*'''Nom and Strong For''' Sparkling brilliance. {{User:§ǚρωξλ£μĦΦφ≈€ƏξßÐÆØΞ/sig}} 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
−
==[[Dashboard Confessional]]==
==[[Dashboard Confessional]]==
Revision as of 06:15, January 24, 2007
Please note that we are currently featuring the best articles of 2006. Feel free to continue voting on VFH, and we will resume the regular feature schedule soon.
Vote for 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.
When voting For or Against, please change the score number accordingly—this saves a lot of time later.
IP votes carry half the weight of registered votes.
Nonsigned 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.
When nominating an article, the template Template:VFH should be added to the end of the article 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.
Voters: don't be dicks and do be constructive with criticism. Writers: Don't be prima donnas. Be open to criticism.
Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.
If your article doesn't make it to the front page, don't despair. It may be eligible to be Quasi-featured so long as it meets certain criteria.
THIS IS A VOTE, NOT A DISCUSSION.
If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE.
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 spend at least one week on pee review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).
VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Nom and For. Decent parody of the band (check links), great idea(s), great delivery, lots of funnies, and portions of it were done by yours truly. What's not to like? --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Against. It's close, but...<option> the testimonials so that we don't see too many, the sins list is too long with too little explanation, & needs more pics (the iPope bit is a bit too memeish too). In short, good but hampered by a series of minor problems.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC) I may have been in a bad mood when I typed that (don't ask). Abstain --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
N+F - a simple joke, but worked out very thoroughly and nicely - David Gerard 08:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Up For. (and a quarter). BerogenVFH 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
For. Soon to be a TV movie starring Omar Sharif as Prisoner #426 and Ernest Borgnine as Dick Cheney. True story.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Against. Missing...something. It either needs to be more paranoid, or more straightlaced. Or something else entirely.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 04:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Against as per discussions of third picture's entry on VFP. BerogenVFH 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Nom and Strong For; Yes, it references me, but putting that aside this is one of my favorite articles of all time now. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 02:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For my own horrifying article. I actually sought out expert advice from furries and Christians for this one - David Gerard 14:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Against, it comes across as preachy. 2/3 of the images are recycled.--Nydas 10:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
weak for because although it is good, it isn't really very encyclopedic, reads more like viewer write-in - jack mort |cunt| talk - 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Many articles on Uncyc aren't written in encyclopedic style, but that doesn't stop them from being great. An example is Dark Ages, which I nominated and which was featured. - Sir Sikon[formerly known as Guest] 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
For and EW!!!BerogenVFH 13:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
N+F. Because it's funny, and Composure1 got to the iPhone first.--Procopius 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For Has anyone ever not voted for their own article? --Composure1 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hardwick did once. Maybe twice. But he's quite mad, and filled with a level of self-loathing that only the greatest writers achieve.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 12:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For - Love it, may even buy one! - Enzo Aquarius 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
For and submit I feel that this is a very well laid out article filled with clever and ironic jokes from the start and throughout. Plus, I believe it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, that Intelligent Designerists are correct in everything they say. Weri long wang 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, I twy not to mwake fwun of pweeple wiff nick impediments...— H. Peebles- D - HS 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I critized his signature, which is a bit too long. That has nothing to do with his against votes for all articles without reasonable explanations - it’s like he has OCD or something.Weri long wang 13:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Score: +8 hot Asian babes you still don't have a chance with
Nom and For From the maker of Fire hydrant, still one of the best and most underrated writers on this site. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For, and well-done on using pics that aren't technically indecent. Formatting is slightly broken in places, though Just tried fixing it - David Gerard 08:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fun Fact: The content of this article is virtually unchanged from when it was on VFD. --So So 15:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
for, i've been a sufferer for some time now, even formed a support group, just degenerated into a huge circle-jerk though, like everything in life - jack mort |cunt| talk - 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume N as well - David Gerard 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For though I kept wanting to make the eyes in the photos blank white circles as well - David Gerard 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Originally I did try 'chops with the cartoon eyes, but they managed to look less creepy.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For. Have you ever had a line stuck in your head so irritating that you ended up rewriting Annie just to get it out? No? Oh, maybe it's just me, then.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 14:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For My sister was some obscure orphan in a play adaptation of it. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong for. Strong contender for article of the month (if we've actually created that).--Procopius 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Score: +9 games missed due to Mastercard/Verizon/HH Gregg/ESPN commercial shoot
Self-Nom and For. If we can't get this featured in time for his next playoff loss, maybe we can get this featured in time for the Super Bowl. That is, of course, assuming this article is worthy.--<<>> 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
for. huzzah, actually clever and funny writing about bush - jack mort |cunt| talk - 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For So good that it's almost a shame to highlight it, since that will inevitably mean people messing with it. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment According the the VFH archives (check the oldest ones), this article was already featured (on March 14th, 2005). --Composure1 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For an original way of mocking him. The previous version that was featured was what is know known as George Dubya Bush, before it was moved to the new location to make way for this page. •Spang•☃•talk• 06:57, 9 Jan 2007
For, it's the article I would have written if I had any idea what I was doing.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 07:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For - this is actually really nicely done - David Gerard 08:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
For Hosanna to the Son of George Bush! The Humbled Master 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
For. Subtle and funny. --So So 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Against...this is a snub of the previously featured and hilarious George Dubya Bush. Sorry, its not funny, its just a bio. --HPFPtalk 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
For. Our Great Leader deserves to be honored as such. -- Rei 19:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
For proof that community projects CAN work (never thought I'd ever see this many people vote for Bush, though...).--<<>> 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
For. A good satire of Fox News more thann Georgie.--Emmzee 16:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment ~ Collaboration if I ever saw it. If I vote yes, who wins? Ketei, Mhaille, The Bard or Tompkins? Or do they split the winnings? :) --SirToddGUNWotMMIUotMNotMMDAVFHAotMBur.AlBur.CMNSPC(talk) 14:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Nom and for. I can't believe no one's said anything about this article before.--Andorin Kato 04:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Against. I'm less amused than last time this got nom'd, when I was at least quasi-amused. Now it's got a giant list, woohoo?--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
For. Although FUK or ASS would be funnier, but I still like it. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
For Hope I got the count right; I assume it's (number for) - (number against) = current tally. Not sure about GAMESPOT=666's vote. --Redmond 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I Approve This Message, 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It starts well, but gets less funny and a bit rambly (it's a word) towards the end. But the start's so damn good, I cannot possibly not vote for. 15Mickey20 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
for. i voted to save this on vfh, some time ago now, cos i could see the potential which has since been fulfilled, oh yes - jack mort |cunt| talk - 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
For, and I think Jack meant VFD, though you never know... maybe he thinks I delete the QFH's...--<<>> 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For - hang on, you don't delete the QFHs? —Braydie at 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Against...ho-hum...--HPFPtalk 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)