Nom+For. Since the hairy little cockweasel that nommed this is now shitlisted and in my opinion, not entitled to start VFH votes, I've taken it over myself -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 23:18, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
For. I've just recently realized, probably the last to do so, that Socky is a sick fuck, rivaling Maniac1075. This is a joyous discovery, and worth a yes vote by itself. Aleister 10:19 7 11
For. --Chocorb 23:18, November 7, 2010 (UTC) -- probable IP sockpuppet.
Against. I don't know why, but that last picture has always really bothered me. The words on the breast aren't related to science or anything in the article, and it just feels strangely obscene to be tacked on like that. I'd probably vote "for" if it were replaced; the obscenity of the article is actually pretty funny, but that picture just bothers me for some reason. pillow talk 06:06, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
The "joke" was basically that she was hiding subliminal messages in her "scientific" publications. If you have a suggestion for a better image to end the article with, I'm all ears. Also, if anyone has a problem with what the image supposedly illustrates, you only need to look at the image's history to see what it really is. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM12:01, 7 November 2010
Against. It reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where two Mexicans are pretending to have American style conversation in a cafe. I just didn't enjoy reading it, it feels insincere (though that does not sound quite right) Sycamore(Talk) 21:44, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, no... I mean, it seems really promising at times, but just... no. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101109 - 02:09 (UTC)
Against. More crude than funny here for me. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:37, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
Nope What can I get here that I can't by reading Hype's article except for a boob with words written on it? I think it's just sounds like a fanfic version for Hype's original, as in it doesn't stand as anything on its own. --Nikau 16:14, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well, other than replacing that last picture, I think it's framed wrong. You've identified the narrator as the same man as the narrator of Scrub typhus, but it's just not quite written in the same universe. In the first article, DJ Kelly obviously doesn't exist - that's the joke. The guy is relying on his pathetic Google skills to misidentify Dr. Darryl Kelly as a young female radio DJ. In this article, not only does DJ Kelly exist, but she's his lover. I... don't really see any way to reconcile the articles with each other, but using the same narrator is just too much of a stretch for me, I think. pillow talk 18:24, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well, one option would be that he's hallucinating everything, as I mention here. Also, it would be very helpful if you'd have a suggestion what to replace that particular image with. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM18:56, 9 November 2010
Hmm. I'll see if I can drink on it tonight. pillow talk 19:08, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
IP votes stricken due to fraudulent voting by a single user. --ChiefjusticePS3 20:54, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm low healthChiefjusticePS3 This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 09:18, November 23, 2010 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:18, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Fuck Yes! 
