# Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnBooks:IRAQATTACK

## UnBooks:IRAQATTACK (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

 Article: UnBooks:IRAQATTACK Score: 18.5 BENSON wannabes Nominated by: 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC) For: 38.5 SN&F&YAY I wrote this little story about everyone's favorite BENSON wannabe IRAQATTACK (with some help from Mhaille). -- 22:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC) FOR --THE 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE FORE - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC) OP PLZ – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:38 Oct 24, 2007 For -- This For vote is sponsored by IRAQATTAKS SOCIATY OF VANDAL HA HA (I'm a card-carrying member). -- 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 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Ha! This is awesome! --  Le Cejak • <-> 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) For. I think it rises above the in-joke inspiration to deliver a reading experience all can enjoy! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 12:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I got it and I'm a noob. --Tampa 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC) For - UnIdiot | | Talk | Contribs - 19:25, Oct 25 For 1RAQATTACK! 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) except it is kind of like feeding the trolls, MY NAME IS NOT MARK. 1RAQATTACK! 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) FOR THE LOVE OF. -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) For. Quite funny. • • • 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC) There are many reasons to vote against this article, least of all that its bloody funny. -- For. Yeah it uses actual usernames which I'm usually against, but any unfamiliar reader would get it, and it is very funny. • Spang • • 01:12, 26 Oct 2007 Ford --General Insineratehymn 01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) FOR Bassguy 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) I'm new, I still think it's great For - http error 404; comment reset by DDOS Oct 26, 14:59 For I can't stay mad at you. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, yes, yes! -- 19:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) For --Mr. Alberto "Letters" ℜwg ☃ FU ☃ 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC) For Goawaybrits 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC) For 71.126.171.96 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 4, per Spang, and also because the page is funny. Also, I hereby lay claim to writing an uncyclopedian version of WP:DENY, just so I can have a response to that link. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:47, Oct 26 For. I was initially neither for or against this, but I don't know what it was about IRAQATTACK showing up that made me vote against at first. Either way, yes, this is a great article, and I really don't care for the reasons that the people voting against have given. -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 'Yes I really do think so. The Oblong Lobster 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC) N00b votes For --ThisIsNotMyRealName 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Forty Four Bleedin' hilarious. No scratch that. Pissing hilarious. The second reading caused my sack of urine to expel pee. sleepygamer 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC) FOR I get a kick out of people like that, Mhaille, you are one lucky man. Mr. Briggs Inc. 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Eh? OBVIOUSLY FOR this is funny stuff man. Who know that a troll could bring this much laughter into me. WP:DENY be damned. --NXWave 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) For Simply beacuse people are voting against because of WP:DENY--Scott 00:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC) For. Sir Groovester | Contributions | Talk Page 06:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Hot sex --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC) For about the best thing ive read in a while, i didnt get alot of it but it still made me laugh all the way through Azu 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Foalr <3 .talk.work.?pedia.$A^{waits}_{ward}$ For - IRAQATTACK!!!11!! -- 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC) HUTTAH -- Leoispotter (garble! jank!) 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC) IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! IRAQATTACK!!11!! 05:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC) For-Razorflame (contributions) Talk 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC) For --PET 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Against: 20 Note: anyone who votes against is automatically DDOSed. DDoS Me, bitches.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)   Strong Against - I reread it, and I just don't think it's feature worthy--Sir Manforman 20:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC) The post-Benson generation has no interest in a bunch of old users' nostalgia And it smells funny, too. --CUN RA Talk to me _ 05:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Against. ~ 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Strong Against per WP:DENY. This article seems to be praising and/or encouraging a troll. Featuring it would give the troll mentioned in it (you know who I'm talking about) undeserved recognition and an additional incentive to continue trolling. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 19:56, October 25, 2007 Against -- Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Fuck this Noise I don't know what any of this about, but it all looks pretty dumb to me. --THINKER 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Against Not so much vanity, but that it supports trolling. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC) God. Please. No. --So So 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) An anguished Against. (wince) Dame  17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Against You're... so vain..... the vandals will take this as encouragement... --Lt. High Gen. Grue The Few The Proud, The Marines 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Hah! Coming from Mr. TYATU himself! -- 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 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Against, WP:DENY. If it was as good as Hardwick's Prison Journal, and wasn't about a troll, maybe. 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC) --L 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC) (no comment on deny so invalid vote) --NXWave 08:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC) No, you're invalid, man. Zork Implementor L is a user of few words. No words, in fact. Mostly he just stares. 13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Against; too injokey. --Algorithm 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Against How could something as unfunny as this get 18 votes? Ethereal 05:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Against EPIC FAIL -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC) FAIL EPIC Against - 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Boring.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Against -- 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Out. --Dark delegation 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Against -- 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Comments Via the Drawn Together test for things that cannot be featured because of vanity, Abstain. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Abstain As per person above me. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Don't interpret that sexually. Too late. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:18 Oct 24, 2007 Comment. I don't really think this is an in-joke. Inspired by an in-joke, certainly. And it has usernames so I suppose it counts as vanity to some degree. But the majority of the content is original, and a new user to this site would understand what's going on without a problem. So I don't see how those two issues could prevent this from being featured. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:48 Oct 24, 2007 Also, WP:DENY? What's he going to do? Come on IRC and get banned again? It's hilarious! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:08 Oct 25, 2007 Dear DENYers: Honestly, how long will it take you to realize that no one really gives a shit if one makes fun of IRAQATTACK? He's completely ineffective, at most a tiny nuisance, and an admin only (reluctantly) removed his UGotM nomination after much campaigning from regular WP:DENY Uncyclopedians. Hell, one of the most prominent admins on the site wrote half of this page. Vote on merit or don't vote at all, just don't bring DENY into VFH. -- 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 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Also, he voted for himself. God knows if I know what that means. -- 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 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC) What if someone had made an article about a much more dangerous troll? This nomination would have the same effect as VFH'ing an article about a bigger nuisance, although on a smaller scale. In addition, by allowing this to be featured, more vandals and trolls will think that by trolling, they will have featured articles written about them as well. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 20:33, October 25, 2007 Wait so im not a dangerous troll. I think i can be pretty dangerous when I try.1RAQATTACK! 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Shhh, you're not really helping by saying that >_> -- 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 01:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC) The problem is that you're seriously overestimating trolls. And VFH is no place for "what if"s. There's no precedent to be set with this article, let alone a bad one. It's just an article, not an influence, and you should judge it by its merit instead of your blind faith. You're starting to sound like SmackBot. -- 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 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Im helping you now. Im trolling youtube to get people to visit here and join my league of vandals and get a fr33 IPHONE.1RAQATTACK! 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I'm usually all for DENYing trolls, but this could be an exception - he's so painfully bad at trolling, it's gone full circle back to humour. • Spang • • 01:12, 26 Oct 2007 My thoughts: Uncyclopedia's primary function (if you can call it that) is to be funny. So the most important question is is this article funny? I'd like to think it is. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia (duh) so wikipedia policies don't really apply. This is not going to encourage trolls. I can count the number of trolls who actually read the site's contents on no hands - partly because there are none and partly because I don't need to count on my hands. Trolls like IRAQATTACK take approximately one second to deal with each time they pop up. So they are not really that big a problem. Stop being such fucking wikipedians. That is all -- 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Abstain Because it's alright, but, I mean, it's kinda like a less polished Hardwick Fundlebuggy's Prison Journal.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 16:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC) I'm just wondering, how does this nomination meets the self-nom regulation exactly? ~ 13:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Here's the Pee Review... Notice something? --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, I notice 1.No review. 2.Two days on pee before self nom. Ergo -not eligible for self nom. ~ 20:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Comment Mhaille, your forgery is incomplete, mate, take notice ;) ~ 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Also, I knew Yorick. Pretty well, actually. 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) LIES....also my account has been HACKED and the internets overrun.....IRAQATTACK will destroy us all!!! -- Sorry I forgot. If you want to remove it and wait for the time to elapse we can start this whole thing again. Or you can just let it go. -- 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Hell, it hasn't been this crowded here, since the water powered bus!. HEY! MODUS! That's my bloody toe! Get off! ~ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC) On another note, for those shouting WP:DENY at me, should I go ahead and remove all those BENSON references that litter Uncyclopedia like discarded condoms on a Saturday night? Or is this just special pleading against this article? -- 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Personally, I think we need to nominate this voting page on VFH, it has everything that anyone would want in a front page article including words, intrigue, charges, counter-charges, CIA operatives undercover, rapacious lust, finger pointing, a rabbi, a priest and a French Maid playing golf together whilst discussing Descartes, inuendo and even just plain endo. Gets my vote...Dame  21:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC) But not the article eh? -- 21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Dibs on lust! 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) This seems to be so controversial, but why?. It is not feature worthy, and although WP:DENY doesn't apply here, we shouldn't be rewarding the work of vandals to begin with. What if people people deliberately vandalise Uncyclopedia in the hopes of getting articles written on themselves? --Sir Manforman 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Until I see that happen, I think that's a ridiculous claim. And I also happen to think the article's hilarious. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:31 Oct 29, 2007 Additionally, I would like to offer the suggestion that all votes not based on the quality of the article be struck. VFH is about article quality, and funny, after all. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:35 Oct 29, 2007 Seconded. Cut the bullshit, people. -- 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 03:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Then make sure you strike down all whoring based votes as well. ~ 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Agree with that. In fact, can we make that all of VFH? Plz? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:08 Oct 29, 2007 Abstain - with all againsters ranting about WP:DENY and the extended discussions above, I'll have to retract my against vote. I don't think WP:DENY should be the reason to vote against, it seems more vain to me, even though Hardwick Fundlebuggy's Prison Journal was vain as well, but this seems even more vain. Also, AATOEOT said that admins could deal with vandals/trolls in a split second --Sir Manforman 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I think the record is one Planck Time-- 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Does WP:deny even work, since you started useing it has vandalizem declined at all since you started living by it? 1RAQATTACK! 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC) This is ridiculous. Since when did VFH become a soapbox? Vote on the quality of the article, not because of some controversy or other. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 19:28 Oct 31, 2007 UN:DENY Sorry LED, got there first. -- 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC) What are we doing down here? 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC) wiki's were'nt designed for this amount of pointless bickering. -- 20:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) We broked VFH with our yelling? Yikes. -- 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 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) YOU NINNIES, IT'S ALL ABOUT WHERE YOU PUT THE CURLY BRACES! There, I've fixed it. Also, at this point we've already failed to WP:DENY, but my vote remains against. -- 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) You fixed it? Why? I had all my stuff down there! We were all "Since we're down here, let us picnic." and "There is no way that someone, such as Cainad for instance, will deign to ruin this picnic of ours that we are having down here." *Pout* 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Holy crap. This is easily the biggest nomination we've had on the new system, and possibly the biggest period. Abstain - I liked it, enough that I might have voted Weak For were it not so controversial, and about to be featured without my vote anyway. — Sir Wehp! (t!) (c!) — 02:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Why hasn't this been featured yet? It's easily excelled other pages votes-wise. <3 .talk.work.?pedia.$A^{waits}_{ward}$ Feature this UnBook. --NXWave 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Indeed, why hasn't it been featured? -- 19:34, 16 November 2007 (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.