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.
Any and all violators of policy will be
soaked in gasoline and set on fire.
Self-nomination regulation: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) no longer require a pee review. Pee Review is still highly recommended for newer users. Do not clog up VFH with poor quality self-nominated articles... or else.
VFH is not a discussion page. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Spıke¬ 14:29 31-Oct-14 14:29, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
For Votes: 6
Nom & For. This PLS medalist was nominated by Romartus but it was in userspace (according to the PLS Rewrite rules) and some voters either voted for the mainspace version (as instructed) (now deleted at VFD) or objected to the confusion. Spıke¬ 14:29 31-Oct-14
For. Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:37, October 31, 2014 (UTC)
Comment As this is somewhat similar to Muslim Sisterhood, maybe we should postpone this? I think the 3rd of January (The Prophet's birthday) seems (in)appropriate. --Nikau (talk) 04:02, November 26, 2014 (UTC)
Voter cast this vote in an evening in which his other contributions were to create a stub and nominate it for honors (both deleted). I posted a request on his talk page that he explain his vote, which has now timed out. Spıke¬ 10:00 29-Oct-14
Needs more content; would fit better in HowTo:. Spıke¬ 13:14 10-Oct-14
Against: I liked the direction it took, but seems to be lacking something... maybe a sensationalist approach? TheCan 01:34, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I meant moreso. Once I saw it begin on the evils of food, I expected the kind of thing you see trying to stir up paranoiacs: I'd say the muted, clean-cut style needs some more jagged writing. TheCan (talk) 19:58, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
I expect that if I did that I would incur the disapproval of a different editor. I'm between Scylla and Charybdis here. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs•22:0211 Nov2014
Good point. Well, I've re-read it and although I'm not against it, it needs a little something more, but I'm not sure what... I'll abstain for now. Maybe when I finish Wallace and Gromit I'll know what it is that itches me (and I'm not talking about my rash). TheCan (talk) 05:09, November 12, 2014 (UTC)
Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:05, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
For Votes: 5
Half-self-nom and for A debate on a very controversial topic, that has aroused recently. I worked on it with another person off-site, who, if he makes an account on Uncyclopedia, will probably be called GV. Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 11:05, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
This is actually pretty good. I like the concept of taking the word 'antibiotic' and interpreting it as referring to artificially intelligent beings who are anti-life. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs•02:3027 Sep2014
If the external links are such a problem, I don't think the article would suffer too much if they were removed. I didn't click on a single one and I still enjoyed it. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs•02:3027 Sep2014
This refers to my complaint to author and his vulgar response that I had a duty to understand what he was getting at. Indeed, an unexplained bulleted list of seven numbers, which do nothing unless you click on them, adds no humor to the page, and suggests that the reader has a comparable duty to get himself sufficiently informed to appreciate the page. In fact, the author ought to bring the humor to the reader. By the way, I have read the entire Intro again and it is still not clear that an alternate voice is the basis of the "humor." Spıke¬ 02:44 27-Sep-14
Well, since you seem to be one of the newer additions to the site in relative terms, people have been using links like that in select articles for a long time: see Gay Pubs. You remain the only one on either site to ever find it necessary to tell me (very rudely I might add) how unfunny my work was on my talk page. If you feel the need to pointedly tell established members "I don't like this" and call it an "opinion essay" (what?) without constructive criticism, then you probably need to look at yourself good and close. Which was quite a disappointment because I remember you being a promising new writer from the same way back when Gay Pubs came from. --Nikau (talk) 07:29, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
I am not against references, even when they are simply external links. In my opinion, the writer is not asking the reader to get informed before reading his article, but rather saying: "Here is my joke! Now, if you want to know more on the topic, here is a link that can help you." Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:45, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
What's with the jibes against Jews? They have nothing to do with the content of the article. The first two illustrations and the closing tag seem totally out of place and are only funny if you happen to hate Jews. And just in case you missed them there's a reference to swastikas thrown into the caption on the punch card, to call your attention to it. Snarglefoop (talk) 16:36, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
Now hold on just one cotton-picking minute. As per Snarglefoop above, what's with the anti-Semitic stuff? Something smells mighty funny here. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs•16:3810 Oct2014
Comment. The joke is that the antibiotic stuff is a parody of antisemitism. the whole thing is poking fun at the stupidity of Antisemitism. You're supposed to think of computers starting a stupid and pointless movement against humans, like the stupid and pointless movement against jews. Nikau (talk) 11:31, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
To quote the article itself: Fortunately, because it was simple like most bigots, ENIAC had to be totally rewired to shout an individual epithet. It's a parody, and it even links to a definition of antisemitism to explain that. --Nikau (talk) 11:42, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
I believe you about the intent but it just doesn't work for me. The effect is too similar to too many other "humor" articles which have random bits of antisemitism thrown in to spice them up or something. Snarglefoop (talk) 14:16, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Comment. It's a sensitive subject, but I don't see racism there. The swastika reference makes it clear the author wants to parody the nazist régime and the last sentence (now changed) - "At least, they are not Jews, I guess" - was too obviously racist to actually be racist. What I am saying is very subjective, however. Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 12:38, October 11, 2014 (UTC)
Shrug. I'll rewrite out the jokes about antisemitism it if it goes QFA. --Nikau (talk) 05:26, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Nikau's explanation was sufficient to induce me to reinstate my vote. Thanks. -–Llwy-ar-lawr•talk•contribs•19:2611 Oct2014
Comment. It's a bit too racist for my taste Alienonolympus (talk) 05:24, November 9, 2014 (UTC)