Cabal Decree #125/aaa! "No VFH Dramas" is now in effect. Any further discussion on this page other than votes For, Against or Pie will result in wide spread bans and public flogging at dawn.

## Muammar Gaddafi (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

 Article: Muammar Gaddafi Score: 11 nice guys Nominated by: MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC) For: 18 Nom and for As many of you know, I gave this article an in-depth review meaning that I'm now eligible for ROTM (go nominate me). Secondly, Gaddafi is going to be dead by August, so we need to feature this before then. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 09:08, April 20, 2011(UTC) For. This is hilarious - Frosty dah snowguy contribs KUN PLEB 09:11, April 20, 2011 (UTC) For. 216.54.216.26 09:31, April 20, 2011 (UTC) For. Funnybony  10:58, Apr 20 10:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC) For the lulz. Mattsnow (talk) 14:40, April 20, 2011 (UTC) For. Read most of this earlier. Gaddafi is revlevant now, and not much later, and the page seems ready. Aleister 15:27 For. 16:00, 20 April 2011 For. Dr. Fenwick 23:04, April 20, 2011 (UTC) Fuck Gadaffi, but shit if that man isn't fly as hell. T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:34, April 21, 2011 (UTC) For. 88.83.78.144 16:37, April 21, 2011 (UTC) For. -- 14:06, April 22, 2011 (UTC) For --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 16:12 Apr 22 2011 For. ~  22:19, April 26, 2011 (UTC) For. --Username18 KUN FP 02:59, May 6, 2011 (UTC) For -- 06:50, May 6, 2011 (UTC) For. 115.69.15.91 03:48, May 9, 2011 (UTC) For. -- 00:24 May 12, 2011 (UTC) 4 10:47, May 16, 2011 (UTC) For. 216.101.114.13 21:16, May 16, 2011 (UTC) For. pie Lock'd And Loaded ~CUN ~ (Shoot!) 15:31, May 20, 2011 (UTC) Against: 7 Against and it pains me to do this, but no, see below. Dame  15:19, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Against just 'cuz. Imrealized ...hmm? 16:34, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Against. ~  23:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 23:45, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Not bad, as articles go, and definitely should wind up here at some point, but there are bits that just ruin it for me, as well as the already mentioned missed opportunities and other dealies. The main issues are the things that just don't make sense, though - little sillies and ironies are one thing (say, being president longer that he's been alive - propaganda has made out far stranger to be the case, so that works just fine), but random stuff that comes completely out of the blue, with no apparent reason or support and nothing about it later ('He was spawned from the hairy arse of a camel' and said camel is apparently a spanish officer - eh? That sort of thing.) really detracts from it, in my view. It's not ready, at present. Perhaps another review would help. 00:39, 23 April 2011 The article doesn't say said camel was a Spanish officer. --EDiot 03:19, April 24, 2011 (UTC) Eh, the grammatical ambiguity indicated that, actually. Now it's... different. Still very random, but I guess I'll humour those who worked on it and just abstain. 06:41, 30 April 2011 Against. Per our two wonderful ladies (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2011 01:40, April 23, 2011 (UTC) Against. Per Lyrithya. It starts out promising, but becomes increasingly random ("a camel's hairy arse" - Eh?). -- 04:24 April 30, 2011 (UTC) Against. I would give a reason, but the template tells me not to. --Mn-z 23:39, May 14, 2011 (UTC) Against. WOOHOO! It happened. His people are turning all the odds against him. ABSTAIN DJ Mixerr 01:33, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Against. Not my thing. MrN  Fork you! 20:59, May 17 Comments Comment. Hmmm the Liberace of Libya with all the dressing up? RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC) Our own journalists at UnNews has proven that no one is a bigger diva than Elton John. If someone were to find a way to incorporate that into the article, that would make it feature-worthy. -- 04:24 April 30, 2011 (UTC) Abstain. I don't buy the 'Gaddafi is gay' paragraph in an article that is otherwise well worth featuring. Sorry. If anything, Gaddafi seems to have an eye for women - especially if they carry AK47s and/or totter around in high heels. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:55, April 21, 2011 (UTC) And you've got to admit he gives new meaning to the term "tented pants". Aleister 16:54 21-4-'11 I've done the unresearch man. Gaddafi is 100% gay. --69.78.133.20 18:11, April 21, 2011 (UTC) Are you speaking from unpersonal experience Anon?--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:12, April 21, 2011 (UTC) not exactly. --69.78.133.23 23:54, April 21, 2011 (UTC) Comment Re: my against vote: This misses an easy bit of humor in the first sentence and instead trades it for something silly and not funny. The lead of the article has to grab the reader, and this grabs you and stops you immediatly with something that isn't funny or clever. And if it is something that brings me out of retirement to vote no, then its a serious missed opportunity. Dame  15:19, April 22, 2011 (UTC) How vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.192.187.133 (talk • contribs) Any reason why you failed to point out any actual problem? You say there was a "missed opportunity" in the intro, and yet you don't give even so much of a hint as to what that is. You specified the intro, which leads everyone to think you have one problem with the article, which hardly warrants an against vote. Perhaps you'd like to state your true reason as to why you voted against, or, at the very least, provide a specific as to what it is missing? Not that I'm implying you're just trying to garner attention. Not implying that at all. And I'm certainly not pointing to where you said "out of retirement to vote no" as evidence of your attention whoring. Why would I do that? 67.159.56.162 16:05, April 22, 2011 (UTC) Yep... that one against vote is a huge conspiracy against you and this extremely witty piece of art. "68 years young but President for 70?" Where does this humour flow from? Years young? I've not heard that before. It's like the opposite, cuz he's old, right? So clever! It needs to be marketed. Yes, that's it. Seriously. What are you still doing here when you have the ultimate wit to package and sell. Don't let one against vote bother you... this star is rising. Seriously. Imrealized ...hmm? 16:34, April 22, 2011 (UTC) That's not me but thanks for being a condescending prick. --EDiot 17:03, April 22, 2011 (UTC) As a professional admin on a professional funny site such as dicks, I'm going to weigh in on the matter and say that everyone is acting like useless dicks right now. Offer constructive advice or fuck the fuck off. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:28, April 22, 2011 (UTC) As for constructive criticism, I gave a whole giant slew of it in a pee review. It might not be the best one Ive ever done, and no ones olbiged to do anything after reading one, but theres no real change to the article except swapping words and one additional paragraph. Im not saying that my recommendations themselves need to be adopted, but the article would benifit from some kind of "conceptualization" and making the bathroom humour relevant to the article amongst some other things. This article is SCREAMING to be a great one. And none of what im writing has anything to do with comments about whoring or any other moments of drama mentioned above but precisely what Lyrithya says. Confusion, comic gold opportunities missed and confusion. In my humble opinion. -- 23:00, April 25, 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed the banner about not leaving only comments. My comment is meant to be anti-dramatic and give my point of view on the article. Is there ever a really good reason to stifle conversations about articles like this? I find that banner extra extra extra disturbing. -- 23:04, April 25, 2011 (UTC) I actually didn't notice that consequence of the template until after I applied it. I was just trying to keep things a little more civil around here. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:09, April 25, 2011 (UTC) In that case, I find the banner scalywaggy ;)= ... in anycase, I really hope the article takes shape and gets hilighted. -- 23:29, April 25, 2011 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that $unnecessary drama = unnecessary$. 23:49, 25 April 2011 Comment. The article has improved 20 fold with the new edits. 13:18, April 28, 2011 (UTC) Let's not wait until the guy is no longer in the news! That is a great article, worthy of a feature anytime + it's very actual. Mattsnow 11:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC) Oh, all right. It will lose momentum if not featured now. -- 00:24 May 12, 2011 (UTC) This vote has become such a mess... I decided to fix the against section, since it was all borked. If I accidentally messed up anyone's vote, feel free to revert my changes. -- 04:05 May 18, 2011 (UTC)

VFH
 Click to feature this article Always check the feature queue first. Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.