The article was always intended to be about a cheap tour of Hollywood that glamourised the stinking undercurrent of failure. The idea of Stephen Baldwin taking the tour was a late addition, to be honest. Essentially, in my eyes at least, this article is primarily about the excess of Hollywood told by a desperate actor. Think of it as an UnBook called Hollywood, without the word "UnBook" in front.
    For these reasons, and the fact that I prefer to give articles encyclopaedic titles, I am reluctant to change the name. I think that an against vote based on the title alone is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to -- nobody can really tell anyone else how featured articles should be selected. That said, I would prefer votes to be based on the quality of the article. IronLung 04:03, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • I may have voted against the title, but I would vote for IronLung's comment above. Excellent.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  22:09, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Abstain. Misleading title. Funnybony 17:54, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

1. Nom & For. Aleister has been studiously tweaking this (and letting others pee on it) since joining us three months ago and I think it's time to pop his VFH cherry. Be gentle.--    12:11, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
2. For. Aleister worked on this and took on board comments and additions from other contributors including myself. Now I think it deserves a chance here. RomArtus Imperator(talk) 17:12, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
3. For. Wonderful. IronLung 17:54, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
4. For. Wonderful boobs. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY 18:04, 12 January 2010
5. Flour Comment below. And had to balance out Why?'s against, for sentimental reasons. Aleister in Chains July 20, 1969
6. For. Dem titties. -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:22, 12 Jan
7. There are tits There is yes. Ptok-Bentoniczny^Mów!_{I've been nominated for RotM! Vote me! Election is usually won by the one who doesn't deserve it!} 18:04, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
8. For. I should say so. --UU - natter 20:02, Jan 13
9. For. Some hard work here, and it isn't half bad. ChiefjusticeDS 20:06, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
10. Boobs • FreddThe Metalhedd • • • 09:02 • Sunday, 17-01-2010
11. Bless. per boobs. Jenny? 04:09,18January,2010
12. For. InMooseWeTrust 16:13, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
13. For. --Matfen 23:00, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
14. For. Funny and I can tell a lot of effort went into it. Oh and 'you had me at boobs'-- Sir Claudius CUN VFH (speak up) 18:12, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
15. For. Funny article about a Discordian American Princess! Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 01:46, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
16. For. So bad it's good! Chain Male literary voice, I'd say? L!$@ (Meow!)(Contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2010
17. For, I think --Sog1970 14:17, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

1. Against. Sorry, didn't find it funny.  IC Buccaneer Admiral WHY??? (stratagems)  21:23, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
2. Against. Same as above, sorry. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 20:53, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
3. Nah. Not much to laugh at. No offense--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 03:22, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. Ehhh... • • • Necropaxx (T) {~GUN WotM UotM PotM RotM VFH VFP PEEING DU F@H WIF~} Wednesday, 05:48, Jan 20 2010
5. This would be good in some other "pedia", but not this one. Unpschyelopedia 08:39, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hit-and-run noobie, for your keen observations and insights. Aleister in Chains 25 Jan. MMX

1. F. darkbladeus took a good pee on this, Romartus added the "real" Hathaway photos and their captions (and a late "real Anne" photo substitution that Socky found), and Doc pointed out randomness's'ss's.'s. As Doc explained, I've worked on this nonstop for three months, sleeping in catnaps and losing muscle mass, and saw the sun for the first time since October just this afternoon. Aleister in Chains The Year of Our Fnord MMX
2. To beat my own bared breasts for a moment. Ummmm. Ok, now that that's done, may I non-humbly suggest that the satire on the Hathaway page runs deep and long (damn, wait a minute. . .OK, now that that's done), and hopefully the entire article is read, reread, studied (papers due on Monday), and . . .well, you know, just give it a good look, and forget about the breasts for a few minutes. The lead and some of the next section were written not to be terribly funny but to set up the piece. DocStrange told me that "randomness" may become an issue, and suggested that I address it early, which is what the Ebert quote and some of the 'Early life' section "attempts" to do. There you go, 'nuff said. Alei' in Chains Larry Sanger Lives!, late January, MMX

Ok Aleister, I've re-read it. Either it's improved some or I was a bit harsh the first time, either way you've convinced me to remove my against vote. However I still don't think I can vote for. I'm abstaining now, which should bump your score a little anyway. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 23:01, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The names wrong on the nom. Its Anne not Ann! :) Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 02:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

  Spang fixed it. Yay! Dame Pleb Cpt. Miley Spears (talk) 03:28, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

• UnAbstain. The boobs make me want to vote for, but the slightly-off formatting make me want to go against. Plus not many people on Uncyc like these kind of articles. Y'know, the ones with a lot of words, and less obvious jokes. --Matfen 12:46, January 23, 2010 (UTC)</s>