Sign below an article you find excellent. Please add new nominations on the top.
Initial nominations do not count as a vote For. Please use "Nomination and For" or some iteration thereof if you wish to vote for your nomination.
IP votes carry half the weight of registered votes.
Unsigned votes and votes without timestamps will be struck out, so make sure you sign your votes with ~~~~ or press the "your signature with timestamp" button () above the edit box.
You may nominate and vote for your own articles if you so choose - please note it on your nomination.
When nominating an article, the template Template:VFH should be added to the end of the entry using {{VFH}}. Anything you add {{VFH}} to also shows up in Category:Feature nomination.
Failed VFH nominations should only be archived/removed by the sysops who pay attention to this sort of thing.
Previous featured articles can be found on the archive pages.
THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE.
If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE.
Violators of this policy will be SHOT.
Survivors will be GIVEN A DIGESTIVE BISCUIT.
Then we shoot them again.
Any funny business and we shoot you a third time.
If you think I'm kidding, go ahead and test my patience.
I love you.
(in fine print above, if you read it aloud, your dog will also be shot)
Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )
SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must be at least a week old before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time.
VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.
Nothing suspicious at all about the author and the nominator... Especially nothing suspicious about the fact they attend the same university... And definitaly nothing suspicious about how the author magically stopped editing once the article was nominated... Nope, nothing suspicious at all. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFUF@H|UotM|+S 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
No Way. I originally NRV'd this. And I agree w/ MoneySign... CONSPIRACY! -- Sir CHolla | CUN 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Against.Sorry.--Procopius 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Nomination and cholesterol-rich For. Heck, you can't argue with Russell Crowe. I know I don't fancy a phone in my mush. Anyway, I'm sure they sell these at my local chippy. --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Image Review - Use it | Converse 11:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Napoleon Boneparte died alone and childless on the windswept island of St. Helena after a harpsichord fell through the ceiling and hit him on the head. I'm a sucker for rich imagery.--Procopius 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For. dung has not just fallen out of cows, it has also fallen out of fashion. Pure genious, well done that man!--McBumlo 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nom and For It's got mother***ing snakes on a mother***ing plane! Let's face it: this movie WILL redefine the film industry and the world. Let's feature it so we can say we liked it before it was cool. Plus, it's got Samuel L. Jackson.-- DiZon aPlane!(Snakes!)(On!)(A Plane!)
comment Gentlemen, this is the average length of UnNews articles, so I don't think length should be factor under this category. As for the sucky bit, I can't help...:) --MordilloHands off the virgin!Time till next rocket hits:
Comment. True, but "average" things should not be featured. It is definitely too short to be featured. The best UnNews article I've seen was this, because it was funny and long enough. It should be a factor, in my opinion. -- Sir Cornbread The Great[SHOUT][MUN]~RAP(+12)!~[GET IT FEATURED!] 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For, even though I'd usually say "Never Feature UnNews" this one is funny, and has potential. --SonicChaoBabbel!Contribs 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Against, coming from a member of the "Feature UnNews, Dammit!" coalition. This just wasn't funny. —Sir MajorHinoa[TALK][KUN] 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For Considering I wrote it, I was surprised to see it nominated. --emc! ╬ 22:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Against. Sorry, emc, but this thing is just not big and funny enough to catch my eyes. -- The Colonel(talk) 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Against. I did laugh, so I feel bad voting against but it really is too short, even for an UnNews, to feature IMO. Sorry. -- Imrealized...hmm? 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
N+F. We need such vigorous bashing, especially when applied to a serious historical subject. - Sir Sikon[formerly known as Guest] 14:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Huge, Huge For - hilarious. TheMono 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-vote For. Ignore this line and move onto the next.--Procopius 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AF-FIR-MA-TIVE."Other eras were content to accept this as the will of God -- that a man would have to go through his day with a strong likelihood of being killed by an axe before sunset. Greek and Roman mythology is based on it." Priceless. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For. I came here all gonna nominate Battle of Gettysburg, but that was until I read about Thurmor, the black bandit of the woods. Shine On, You Crazy Diamond. --Palsworth 15:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
for, finally someone is saying what we're all thinking. Modusoperandi 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak against. Everything there is good except the bashing. -- The Colonel(talk) 07:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Bashing=/=funny. If bashing is a form of humour, then why don't I find WWE amusing, despite those guys there bash each other with folding chairs all the time? -- The Colonel(talk) 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Bashing (can) = Funny. Viz the success and proliferation of Takeshi's Castle in all its wild permutations. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't study history or arts or stuff so whatever the article is bashing makes no difference to me, and since everyone can call someone a "butthole", it is obvious to me that there is something lacking in this candidate - intelligence. -- The Colonel(talk) 04:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's the bashing being applied to a serious historical subject that makes it funny. - Sir Sikon[formerly known as Guest] 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The intense bitterness on a subject that doesn't warrant it at all makes it hilarious. TheMono 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For I like it, but it could be expanded a bit. --emc! ╬ 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For. I didn't find it especially bashy — its just got a bit of a punch. -- Imrealized...hmm? 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Weak Against Pretty funny, but not main page stuff. --Gunny 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Albeit biased, as the author. Just re-read it and think it's great, so there. --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Image Review - Use it | Converse 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Very clever, with funny text and amusing pictures. This vote cast in loving memory of HowTo: Criticize the Media's failed VFH nomination.--Procopius 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For because it was funny, and i laughed at the bit about "you Scally." --Palsworth 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
4 shizzle Considering I helped make the article what it is, I revoke all the "credit" Sir Cornbread and others deserve for rewriting this article, and take it for myself. --emc! ╬ 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
For...this article had a lot of contributors.--Shandon 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AF-FIR-MA-TIVE-YO. This came a long way from VFD. An excellent rewrite, and worthy of attention. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to vote For even though I think it could stand to lose the Bush picture. That's getting a little overdone. But overall it's definitely worth featuring. Wehpudicabok 02:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Dis article's tight, yo. I mean, for. --UtarEmpire 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A splendid article, very well done indeed, my sincerest congratulations on such a fine achievement. --Nydas 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful article --70.27.217.235 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why does snoop dog have an umbrella? For drizzle! Dshack 05:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Against because I think that an article on rap could be a lot funnier than this, but I'd like to see that hilarious picture of the wiggers on a featured article so instead I'll just make this a comment. --So So 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
For because admins wrote it and they'll like me more if I vote for their articles. It's always good when admins like you, it really is.—Sir Mandaliet♠CUNPSVFHGN(talk) 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Upon featuring, this article is very easily the theme of a reskin somehow because of our already potato-themed logo. Or maybe not. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 03:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Against I'll be the first person to break the mold and vote against, and not just for the sake of non-comformity. I read the whole article against my ravenous will and I did not laugh. Once. Lame. --SeñorDiZtheGreatCUNAOTM( Worship me!)(Praise me!)(Join me!)AMEN! 04:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
For. I haven't read the article, but the title makes me hungry. --Captain Finding Nemo 05:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
*Against, I find it cute, and it might work for Encyclopedia Dramatica, but uhh, nice try. --emc! ╬ 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
For, changed my vote because I love this article! It's great! Wooohoo! :-] --emc! ╬ 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
For Nice article! »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Futile against. I moaned and groaned. But computer nerd humor like this seems pretty much like a shoe-in for featuring... --So So 07:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Against. The laugh is there, but not enough to hit the spot. -- The Colonel(talk) 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For. This one take the chip! HA! Chip! I made a potato joke! --officer designateLugiatmMUNNSCMZMWH 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Got any french fried potaters in that there chop? Mmm hmm. Reckon I'll have me the bigguns. Mmm hmm. -- Imrealized...hmm? 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Self Nomination - I have worked on it for some days and it's time for it now to face the final test. (I'll try and respond to every comment/vote posted here - just like this guy)-- The Colonel(talk) 11:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks for the vote first of all, but it would be even nicer if you make a comment or two on the article. See my talk page. -- The Colonel(talk) 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with u ppl? Saw this when it was under development and liked it then. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Thanks for that, Uncle Mhaille! :) -- The Colonel(talk) 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For - I liked it. It's not very often that an article up for nomination mentions a recently featured article (Idiocrates). Plus it was funny. --emc! ╬ 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that you like it! :) -- The Colonel(talk) 05:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Took me a while to decide, because it was kinda confusing the first time I read it, but after re-reading, its funny and the images are good. -- Sir Cornbread The Great[SHOUT][MUN][GET THIS FEATURED!] 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's good that you re-read it, and thanks for your support! -- The Colonel(talk) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For, because I'm one of the poor bastards that bought a Pentium Pro and I'm still holding a grudge. Modusoperandi 00:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I hope you are not still mad at the fact that Pentium Pro is weak in 16-bit processing. -- The Colonel(talk) 08:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Cleverly done. This is why I own a Compaq. Wait a minute . . .--Procopius 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have a desktop with an AMD chip running at 1.8GHz, and a laptop with an Intel P4-M chip running at 1.7GHz. Notwithstanding the fact that there is only a difference of 100MHz, the desktop runs almost 3 times as fast as the laptop. -- The Colonel(talk) 13:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For. This is a sympathy vote for a nice try. Seriously, WTF is this (see [1])? Go to Hades? That's some funny shit there Swordman. So is this article. I've no sympathy at all, actually. -- Imrealized...hmm? 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your "antipathy" vote. :) -- The Colonel(talk) 13:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Against Not a big fan of featuring UnNews either. --emc! ╬ 00:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
For I liked it when I read it in the UnNews before seeing it here. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
For one good idea cheerfully executed. -- The Colonel(talk) 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
FOR. I don't think saying that it's UnNews justifies voting against this article, and it's possibly the best one so far. Wehpudicabok 05:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Against- I think it was funny, and I'm probably nitpicking, but most of reads like it could be about anyone, little of it has anything to do with Martin Van Buren.--Sir ClaudiusCUNVFH (speak up) 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Well, it does mention the Independent Treasury Act. You can't go into your local independent treasury without seeing a statue of Martin Van Buren.--Procopius 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For. It's true, it could be written about anyone, but I think that's what makes it so funny--that an insulting article like this is written about an obscure president, of all people. Wehpudicabok 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Enthusiastically for. This reminded me of IFHTBT. - Nonymous 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For! I voted for this last time, and I'll be damned if I don't do it again.--Emmzee 21:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For. A rare example of something being both stupid AND funny? --So So 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
N and F. Vote for this instead of the other one! --L 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
For it's worth it just for the Chris Walken pic. Plus I dig choosing sides when VFH has a voting war between a page, and itself. Freaky. Modusoperandi 14:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Against, I still don't get it. --Joe!/TALK/CONTRIBS/F@H 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
For: John Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Then his wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained. --DonutBuy one!|Get one Free!|F@H|MUN 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Someone needs to make a better picture for this article. I'll try one tommorow, but only if nobody makes one first. --BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 00:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Excellent article, especially the Stages of Development. -- Imrealized 18:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
For, but shouldn't the Taj Mahal be the ultimate form of Gazebo? Okay it's a crypt, but still, it's sheer gazebo-ness is world renowned. Modusoperandi 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Nomination and For. Am I going crazy with the noms? Perhaps, but we're due for a funny art feature, and this one fits the bill. Excellent offering from a relative newcomer. -- Imrealized 08:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Against 2 of those articles in the space of one month is too much... maybe later... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 08:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For Agree that it awfully close to the Cookery Corner, but its well done and deserving. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Wha? It has neither cookery nor corners: still, I'm For it. Modusoperandi 15:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For...Wow, it was the first article I wrote...if you like, don't forget to vote me n00b of the month--Shandon 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Against. Shades of Hemingway's Cookery Corner, but... even less funny. --Hobelhouse 04:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Loved the bit with the stabbing. --User:Nintendorulez 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Against. Too similar indeed. Sir CHolla | CUN --20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
AF-FIR-MA-TIVE. Culture, people, culture. It's not just for throat scrapings, you know. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
For Not the funniest Uncyclopedia article there ever was, but for some inexplicable reason it simply feels like it deserves to be a featured article. --§ǚρωξλ£μĦΦφ≈€ƏΣßÐÆØΞΩų 23:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
For. I'm no art buff, but I found this pretty funny. —Sir MajorHinoa[TALK][KUN] 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-nomination - Just for Déjà vu sake... plus it now has a Talk Page. -- Imrealized 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Though this is a tardy crediting it is worth noting that Some user contributed the true genius to the talk page (replacing all the dates with the proper Attic calendar dates and the superior second half). That may slip unnoticed if one were not to check the history, so I'm telling it here. -- Imrealized 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm a sucker for lampooned Greek drama, and this had me hyperventilating. Aristophanes pwns indeed! ("Lost his oilcan!") STRON-GEST AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
No. This scares me. Sir CHolla | CUN --19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Tired joke gets new lease of life. For -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 21:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I voted "for" for this before--TKF 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
for, but only if talk:euroipods is featured. otherwise, it would confuse any young nooblets who haven't lurked here as long as i have. --Testicles 00:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For! Great parody. Weird, because I hated Euroipods.--Emmzee 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For evreything you could possibly want in an article: clever humor, intellectual references, and euroipods. The Talk page only adds to the glory that is.--<<>> 01:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For, amazing how the obvious injoke was made into a funny intelligent article ---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 03:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For a) money b) referring your friends to read Homer --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Against, not significantly improved since the last nom. It appears to have barely changed at all...needs both more & better Modusoperandi 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
For Hey, it's a parody of Euroipods! Having read both, I'm changing my vote. I may be slow, but my dead eyes more than make up for it. Modusoperandi 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
For The only thing I don't like is that it has nothing to do with Barnes & Nobles, except the play on the name - Arzikl 05:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Except for the fact that both the main book and the names of the expansions are plays on the names of popular places to buy D&D books, you're right (Barnes & Noble, Waldenbooks, Books-a-Million, & Borders... that's all we've got around here, anyway...).--<<>> 13:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Nomination And For Shizzle. Yes, I already know this has been "Quasi-featured", but this just might make me laugh more than any other article in the damned universe. PURE BRILLIANCE. --Sir Cornbread 04:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Nuh-uh. No second chance for this bad boy. --L 07:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no Some editor there even rejected my addition to it ( the only one with a connection to Fisher Price)--SwamiA. Suresh 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
For. What are you, fucking nuts? 24.145.222.85 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
For. So, so For it hurt my sides. TheMono 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Aganist. Do you think people out there really care about what happened to a damned website like Uncyc? Gimme a break! -- Colonel Swordman 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
For It's impressive, that much written about Fisher Price. --ENeGMA 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
For. Excellent tone, superb funny... deserves to have the quasi dropped.-- Imrealized 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
AF-FIR-MA-TIVE. I had to think about this one, as I was part of the VFD discussion on the actual Fisher Price "article," but I think Volte's superb literary babble deserves highlighting. If nothing else, let this be featured to show fuckwits what will happen to their crass one-liners. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Against. Copyright issues. I don't think it's legal to post an entire book. But what the fuck do I know? --172.166.125.108 06:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment...Anyone have any idea what in the hell the guy above me is talking about?? He cant possibly think that this is a REAL BOOK, unless hes completely retarded. Also, his only contribution to the site was that vote...A little suspicious... Sir CHolla | CUN--06:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
He bolded the F and O, so I guess he's voting for and is kidding. --User:Nintendorulez 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
For. What makes it great is that the author seems completely serious about the most ridiculous subject matter. Wehpudicabok 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think this should really be considered an in-joke. I mean, you can just look up Fisher Price, can't you? That's what I did. Wehpudicabok 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
*For. Definitely: it's the analysis that sells it.
For. Just because someone actually made this article is enough. Sir CHolla | CUN --20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, this guy is good (That is a very strong for). -- Imrealized 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
För I thought it was going to turn out to be one of those articles only people from the designated country would understand, but I found it funny. Personally, though, I prefer gerbil-tossing, but is gööd, yah?!? --SeñorDiZtheGreatCUNAOTM( Worship me!)(Praise me!)(Join me!)AMEN! 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fore! Hilarious.--Emmzee 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A 21 rat cannon salute in honour of this - One of my favourite articles on here, and that was before the drugs scandal got added. --Billsheppard 11:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Articles like this are what make Uncyclopedia great. Wehpudicabok 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Nom and for. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Well almost exactly. Sort of. Except it doesn't come in a tin. I actually have no idea why I even mentioned that. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy(Bleat) 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
For. The image also needs a VFP. Could do with the subarticles being merged, though I know the author disagrees - David Gerard 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
AF-FIR-MA-TIVE. I was afraid it would be like Click, but I was pleasantly surprised. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Against, I like the concept (and the fridge pic), but the remote isn't nearly complicated enough to make my life easier. It needs buttons for everything, cryptic symbols on those buttons, cryptic symbols where there aren't, and a power cord. Modusoperandi 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Having read and reread the page, my stance has softened somewhat. When the button-orific U.R.C.E. 4000 I'll vote for it. In the mean time, AbstainModusoperandi 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
F-f-f-for. Great. Sir CHolla | CUN --19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
For. Very useful. I also like the pictures. They should be featured. --Sbluen 22:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
For the fridge picture alone. The rest is just gravy. --SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
ForYou gotta love the pictures.--The One and OnlyCzarYah 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Against because the fridge picture is a freakin' megabyte and I'm on dial-up. Plus I don't really find the article to be funny.—Sir Mandaliet♠CUNPSVFHGN(talk) 09:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Fore! I've got my URCE3000, have you? --Lokine 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For. A lot of my time went into this. Time I should have been spending watching TV. --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Image Review - Use it | Converse 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Against If there was a joke in that article, I must've missed it. --emc! ╬ 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
AgainstYes, as a matter of fact it was. Modusoperandi 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, this has been nommed by a different user each time. Third trip down the aisle, always always left standing at the altar. ~ T. (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
For ; I have my reasons, such as I am anti-Skub --ccdimeanc | cantabria 11:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Against. it's not really.... good. or an article - jack mort |cunt| talk - - 14:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added "Not vote FOR this article on VFH" into the list. Those listed above may want to reconsider their vote..... -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 18:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For, and I was not coerced into this vote. —HinoaKUN(talk) 17:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For, if only for the opening.--<<>> 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
For. Funny, and sadly true. It's much improved with the pictures. The extended introduction is quite good, though not markedly better than the short, snappy original one.--Winston 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
For...but wasn't this taken directly from the howto--be a good wikipedian?? --HPtalk 03:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
For. Half the stuff on there is a direct reference to something Flameviper has done. 24.145.222.85 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC) vote by sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Flameviper, both banned (ironic).
For I wish I had had this when I first got here! --Chimzar 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)