Uncyclopedia:VFH/old

• Sign below an article you find excellent. Please add new nominations on 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 ignored, so make sure you sign your votes with ~~~~ or the "your signature with timestamp" button on the edit screen.
  • 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.

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.

Fashion Police

Score: 2

• Nomination Just throwing Spinny a bone here. —rc (t) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• The article is funny enough, and since those pictures are absolutely hilarious I dub thy nomination

FOR--Witt E, 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• AWEXOME SELF FOR And you can keep your goshdarn bones, Rc, I don't take no charity. --Spin 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yet another PLS entry overshadowed by the hypedmediaoverblockbusterwinners...hey! It's time for my medication. Mmmm, placebo. Modusoperandi 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Personally, the lingo started to annoy me after the first paragraph. But I guess if you like that kind of thing... --So So 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolf

Score: +5

• Just crying wolf! here for I am the boy who cried wolf! --Carlb 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ehhh... sure. But next time make the nomination a bit smoother, eh? --Kalir, Savant of Utter Foolishness! (yell at me) 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I LOVE EVERYTHING NOW!--<<>> 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Warren Zevon is awesome.--Severian 04:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. Greatness of a kind that gives paws for thought. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 15:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• FOR. Yes. -Ximm the Odd, Defender of The Space Five Inches In Front of His Eyes 30 April 2006
• Against. Fairy tale references in there too... Ugh. --So So 11:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Mayer

Score: +11

• Nom and For more inuendo. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 13:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For (and thank you for nominating it). --Bear 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Splendid. --Hobelhouse 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For this fine addition to the local meat market. --Carlb 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For all its meat-by-product wholesomeness(!). --DWIII OUN CUN 01:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Reminds me of sexual inuendo. No, not the article, I mean the thingy.--<<>> 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For who would've ever thought mechanically separated chicken and assorted beef would be so sexy. --Severian 04:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. That first quote is a great prelude to an awesome article.--Witt E, 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Almost as good as Bouncy Castle. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny. --So So 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ricers

Score: +0

• Nomination and For - I f****** hate ricers!!!! Das Boot 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• for, how'd they get a pic of my whip, yo? Don't make me tip my cap sideways, dawg. Modusoperandi 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against FOR I also doth hate the little rockets, in Germany, it's called Pimp Meinen Fahrrad, Tip of the Hat to you sir... I changed my mind after I read it like three more times.--Severian 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 00:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - I never expected this much support for my article.....--Wahoo 01:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's much better than your Golden Girls fan fiction. Modusoperandi 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against sorry, it sounds too much like a rant. -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 02:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against There's a right way to do a rant (JD Salinger, I Fucking Hate the Bermuda Triangle) and a wrong way (This Article). --ENeGMA 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

*for - Good stuff. Had to add the Citroen Saxo though, for an ULTIMATE RICE RATING YALL

Unsigned vote--<<>> 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry, I don't really get it, I think.--<<>> 03:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Well it's funny, I guess, but not for the front page article.--Witt E, 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet (video game)

Score: +12

• Nomination Another PLS entry. —rc (t) 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For This is actually pretty funny, and the idea is great. --Johnfn 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, I've played it a couple of times. --OsirisX 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Great article.--Chris - Talk - Contribs -19:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Holy crap OverlordChris, put your sig in a template. --User:Nintendorulez 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still rather new to this. ^^;;

• For. Would have won PLS if not for Mr Grumpikins, IMO. --Hindleyite Talk 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Pretty clever. --Zyrac 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Not die-hard hilarious, but still funny enough to be on VFH.--123Fat123 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yeah, this is worthy.--<<>> 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Modusoperandi 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny article. --Witt E, 05:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Nice me likes. --Severian 13:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I am very entertain. --So So 10:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Uncyclopedia drinking game

Score: +5

Nominate and for. This could actually be a feasible game to play sometime... *writes mental note for next time I attend/throw some sort of party* --User:Nintendorulez 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1+3 This yellow-bellied belfry analyzes of belfry. I senselessly insult Napolean with your yellow-bellied belfry. --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Nah--Rataube 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I just got back on Uncyclopedia recently to discover an article of mine had been nominated! :) -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)
• For --Severian 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For One of the first article I ever read. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Love it, really do, but not on the front page.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For does this mean that we have to add a "you find this article's VFH nomination" thing on there? --Roger The BUM MUN ⌥⌘⎋ F@H Complaints H4x0R M3! Euroipods! Norwegian Kanaaääaäaalääaaaäaaää Attack! 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against-I have to agree with Tompkins--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• So wait, if you two like the article, why don't you want it on the front page? --User:Nintendorulez 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yah, that makes no sense Claud and Tom! --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 19:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Someone was bound to come up with this, and its not that bad. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lawyer

Score: +6

• Nomination and For Not too long, Not too short- and funny all the way.--Witt E, 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 05:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Love the quote at the end.--<<>> 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For- Bravo!--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 13:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For There were some rough bits, and it certainly should be merged with Lawyers... but it did make me laugh reading about the rolex... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against The jury finds this article, not guilty (of being funny)
  • Unsigned.--<<>> 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Could use some work, I agree, but it's a decent article. --ENeGMA 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Root of All Evil

Score: +11

• Nom and 4. A gem. --Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey! 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Wow. Of all the stuff I've written so far this month, I'm not certain this is this best of the bunch, but thank you thank you & thank you.  :) And For. --Bear 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentFor I can't vote for this one because every time I read "Root of all Evil"... I think wait... it should be "Route of all Evil" in this context... which distracts me from the article itself... and I can't vote against it, because if the word Root was replaced in each instance with Route... I would love the article...Good Article... I re-read it... nevermind the crap i said before... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. The source idea is good, but the writing doth meander. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This one and Perfect Disaster were my favorite in the Poo Lit. Isn't someone going to nominate PD? ...Why don't I? 'Cause. --So So 07:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny.--<<>> 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Nice Job, I've been to the Root of All Evil, it was pleasant and warm to the touch.--Severian 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Wonderfully subtle and just plain fun to read. --Johnfn 01:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Unfunny, and pretty boring. Done before. Bilky Asko ^{Talk Here} 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, stayed there for three glorious days and nites last year. Nice place, not enough sinning. Modusoperandi 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Age of Umpires

Score: +12

• Nominated and Four. This is a truly funny article... if you don't agree, vote elsewhere --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, being Australian it is my duty to vote in favour of this marvellous game. --OsirisX 23:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For And not just becuase Age of Emprires is my favorite game ever. It's a damn good article. (Forgot to long in.) --ENeGMA 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For If the quality of the writing matched that of the illustrations it would be great. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, even though I pesonally don't like the usage of one-equal-sign titles, I love the photoshop job. Lenin & McCarthy 06:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 08:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Gosh, yes. -- Sir Codeine KUN VFP Bur. MDA NS UotM CM +S (Harangue) 11:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Though I'm American, I still see the humor here. Incidentally, everyone who was complaining about this winning a Poo Lit can just ignore Minds' message up there.--<<>> 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, what does poo lit have to do with people voting elsewhere? --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• For. I spent ages on them pics... Hindleyite Talk 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Although I didn't get a lot of the jokes, the pics and such are funny. It just needs some more jokes that people who aren't British will understand. --User:Nintendorulez 21:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely For - I'm still unsure if Americans understand Cricket, but this article superb. Billy Bowden rules!!!! Das Boot 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• against, makes cricket sound just a boring as baseball. Which it is. Modusoperandi 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Four, not out. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 08:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, Just truly brilliant, and the jokes are well phrased Bilky Asko ^{Talk Here} 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. My lack of being British showed when reading this... but I laughed enough times for this vote.--Witt E, 04:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --Spin 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Enigmatic Mr. Grumpikins

Score: +8

• Nominate and For. Original, amusing, quiet and strange. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Very funny and well-written. —rc (t) 05:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Original perhaps, but I didn't laugh once, so I can't vote for it.--Winston 10:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against It wasn't funny... just reminded me of very bad Home Depot Radio Commercials... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 14:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For-I can't vote against something that beat mine in the Poo contest--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 15:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against Poo-Lit Suprise does not belong on Featured. --PiOfFive 17:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that's a valid reason to vote against it. PLS entries should have the same opportunity to be featured on the front page as any other article. —rc (t) 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not my only reason. --PiOfFive 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I found it quite funny. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. One of the funniest articles I've ever read. Brilliant, subtle, humor. --ENeGMA 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• What the hell is this?????? It's a disgrace to Uncyclopedia. It is intelligible, has a continuous train of thought, and lacks misspellings. There is no use of the word "poo" or any profanity, no "your mom" jokes, no homophobia, no "In Soviet Russia" jokes or random celebrity references. All in all, it appears to have been written by someone who is neither stoned nor suffering from major brain damage. And dear god, the writer has gone so far as to employ subtlety. Makes me want to destroy a box of pencils. Oh, and For.--InfiniteMonkey 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against not my cup of tea. Having said that I think that the three Poo Lit Winners should be featured as a matter of course.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - This should be featured, next week should be declared The Week of Grumpikins and everyone should destroy a #2 pencil in honour of the occasion. So subtle and oh so hilarious! (and I agree with Mhaille that Poo Lit winners should be automatically featured) --Imrealized 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - it won that poo lit thingy (I'm not bitter. I try to be, but I'm not), and it reminds me of the time that I lost my medication. Modusoperandi 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For if only for the illustrations and because if it beat my article it must needs be very good indeed. --Spin 04:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Worthy winner of PLS. -- Hindleyite Talk 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Just kind of seems more like a blog than an Uncyclopedia article. --So So 07:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. My article's complete and utter failure in the Poo Lit is much easier to bear when I realize it lost to articles like this one.--<<>> 12:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against This won Poo Lit? Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Like Modusoperandi, I lose my medication and get even more wiggy, then I do things like read this great article, then I vote for them.

Homeless Nerds

Score: +8

Nom and For. I found this to be quite funny. What do you people think?--<<>> 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• For and Comment: Could do with being expanded a little, but it's pretty good right now. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Indeedy. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 07:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• For ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 14:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against Good initial concept, but needs work... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Good compact stuff --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For I'm a bit biased 'cos I added a few lines. I think it's definitely featured article material but I agree it can also be improved substantially. For instance "thick-rimed" glasses? Pocket protectors is an outdated stereotype- I don't know if I've even seen anyone wear one(and I know plenty of nerds), or if you can even buy them anymore. --InfiniteMonkey 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• It's funny because it's true. --KATIE!! 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --epynephrin 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This one made me laugh a lot.--Witt E, 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It's an ok article, doesn't have that thingy that takes it into hallowed VFH territory. I didn't get some references, probably because I'm an aging hippie <>s>old</s>. It could use something extra... Vienna Sausages, perhaps? -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Insert title here

Score: +14

• [Insert for and self-nomination explanation here] [Insert complaint about how people don't presume nominations to be for here] - [Insert user name here] [Insert date here] 10:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• [Insert three letter word here] [Insert note that For is a three letter word here] [Insert signature here] [Insert 11:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) here]
• [Insert vote] [Insert witty self reference about including witty self reference in my for vote here] - [Insert username here] [Insert date here]
• [Insert vote here] [Insert some cruddy reason for voting here [Insert User Sig, Time and Date Here (Hindleyite 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC))]
• [Insert a SHUT THE FUCK UP Against vote here] --PiOfFive 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I'm out of fors. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• [Insert clever variation on "for" here] [insert oblique jab at everyone who voted against here] —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. God, I hate Brad. He just ruined that great running gag.--<<>> 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. This brings self-reference to a whole new level of exactly where it was before. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• $\sum_{k=0}^1 \left(2k+1\right)$ 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 02:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Witt E, 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. If Redundancy was featured there's no reason why this shouldnt be too. --sqsz, 12:16, 22 April 2006 (+8 GMT)
• Against. If Redundancy was featured there's no reason why this should be too. --Imrealized 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For If we've featurred nihilism, then obviously we could not have Redundancy featured. Obviously. Twit! --The Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice C. Barry ('02) MUN (Complaints) 08:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Probably the best anti-cliche article, and a lovely self-reference. It's too injoke though...--Rataube 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against this is... boring, and played out.... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fortress --Andrusi 16:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• [insert affirmative vote here] - [insert voter here][insert voter's talk page here] - [insert date(24April2006) here]
• For.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Only marginally witty and not really that funny. I vote for articles not ideas. --ENeGMA 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --Spin 04:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Now who wants to write a page based on this template, hmm? - Conniption 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against too cynical of uncyclopedia itself. --Flourentina 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against[insert insult here] unsigned vote
• For One of the most clever things here. --Johnfn 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• somewhat For - it's good. --epynephrin 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• [Insert support vote here]. -- Miserable Failure 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No work put into the article. Bilky Asko ^{Talk Here} 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• for. actually got sore laughing. Matt Kurz 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• For! --So So 11:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• for a time, I was amused. Then, I finished the article, and I got bored, so I voted. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 15:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Robot uprising

Score: +10

+ This one has a story behind it. It started out as Howto:Survive a Robot Uprising, but after consultation between Fasmine, Nytrospawn, and myself, it was merged here with my own material. Go and vote for, guys! --Hobelhouse 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. Eh, whatever.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Rataube 22:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 08:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Claudius Prime 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Eh, not having Famine voting for all over this one makes this JUST good enough for a vote from me.--<<>> 19:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! Even if it is sadly lacking a Dalek contingency. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Unoriginal and uninspired. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I presume this vote is superseded by your later one... —rc (t) 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment They were intended to cancel out. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agin'. Not very funny, relies on the word "fuck" to save it's sorry ass. IMHO as a n00b. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. sry :( -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 10:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. --Guffy (guff) 12:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against - Some very bright moments, but too uneven. A promising start to the end of humanity. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 14:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Splendid --Maggot infested testicles 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Google™ --TimeStopper 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against

1) Too much of a list

2) Contains the word "shit" in the firskt paragraph

3) A historical event that never took place is more like an UnNews -- Swami A. Suresh 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. It makes me laugh. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I have to say, I liked the original more.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• For The most sterling piece of work I've seen in ages. And please not that Tompkins posted on opposites day. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against Booo Das Boot 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - thedukeofnuke - 11:25, 19 April 2006 (GMT)
• Weak For. Before I change my mind. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against I think I already read this one, but it was a different article... wait... that would mean that this is unoriginal repetition of something that wasn't that funny in the first place... kinda like euroipods... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Could a bit less list-oriented, but it's good enough to get some laughs from me. -Conniption 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against The book was better. Modusoperandi 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for Too long and awkward now for a strong vote. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. yee - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. Yeah, I'm seeing some repetition and its a list, but it's still funny enough.

John Cage

Score: +12

Nominate and Strong For - This is hysterical brilliance. It helps to know a little about Cage, but I think it'd be funny without that knowledge. Very well-written comedy. --Imrealized 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Silence... (Cough, cough.) ... ... ...For. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 07:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• 2+2 --Hubert Cumberdale 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIRM-A-TIVE --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, seeing as I wrote most of it. The only thing I know about John Cage is that he wrote 4'33", and that was enough to make it funny for me. --Spang 17:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and if you vote for, a keep in its VFD entry wouldn't go amiss. It won VFD. --Spang 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - nice addition to the composer pages :) --Lurgy 15:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Man, this guy WAS high on kittens...--<<>> 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Amusing, and 4' 33" is my favorite song so I must vote yes! -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I like to say 'exuberant' often, not just for effect, but as a real descriptor. This writing is clever and exuberant, and made me chuckle. Well done, I say, well done. — Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP (Witty Remarkes) 15:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I actually own a copy of Piano Falling Down Five Flights of Stairs in A Minor and it is some of his best work! Triddle 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - I've definietly heard 4'33" before. I haven't heard some of the others, but I was especially entertained by that section. --epynephrin 16:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Some good jokes (eg the extended dance remix of 4'33"), but it's quite badly written. Heaps of grammatical errors and sentences that don't make sense - including the first one of the article! -Conniption 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2 squared This really is brilliant... --Johnfn 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Amusing. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't you work in a Mortal Kombat Johnny Cage reference?--SLACK...ah ah...he'll save everyone of us! 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Because I'm awkward. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Because it zings with harmonious counterpoint.--Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against This article had a LOT of natural potential, which was completely quashed by stupid kitten huffing references that had no relevance to the complete insanity of this already bfi person --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very good, affectionate, i didn't know who the fuck he was but it still made sense and ammused - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Goa Tse

Score: +11

• Nominate. Nice riff on what you may have thought was an exhausted meme - David Gerard 17:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nein. The very word "goatse" causes me to vomit. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 17:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Did you read the actual article, Sikon, or are you just subscribing to the Do NOT click any links! philosophy?--<<>> 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. This article is very, very well done. I just can't bring myself to vote for anything goatse-related for the front page. Especially after Yesterday...--<<>> 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Also strong against. Rocky Mountain Oysters was bad enough, then sexual innuendo, can't we keep the front page SFW? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"SFW?" "So Fucking What?" (yes, I know.) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• For.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 01:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I'm too lazy to click on the article link and want to read it on the front page. Guinness2702 02:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It could use some more content. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hoyetii “Art” Emerson  08:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. So disgusting, so wrong. But I couldn't care less.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Biased but For -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 17:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Enhanced by Mhaille - me too steps out of the closet. -- Swami A. Suresh 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For with a smirking grin. --KATIE!! 13:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For want pie now --Willy on wheels! 12:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For the quotes alone are hilarious :) --Huffers 03:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Too deep for me. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For YES! good. an original take on goatse that won't make you gag. --JackMort 12:45, 10 March 2006 (GMT)
• For. A Goatse on every computer in every school by 2007. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against - In what appears to be a sadly predictable trend for me. Even though the subject manner is handled cleverly, it's still one big anal sex joke at the end of the day. — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak NEG-A-TIVE. I like this. I really do. It's smart, and I laughed. But I have to agree that the front page is starting to get too predictable in its display of crassness. I'm all for smutting it up, but too much of a good thing, and all that... maybe later. Yeah, definitely later. And no, not like that, you filthy bastards. I'm a trashcan. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No Goatse!!!--Anon32 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• OH my fucking god, that is so disturbing! FOR! --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sure --Roger The Bum Full sig!
  <a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>
  CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against:This article is funny, but for the front page..?--Claudius Prime 15:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Subtle and funny: I like it. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Jump on the bandwagon. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 19:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against. This would require an NSFWArticle for it to be featured, and it would mean some workplaces could block Uncyclopedia from their servers. --Sir Velair Wight 04:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Very well written. Ethereal 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I didn't want to like the page, but the quotes won me over. -Conniption 17:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• I haven't voted on this yet? What the hell? For. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. It's goatse. Period. Full stop. Whatever. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong for I don't believe that this hasn't been featured --Roger The BUM

MUN ⌥⌘⎋ F@H Complaints H4x0R M3! Euroipods! Norwegian Kanaaääaäaalääaaaäaaää Attack! 10:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Although I support Yeah - votes - this one is double. -- Swami A. Suresh 23:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Indeed it is... —rc (t) 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For ancient chineese secret? I just wish that the title wasn't so offensive --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Wholistic combination of the sacred and the profane --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Nice,Nice --Severian 19:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For.--Rataube 21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I don't know what a goatse is, I know it isn't very funny outside this site, and this article is funny enuogh that I don't need to know.--Witt E, 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

War on Humor

Score: +11.5

• Self-nomination and for. I may have waited too long to put this up for voting, but I still find the idea hilarious.--<<>> 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I especially like the part starting with the Jains and ending with the Teletubbies.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Heh, yes, and I thank you for your help, Some User.--<<>> 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Of Course.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. Not good enough for the front page.--Rataube 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I downloaded that picture.--Mrasdfghjkl 11:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I added the Scientologists. - David Gerard 17:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• $\sum_{k=0}^1 \left(2k+1\right)$ 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Because the above 4(For) is so damn hilarious to me (yes, I worked it out) --Olipro 21:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Two PG Tips thumbs up. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against, it could be improved. Make it Unews, and make it like "A way on humor has been instated by the UN." --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Good writing, funny, makes fun of religion... these are the reasons it smells good to me. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --71.213.200.43 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. -Conniption 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fore! I was amused, I do see potential for expansion, but I am inspired myself.--epynephrin 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For, as per the UnNews Heaven Jehovahs Wittness nomination. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. I'm amused and the idea is there, and i especially like the pro-islam picture ^^ but could be expanded perhaps User:Sqsz/sig 13:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• AgainstFor Got a nifty template out of this one... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For, even if it is biased of me. I added to it. --epynephrin 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against It had a documentary feel that wasn't funny to me per se --Severian 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very good. Proper uncyc topical satire, A+ - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Distraction

Score: +12

• Nomiforated -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• <!--for-->   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for I did, in fact, chortle.--<<>> 02:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - nice one - David Gerard 17:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Week four?—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• AgaFornst. Speaking of four (blah blah blah)... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I think... Hey guys, what's that bird over there? - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I dig it — 2nd Lt. Sir David, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP Fire! 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Is the part about the celtics true?--Rataube 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of it... I had just read an article in National Geographic the night before. So, I tried to remember as best I could. So, in conclusion, there may be one or two facts in there...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• For this is great! --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 10:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --71.213.200.43 23:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. -Conniption 13:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For, but I am almost out of for so...

talking of being out of four, or four, the Greeks did not have a word for four, well they did, but nobody cares. Anyway, it's a very weak for. Talking about four weeks... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• For loops are a quite useful construct in computer science. They allow you to... --Andrusi 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is really rather good, it snuck right up on me. More like [tangent] than [distraction] though - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For nice --Severian 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Le Corbusier

Score: +9

• God I hate this guy. Nominate - David Gerard 14:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Machine For Yes-Vote - --Some user 14:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (and I like the custom VFH tag, too - thanks David!)
• For I don't get most of it, but I can still see the humor here.--Bradaphraser 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Never heard of him, but funny nonetheless. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ask the so-called experts. The man responsible for modern architecture resembling dystopian sci-fi movies - David Gerard 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm way too lazy to click that link... could you put it on the page for us uneducated losres?--Bradaphraser 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) [Done - --Some user 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)]
• For -- Droopy 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Machines for voting. --Hobelhouse 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very funny. For those who don't know who he is, I think this line in Wikipedia sums it up: "Le Corbusier's theories were adopted by the builders of public housing in the United States. For the design of the buildings themselves, Le Corbusier said "by law, all buildings should be white" and criticized any effort at ornamentation." -- Rei 16:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. The end is a little too repetitive, a machine of repetition.--Rataube 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry but this isn't front page material.--Unissakävelijä 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. As rataube said the end's repetitive, and the rest of it is just too normal, not very twisted.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For Had Corbu lived to read this, he would have dubbed it bourgeois, and thats good enough for me! Prettiestpretty 02:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Purrrrrr Had he lived to see this, it certainly would have killed him. Me like. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nah. Been thinking about this one for some time now. ~ T. (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• There's no question, I'm For it. Wait, I do have a question... what the farth took me so long to read this bleak brilliance? Loved "openable windows". --Imrealized 09:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against -- Bloopy 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. -Conniption 12:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Right on the button --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 20:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. well written, quality, clever, but many of the jokes and touches will be lost on someone who doesn't already know about Corbusier - jack mort | cunt | talk - 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --Severian 13:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek:Voyager

Score: +9

• Nominated - David Gerard 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Acknowledged. --Andrusi 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for Man, I hated this series, but the article is funny.--Bradaphraser 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• For --Caiman 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think I'm even done writing it now. For. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• For! This is teh funnay. --Morlark MUN NS (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• For I give it a 7 out of 9! Though it sadly may be too factual, very sadly--Sir Slackerboya CUN VFH (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• For KHAAAAAAAAN! Oh, wait, wrong Trek. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. The song is awesome, but the sections after that are more snarky than funny.Tom Veil 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see what you mean and have tried to adress this problem by adding more content that has a serious tone. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Blame Spock.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• OMFGZYAIS FOR: At first glance it seemed factual and uninteresting but as soon as I actually started reading it, I came to be aware of what genius this article is. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Although, it's probably necessary to have a basic knowledge of Voyager. Otherwise it may seem factual and uninteresting. There's a whole lot of references to pop culture, historical events, etc that make it especially funny. Very subtle humor for the most part. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Hoyetii “Art” Emerson  23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Despite my attempts to destroy the competition by repeated and reckless copyediting, this article is still good.  ;-) Subtle, yes, but I really like that. We get plenty from the other side of the spectrum. ~ T. (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against - Makes me want to watch Voyager so I understand the jokes. Very well-written, though. Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP (Witty Remarkes) 12:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Absolutely hilarious. --Surreal Hamster 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Bloopy 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Too obscure for my liking, at least as far as the main page goes. -Conniption 12:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Unfunny. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Just made me go 'huh' in an unusual way --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 20:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against I'm sooooooooo tired of star trek references made in the hopes that they will in their own right be funny... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• for It's awakened my geek gene Modusoperandi 04:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against. It's very well written and very clever, but it's not runny enough for feature - jack mort | cunt | talk - 11:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Previously Featured

Bouncy Castle

Score: +16

Featured —rc (t) 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Self nomination and For. It's time to run the gauntlet --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For It had it's good moments and it's dull moments, but it definitely got a few laughs out of me, so here you go. --Johnfn 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• FOR Kafka ist mir ueber lustig. --Severian 19:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For maybe even five or six. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• for it has castles, bouncing and kafka (unknown if he was bouncing). Plus it didn't win PLS, which makes it my brother, spritually. Modusoperandi 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Das Boot 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• For I support all Kafka references. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Another good one. —rc (t) 04:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Bloopy 11:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. The first paragraph and the picture alone make this worthy. --Wyattj 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For- I like the new picture!--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This article set me giggling, and I blame YOU, HARDWICK!!!!--<<>> 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Astoundingly brilliant. These are the kind of ideas I wish I could come up with. --ENeGMA 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Brilliant. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• BoiiingFor. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hell yes.--Hobelhouse 18:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Water powered bus

Score: +13

Featured —rc (t) 04:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination and For Another excellent PLS entry. —rc (t) 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For one (of many) Poo Lit Surpise entries that made mine, by comparison, look not-good (I'm still not bitter) Modusoperandi 05:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Argh god the water powered bus is going to stab me to death. Bloopy 10:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Water powered for. - Sir Sikon [formerly known as Guest] 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• The number of hydrogen atoms in 2 molecules of water. I am such a geek. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. I lost my virginity on a water powered bus... twice... --Mindsunwound: (F@H) Suppository Sickness There 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's the future. --Hindleyite Talk 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is great. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 04:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. RC promised me sex for this vote. --Splaka 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. That article is on fire... or is it--Witt E, 05:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 05:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yeah, this is good.--<<>> 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• For! Of course. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4