For. It would look alright on my old screen. It looks a bit weird on my current one, but I think the wide screen issue can be easily solved by adding a couple {{-}}s. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM15:04, 3 January 2010
For. the hell of it. Watch the damn movie, link below.-- 00:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
For. I have little idea what much of the references are about, and still found this funny. It reminded me of one of those Mad Magazine things about people I don't know that I still like, so inside jokes or not, for. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:31, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Oh God yes.sausagelol 02:07, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Against. An otherwise excellent article but can't vote for an inside joke as a feature. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:46, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Dude, just because it has the word "uncyclopedia" in the title, that doesn't automatically make it an in-joke. Just sayin'. -OptyCSucks! CUN17:41, 6 Jan
Against. When this went up on VFG, everyone abstained because we couldn't figure out what the fuck it was. It's not bad - it's just bewildering. I think it's too bewildering for the front page. pillow talk 19:58, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Excellent graphics and concept. I won't go overboard on nominations, but like this one. (my signature is under construction, excuse the slow traffic) user:Aleister in Chains 18:42, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Definitely the least understood thing I've ever done. It was created before I realized that things look different on other people's monitors so it's a formatting mess that needs to be html'd but since the reception has been 95% WHA? it's not anywhere near highlight material - though I appreciate the nom.-- 19:05, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Comment:Either too modest or I'm looking at it from a monitor that sees it well. But, unless admins and other people vote for it and like it as much as I do, I'll concede to the concession of the author, and ask for it to be removed. But only if others are sure it should go away, banished, and left to dry in the hot noonday sun. (Just reread it, the good doctor must be taking crack from his medical supply if he doesn't think it's a good article. What am I missing? Or I may be one of the lucky few with a browser setting that reads it. p.s. looked at it from a larger browser, and it still looks good. Disregard my "take it down" request.) User:Aleister in Chains 19:41, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Basically, if you have a wide monitor or "wrong" setting, use the command + or minus function in your web browser to plus or minus your way into a solid magazine and not scattered photos and text. What can I say, I like it but it's been poo pooed in the past - making me feel sketchy about it.-- 16:23, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
OK, I reverse again, maybe it should be removed from the VFH page per Doc's concerns. It's a good article, and escapes, I believe, inside joke status by its complexity and wide-ranging comedic descriptions of outlandish types of users of not only this site but of wiki's in general. It works, for me, but hasn't received the votes, so maybe my humor is closer to Doc's and it strikes me as fun, fun with graphics. Maybe another time for this well-done page. Aleister in Chains Days of Our Lives, MMX
Comment. I was ready to vote for, and still will if the author doesn't want the nom removed. The formatting looks fine on the monitor I'm looking at now. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 23:18, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Voting "for" is OK, it's just never going to get featured because there's a whole lot of temporary abstains out there. It'll die in it's due course but if there's one thing I'd like people to do, if they've never actually seen a "Mondo" movie, is check out Mondo Hollywood at Hulu. It even has a pre Helter Skelter Jay Sebring in it. It's a lot of short subjects thrown together for the "hollywood" experience of the 60's and might explain why I've taken the concept to fictional Uncyclopedia writers-- 00:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
The issue of inside jokes: There are actually no inside jokes in this article. "Mondo" is just a clever word for "exploitation" - read the wiki page. You take a subject (Example: Mondo Hollywood, Mondo Topless) and you create a 10 car pileup out of it for people to gawk at. It's done in documentary format. So, fictional freaks have been introduced as being Uncyclopedia writers to exploit for entertainment purposes. I don't think there's such a thing as a fictional in-joke and the point of "Mondo" is to exploit a secret or little known aspect of society and display it for people who know little to nothing about it - and it doesn't have to be accurate. I don't care if this doesn't get featured, I'd just like people to understand what's being done here. I tried to give a look similar to the magazines I used to see in the early 70's when I was a little kid. -- 10:27, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Which is likely why it reminded me of Mad Magazine takeoffs of those magazines. To me, you succeeded. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:22, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
No comments section of a VFH nom gets this long without drama. What the hell is wrong with you level-headed freaks? IronLung 23:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about everyone else, but I forgot to take my medicine. -OptyCSucks! CUN23:15, 6 Jan
abstain. See my talk page if interested in the reason I changed to abstain on this one.RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:10, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. low health 27% +9~ This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 21:28, January 31, 2010 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Oh God yes. 
