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)
Strong Against - I reread it, and I just don't think it's feature worthy--SirManforman 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. --CUNRATalk 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. --SirStarnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 19:56, October 25, 2007
Against, WP:DENY. If it was as good as Hardwick's Prison Journal, and wasn't about a troll, maybe. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 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. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 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)
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. –SirSkullthumper,MD(criticize•writings•formspring) 23:48 Oct 24, 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. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 20:08, 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. --SirStarnestommy (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)
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. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 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•☃•talk• 01:12, 26 Oct 2007
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.
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. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 21:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
LIES....also my account has been HACKED and the internets overrun.....IRAQATTACK will destroy us all!!! -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
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. -- inept Ape(implode)(Riot Porn) 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? -- inept Ape(implode)(Riot Porn) 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 GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 21:49, 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? --SirManforman 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
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 --SirManforman 21:13, 29 October 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. --The AcceptableCainad(Fnord) 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*SirModusoperandiBoinc! 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. — SirWehp! (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.
Feature this UnBook. --NXWave 07:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)