Uncyclopedia:VFH/archive4

Distraction

Score: +14.5

Featured - 14.5 votes according to my count. —rc (t) 03:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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? - User:Guest/sig 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I dig it — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 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)
• For. ~ T. (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Root of All Evil

Score: +16

Featured —rc (t) 03:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• 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. ~ T. (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentFor <s>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: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Hugely strong FOR that's backed up with tanks. The source idea is good, the writing is smart and this one well deserves its place in the sun. --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)

• For, halarious!! id love to go and spend at week there.
  • Unsigned. —rc (t) 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For because of a surprisingly good implementation of random humor. It's funny, and not just stupid. --Poofers 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• For A masterpiece of humour! --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 07:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Foramusing ...05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to vote For this lovely entry on a very important place in human history.  Sir Dawg  cun | tlk | vdp  02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Age of Umpires

Score: +16

Featured —rc (t) 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nominated and Four. This is a truly funny article... if you don't agree, vote elsewhere --Mindsunwound: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 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: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 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)
• For --EvilZak 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• For --Definately for this article, it is really funny and hilarious!--Death motor 02:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Internet (video game)

Score: +16

Featured —rc (t) 03:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination and For 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)
• For. --EvilZak 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• For --Insineratehymn

Bouncy Castle

Score: +19

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)
• All in Favour (means FOR) Wow. this was a brilliantly written article, something out of british comedy. Go this person. 16:19, 01 May 2006 (UTC)
• For We are amused, but one must wonder about the plumbing system in a bouncy castle. Well done bit of Brit humor. 23:47, 01 May 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)
• For What else? --Noremakk 21:46, 1 May 2006 (PST)

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. - User:Guest/sig 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: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 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)

For this article because it does not smell Amen sista sista. I bet I am the only one who lives on Akmankakan and talks out of my butt. Akmid Hermad, 5:14, May 1, 2006.

UnNews:Last spot in heaven taken; hundreds waitlisted

Score: +13

Featured —rc (t) 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Self-nomination and for. Just testing the water. This seems like the best way to get feedback on things. And Todd's reading makes it really cool. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Boo religion jokes. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Religion jokes are bad only if they are ignorant, and I did my research. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• For, even if religion isn't as inherently funny as cancer, say - David Gerard 15:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Even though God is never available for a comment. Good stuff. --Imrealized 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I have never been so offended! Religion and comedy do not mix! — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 16:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Shame on your people for pointing out mathematical fallacies in a major religion. You're all going to Hell (as well as, apparently, millions of the faithful).--<<>> 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose so. We definately need an UnNews featured article, this is getting insane.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. If it's not obvious, I'm reading the recent UnNews stories I like the best (though it's been hard to resist the egotistical temptation to read all my own stories). :) ~ T. (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I agree with Tompkins --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 13:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Mild against. It's kinda funny, but not really funny enough to be featured --Joewithajay 14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. An UnNews feature would be good. --Spang 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• FOR A large FOR because the article is funny, Jehovah's Witnesses are funny, and anything about God is funny. Good one. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST. Unnews should have its own highlights--Rataube 13:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• DON'T FEATURE UNNEWS! User:Anidnmeno/sig 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• HELL, YEAH Das Boot 14:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Could you guys please vote based on the merits of the article, not on if it's UnNews? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. I like the waitlist idea. -Conniption 10:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Removing 'don't feature because it's UnNews' votes. And for featuring.--(~Sir)Nuke || Talk v MUN v Not An Admin v Completely Unimportant 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For. Very weak. In fact, if it was any weaker, it'd be neutral. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Whiney bitches not liking UnNews... the idea is to vote on the quality of the article, jeez --Olipro Co-Anc (Harass) 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Maozilla

Score: +12

Featured Finally. —rc (t) 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Chron suggested we nominated it again. I can't believe it wasn't featured. For. --Rataube 19:40, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, for. I must confess, this made me laugh.--Bradaphraser 20:37, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Kakun 21:43, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For --Chronarion 22:58, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• ForForFor. --KATIE!! 00:21, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For and may I say very clever too. Prettiestpretty 00:40, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For - I like his take on Tianemen Smowton 00:51, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 07:02, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For --User:Anidnmeno/sig 14:08, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Probably the highest quality article on this page. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:32, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• 32/8. User:Guest/sig 16:22, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against - (yeah, I know, this makes me a pariah here, but I just didn't find it humorous.) Insane? Check. Well-executed? Double check. But no gut-buster, this. --King In Yellow 16:50, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, erh, Against. ^_^. I quite agree with KIY. I have read this article repeatedly and just cannot appreiciate it enough to be neutral on it.--Winston 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• McFeast. This is funny in its own way. Worth featuring IMVHAIO --Dr. Pepper 21:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. I hate mosters. Ever since that damn SimCity...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. 毛主席万岁! -- Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against I find it hard not to say Delete sometimes.... --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Bloopy 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Some good satire in amongst the wackiness. -Conniption 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. But where's Capitalist Mothra? —Hinoa KUN (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. A strange idea, but a well written one --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For...a little. made me laugh, and it's a nice parody. but could perhaps be lengthened. --sqsz 13.39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against --71.213.200.153 05:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote Fish Penis

Score: +12

Featured I was going to feature Maozilla, but I didn't want there to be two Mozilla-related featured articles in a row. Maozilla will be the next feature. —rc (t) 07:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was alerted to this one when LinkTGF said on IRC, "that vote fish penis article has fucked my brain up". It does a pretty good job of the promise of the title IMO. Nominate and For - David Gerard 17:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. Mumble mumble mumble... blame thank keitei User:Tompkins/sig1 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Grumble grumble grumble... -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC
• For. Penis penis penis... --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. - User:Guest/sig 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, because campaign slogans almost never make any sense.--<<>> 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For this article, I am politically motivated (and even oddly compelled) to cast my vote. --DW ^III 09:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• For methods of mass-hypnosis. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ewww.... For I liek dirty humor Flourentina 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Penispenispenis. --KATIE!! 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. --User:Guffawing Crow/sig 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nope. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 23:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Rough in spots and flat in others, in the end, vote fish penis has not only garnered my vote but somehow made me travel in time to 1987. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against---2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Fish Penis. User:Ximm/sig 30 March 2006
• Against. Conniption 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Make it so --Captain Caputosis····hail20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• For it kept my attention for..... 2--Mindsunwound: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 16:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) minutes... Way to go!
• For.--Rataube 17:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Because I want to see the phrase "fish penis" on the front page. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Fish Penis. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• For WHAT THE FUCK? -- Kaizer the Bjorn takkun (nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• For God, it'll be awesome to go to the mainpage and see that jesusfish with its junk circled...heh --The Captain Zombiebaron MUN, ⌘, UGotM, CM, POW (shout) 13:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against!—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against It does not smell of VFH --PiOfFive 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• For - brilliantly depicts the sheer stupidity of campaign slogans, especially the American variety. --Imrealized 09:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely For - This is superb. Das Boot 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Yes, I'm awkward. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 16:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --71.213.200.153 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox

Featured --—rc (t) 06:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Someone added the VFH template to the page, but didn't make a heading. Anyway, I'm FOR it - we can make fun of anime nerds and FF fanboys at the same time! --Poofers 11:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - David Gerard 14:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Better to say, someone forgot to remove the VFH template after it was removed from VFH due to stagnation... Anyway, self-for. - User:Guest/sig 14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yes, this is still awesome.--<<>> 02:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Conniption 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Funny. Bloopy 08:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 17:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Meh, why not? --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 18:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Four heh, I didn't think the four would work with all them 's. I like the writing, about half-understand the Linuxy stuff and still found it funny. Pics, links, good formatting, what more could Oscar Wilde want in a date? -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• For That FireFox is hot! --Mindsunwound: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Although I didn't really "read" it, I did enjoy looking at the words, and that fine ass picture of firefox. (not the anime, the Clint Eastwood...) --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• I was amused. For. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. And not just because it's similar to my name. KaloFoxfire 12:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Parts of it are good, parts are not so good. It's still some of the better material.--Anon32 19:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Funny, stupid, lengthy, droll... certainly the best face of Uncyclopedia! Excuse me, I'm giddy from the fumes. --Zim_ulator (Talk - Edits Logs) (Zim_ulator and Evelyn the Modified Dog) 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Ha ha. We need more great articles like this one.--Arzikl 12:48, 15, April 2006 (UTC)
• For nice 24.173.180.1, please sign your vote next time. Thanks! —Hinoa KUN (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That old woman next door

Featured --—rc (t) 05:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Amusing. --Hobelhouse 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Doesn't make me laugh.--<<>> 02:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Lurgy 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Been there...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Just because she watching me, right now. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This article scares me. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, because that's just how I feel at the moment.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - great piece of writing, original, really uses the encyclopedia parody aspect as well. Everything you could want from an exemplary Uncyclopedia feature - David Gerard 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. (Insert reason here.)—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Wow...Bradley, you're such an ass. ;) -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I can't help it! I didn't get enough love as a child!--<<>> 18:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes you can. As Sophia tells us "To receive love, you must give love." Love The Old Woman Next Door and your life will change for the better. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 15:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• For It made me think of Grey Gables and Little Edie and all those grand old times. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I literally laughed out loud R'son-W 07:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nah. ~ T. (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Humour? Satire? Where? --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Something most can relate to... my wife fears becoming that psycho old lady some day. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For another one I should have read before now. Funny. --Imrealized 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Bloopy 08:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. -Conniption 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. - Its pretty funny--Witt E, 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hide and Go Jesus

Featured --—rc (t) 05:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Restored Featured Article Voting After Page Was Undeleted Please forgive me Yendor33 22:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nominate and For. A Jesus article that's actually novel and funny. The JesusCarton image is fantastic - David Gerard 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• For once it's not a variation of Jesus. If VFP was open, I would nominate the milk carton picture. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. I went to VFP to nominate the milk carton image myself - David Gerard 12:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Yeah, this is funny.--<<>> 18:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For- wonderfully irreverant.--Claudius Prime 18:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. So well grounded. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Wow, there is still original humour to be had from jesus! Who knew? --Spang 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against I can hardly read this with all the bolding and italics, which are non-uncyclopedic as well. --—rc (t) 08:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Formatting goodered --—rc (t) 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Formatting eyesore. --KATIE!! 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

*CON-DI-TIO-NAL-NEG-A-TIVE!!! I'll reconsider supporting it if the melodramatic formatting is CHANGED!!! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think I've fixed the formatting. I apologize for doing that wrong, but considered I've been at this for all of a week and a half (wiki in general, not just this site) I don't think I'm doing too bad. Yellow Dalek, thanks for giving a n00b the benefit of the doubt by letting me know there was something I could do to remedy things instead of just discouraging a newcomer by giving it an outright NO! vote. --Imrealized 17:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Problem solved! AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! (No prob, Im! Thanks for being a sport about it!) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• And For - I better at least encourage myself before I lose all hope (I'm not that bad, am I)... right? --Imrealized 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• I approve. But please, move the contents table. I didn't even notice it the first time I veewed this article. --Ж Kalir _{nobody knows my gender} 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. mumble... yeah, the contents table... mumble...Hah! Hide and go Jesus! -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. But first you must find my vote! Look! It's over there! You win! --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Please note that Imrealized is disillusioned (his words) and trying to delete all of his work including this article. Yendor33 10:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Yeah, I like it. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. No, for. NO! Wait a sec. Delete. No, stop. Restore. Uh... Delete. No, I've changed my mind!! Restore. Screw the drama, kids. Against. --User:Guffawing Crow/sig 12:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. You had me at the title. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• For there is just something inately funny about jesus --Alia kenobi 18:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Marcel Proust

Featured --Rc (Talk)

• Nominated for delightfully subtle hilariousness(!). --DWIII 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well I was just about to vote against this, but then I started reading further, and noticed that there was not a single period in the entire aritcle, i thought this odd and began to imagine how i would yell at you for nominated a stub with the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen, however, I noticed that there was a quote on top which made the entire article very funny indeed, so now I will vote For,   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• For Long sentence, very funny, although I lapsed into and out of consciousness about half way through when my mind started to wander. --Mr Gridenko 16:06, 4 April 2006 (PDT)
• Weak For. Oh, once again, more literature and less mathematical crap :) But remove the Style Joke template, a joke is not funny if it needs to be explained. Just add the "so called expert" template.--Rataube 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For (half vote). Remove the extraneous template and I might change it to a full vote. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against Proust deserves better than this.--Claudius Prime 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak against Funny? Yes, but hard on the eyes.--Bradaphraser 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• For Hard on the eyes? Isn't that a good thing?--Scythe33 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. I expect RC can chop it off at some arbitrary poin David Gerard 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Doug 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, but really this should be on Edward Bulwer-Lytton. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Although I admit I am largely unfamiliar with Proust's style, the quality of the parody shines through. I would like to see a little formatting, however. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 13:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes! Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, and I thought I voted for this before.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• OuiDame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• For and a half - This is what we need more of. --Imrealized 10:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For If one could have not realised that parodic genius was flowing through the author's viens at that then very moment, then one was not to have lived; not have flown across milions of miles of oceans of metaphors; not witnessed the end of the world and the extropolation; the death, demise, doom, denoenment of the very thing which we all hold so close to our, hearts, the ultimate, powerful, all-mighty gift of Sophia, Uncyclopedia, as the many unillustrious and unenobled, crass, cretinous, cheap and poor attempts to write humour and satire devolved into a sprawling mass, then plastered on the wall for all to see. (In other words, just what we need for the front page!) --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 21:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. -Conniption 12:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Against it's not very funny... except for the suck it up and eat the fucking cookie part... that was funny, but only because it said fuck, yes that's the kind of base droll humour I like, fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck, it was Willism Shaekspeare's favorite fucking word you know fuck fuck fuck... not really... it just wasn't all that funny... --Mindsunwound: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• For* Dear God this is funny...Captures Proust's pretentious tone perfectly User:ArcherMan 6:36 CDST 4.12.2006

Women's Suffrage

Featured --—rc (t) 23:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate + for. This turned out really well, I thought. Is this the first article I've nominated? I think it might be!  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I liked it enough to make a brief edit. Good job WW.  – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's tragic, really. Great use of a pun.--<<>> 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• YES! and we suffer because we give, and we give, and we give.... Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is amazing. --KATIE!! 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Invalid votes -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 15:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Incontinent user --KATIE!! 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• For what did you strike out the misfortunes of this informed pair? Let the women suffer for all I care. --Carlb 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Before this article, I wasn't aware of the problems that plague women. I now feel that much worse about being a male. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For The article has a horrible masculine normative point of view. -- Swami A. Suresh 12:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is excellent...I'm going with For (and it's especially nice to see a red link on Tara Reid, meaning she's already become pretty obsolete.) --Imrealized 11:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: A favorite joke of mine. People can be so easily misled. I believe that the intelligent should rightfully rule over the stupid... and this article showcases an excellent way to rule out the stupid ones. I support "Women's Suffrage". TD ^{Complain here} MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here) 15:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! After some debate, I laughed. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Rataube 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Though I am not a woman, I do suffer as well. And I'm fairly certain I wrote this article, though it might have been another Wild Weasel. Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ja I just got it. Call me slow, but I was expecting something different from the already present joke. Eh, good stuff anyhow. --Ж Kalir _{nobody knows my gender} 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Nigerian census finds millions of rich, desperate princes

Featured Until something is arranged over at UnNews, I'm going to treat UnNews stories the same as other articles on VFH. It's only fair. --—rc (t) 07:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• PROPOSAL: Unnews should have its own highlights

Self-nomination and for. Again, testing the water. But I don't want to see "Don't feature UnNews!" votes, because UnNews has been featured in the past, in fact just days ago one was. And as of now there is no place to feature UnNews. Plus, featuring UnNews articles will get more traffic onto UnNews, which I believe is starting to compile the strongest satire on the site. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• For! Feature UnNews! (Especially since this is Todd's last/greatest audio piece).--<<>> 03:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Approved! This is really UnNews! -- Swami A. Suresh 06:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For! Brilliant. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Hundred Million (400,000,000.00) Pieces Of Spam - David Gerard 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't that be FOR HUNDRED MILLION (400,000,000) PIECES OF SPAM (US) --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 11:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - For anyone having received a "Nigerian Prince" e-mail, this should be cathartic, to say the least. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• UnNews census finds 4 desperate princes. - User:Guest/sig 14:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! I love these emails -- I forward the "online pharmacy" spam (C1AliS, Vigara!, etc.) back to these senders, and the Nigerians to the pharmacists. Spam tennis. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 15:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I'm surprised these princes haven't hooked up with the Brazilian women who will fly out to meet me if I send them money for a plane ticket. --Imrealized 00:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• For-This is funny.--66.173.166.98 02:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Conniption 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. - • Spang • ☃ • talk • 10:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• for. --neko 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• for. Amusing, possesses verisimilitude, runny... mmmmmm yummy. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• For Humorous. Notinuse 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• For my head hurts... --Mindsunwound: (NS) Pantsu Getta! Here 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Teenager

Featured --—rc (t) 07:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and For: damned punks always ridin' their rollerboards and drivin' too fast. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Damned hooligans. For. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. nication. good. *nods* --- - jack mort | cunt | talk - 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Because if I didn't vote for my own stuff, they wouldn't have a chance in Hell.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Like the whining 'In my day...' tone of the article. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• I support this important public message. -- Sir Giant Hogweed [Pontificate] CUN 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• If I voted politically, it'd be a weak for, but I have to vote the way an article itself hits me, so I must say weak against. Sorry, Tomp, this just didn't hit me with TEH FUNNAY.--<<>> 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• for! I like it a lot, it's be a great addition to the featured article family. remember, every family needs a teenager. --ThEBaGmAn 14:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's my adopted son. --Boy Toy bitch at me 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --OsirisX 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Word-- Swami A. Suresh 08:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Sir Tripod2282 cun vfp talk Active ~ 09:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC).

• Comment: The best thing about this article: It came from VFD! User:TD 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, it seems that alot of the more recent noms have come from VFD...like... 2, interesting..   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• For--Spin 02:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Young whippersnappers!--(~Sir)Nuke || Talk v MUN v Not An Admin v Completely Unimportant 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! oil...can!... ...oil...can! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Tmopkisn. --KATIE!! 15:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against Good topic, not very funny, has potential. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Dirty mothafuckin' dozen. XGodx 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Bloopy 08:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For --71.213.200.43 15:57, 3 April 2006 (PDT)

Do NOT click any links!

Featured --—rc (t) 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• For - this is very much featured material --Kaizer_the_Bjorn [talk] MUN F@H ]] 23:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nominate - tour de force - David Gerard 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Article 4, section 3, paragraph 9 of the "Uncyclopedia User's Guide" DEMANDS that I vote for my own stuff when it get nominated.--<<>> 18:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Would I get credit for this article given the fact that I am responsible for the whole asplodure of Brad's computer? --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against because I'm a jerk.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, because I'm not a jerk. --OsirisX 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. It's good to see a truly educational article at Uncyclopedia. --Rabidwombat27 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against because I completely agree with Mandaliet. :) Oh, and it's fluff. ~ T. (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against because I have no mind of my own...I vote how Todd votes. :) -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   08:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Autofor for self-references. - User:Guest/sig 15:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Educational, but not well written. --Zyrac 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. I made some slight changes. Anyone think it's funnier this way? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. An Uncyclopedia article that's actually useful in the real world. --66.27.9.105 21:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)eggman n3
• For. Aye. --- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --KATIE!! 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Sorry, doesn't do it for me. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For because clicking is essential to human interaction, 84.230.190.148 17:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC) but am i allowed to vote?
• Against - Just not enough meat. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 14:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. veeeeeerry good, very topical, apt. I clicked a link tho and was disapointed not to be better punished, so only 9/10. --Jack Mort 17:26, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
• For because I kept fearing Goatse would come up, and then it didn't, and that means puppies didn't cry. Jlove1982 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Really humorous, I like very much R'son-W 06:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Plusgood I enjoy how far it goes if you do click links. --Kalir, Savant of Utter Foolishness! (yell at me) 16:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. One of those articles with no real meat, but is all in the way it is written, like redundancy and Alliteration. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against: Lame. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against:Lame because it doesn't even have 500 words, are people just getting lazier??--Claudius Prime 15:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I don't have to give a reason because I'm an American, goddamnit! -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For Very funny, the length of an article(or lack thereof)shouldn't matter if it's funny. Gamiac 19:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Ooops! I clicked the edit link.... Flourentina 00:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For people who are just too curious. User:Ximm/sig 30 march 2006
• For. Now every time I click a link, I feel really naughty. -- Bloopy 08:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• For because I just clicked every link twice. Imrealized 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. Sorry Brad, good idea, good execution, it's just not Main Page stuff. To be honest, this isn't even your best work.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• For. Pretty Original. --Kafeithekeaton 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Captain Obvious

Featured on the front page where the highlighted articles go. --—rc (t) 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination and for, this article has been nominated. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 04:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• I am voting for this article by using the bolded word for in the sentence. Twice, actually. - User:Guest/sig 11:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - This was an article. And it was funny. Thereby making it a funny article. --Imrealized 19:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This article was about a guy whose name was Captain Obvious. Its style reminded me of the article called Redundancy, which was really, really redundant. Swordmaster 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• My vote in this situation is 'for, which implies that I am voting for this article to be featured on the main page. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 23:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• For In other words, not against. User:So So 29 March 2006
• For. Yeah.--<<>> 03:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, I would like this article to be featured. --Spang 11:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• “For. I think this article is funny because of its abundant humor.”

  ~ Iritscen 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) on the article on Captain Obvious

• For - Towards the middle, I was thinking "we're about to crash," but the plane righted itself and finished strong. Could use some polish, but generally well done and firmly dedicated to its lame central theme. Even the Kanye West quote was tolerable. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is a vote for Captain Obvious becoming a featured article. The caster of this vote wants it on the front page. -Ximm
• For - Because I like wrote the first version of it. Appreciate the edits made since then. Once again for those not paying attention, I'm voting for. - Picklefork -- Unsigned in vote. --Splaka 07:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Uh sorry...yeah I don't know what I'm doing. I don't think I was even logged in at the time. Is this better? Picklefork 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. As in I support the article Captain Obvious for nomination for VFH. KaloFoxfire 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Great article and because I added both pictures. :) Lancelot 12:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Conniption 13:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Nabokov

Featured --—rc (t) 05:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination and strongest possible for. Ok, it's short, and if you didn't read lolita don't bother with this one. But if you did, OMG! I almost cried. Billiant, brilliant! Best written-in-the-style-of-the-title article ever!!!!--Rataube 07:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Half a for. Needs just a little more cowbell. And a pic. Possibly something anime. (Yeah, I've been tweaking 4chan again.) - David Gerard 09:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  Full for. That picture had me reaching for my sporks - David Gerard 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Mild Against.--Winston 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• YES! OH YES!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. --Gamiac 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For I added a picture (not especially creative, but I like it) but it still needs a caption. Somebody with a copy of Lolita on hand could probably find something pretty easily. --Spin 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• For?—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• "It makes me feel like a moth attracted to the light; I know not why, just that I must."- Nabokovpretty, FOR Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 16:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, please God yes. It was a scintillating tingle traversing from my palette to beyond
  • Unsigned. --—rc (t) 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ehhh, For. Why not.  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. If it can make me laugh when I don't even get it, it's worthy.--<<>> 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 19:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, by jove! -- Major Major 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Brilliant!--67.172.96.154 05:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bah, only losers sign in when they vote. -- Rabidwombat27 18:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk)
• For--Squelchtoad
• For--2nd Lt. Claudius Prime 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. LMSO. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 16:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear

Featured --—rc (t) 06:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Selfnomification - Not political or religious. Just our furry, stinky friend, the bear. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 12:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is by far the most beautiful article I have read in a long time. --KATIE!! 13:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG-AF-FIR-MA-TIVE!!! God DAMN, WW, give me lessons! This is a gem! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Yea - You must have a team of comedy writers living in your cranium; either that or you're British. Thanks for more laughs. --Imrealized 17:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. This is the funniest thing I've seen on here in... well, for a really long time. You gotta love the dialect between the Bear and the Elk.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against, too British. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• for messa likes it! got something for everyone--ThEBaGmAn 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Tour de force (that means "it takes a good idea and does everything that can be done with it really well") - David Gerard 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Much Applause! For!. Good job... thumbs up... Pip-pip, cheerio and all that rot... TD ^{Complain here} MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here) 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: I never would have thought that I'd get that many chuckles reading about bears; kudos. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For- I give this article a C+ for Humor, but an A for effort.--Claudius Prime 19:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. I'm with Claudius Prime. It's got enough effort to get a vote, and not unfunny.--<<>> 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For! I like it, I do. --Spang 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. very funny, well written (mostly). -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Hillarious --Yendor33 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This is exactly what the front page needs. --UtarEmpire 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*For. Hehehe, nice.

Vote void, no sig. --SimulacrumCaputosisTheGreat*moan* F@H MUN CM NS 01:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• FOR, because it's cute (and has a dirty pic!) Flourentina 00:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, for, a thousand times for. This asses my kick, or something.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. A good attempt at a tough subject. A bit dirty, but that's fine too. (Who am I to call him on that?) --User:Guffawing Crow/sig 21:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Murphy's law application for antigravitatory cats

Featured I started changing the featured article template before Keitei voted, so the last one counted was Materialist's. --—rc (t) 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• How is it possible that we missed that impressive piece of rational delirium? --Zig 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It tried and failed at VFH in Nov `05, I think. ~ T. (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Vote for this article today! --Ж Kalir _{nobody knows my gender} 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Vote for funny and creative! --Soma 11:19 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I tried this with my cat, and it didn't work. But both made me laugh. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Against. It starts off good, but after that first section it gets real repetitive and such.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This is worthy.--<<>> 18:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• For This I enjoyed Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 22:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong for, Antigravity Cats are the way of the future. --OsirisX 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Funny, although not as good as Douglas Adam's improbability propulsed spaceship.--Rataube 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Unoriginal humour. The "Laser_kittens" joke has been around for years. VFH should be for outstanding original contributions. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• 1/4 for - it's an old joke, but it's a good expansion of it - David Gerard 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• FºR ∆nd comment what the hell happened to the VFH page? The edit links are phyukked up --Roger The Bum Full sig!
  <a href="http://rdoger6424.jaywebdesigns.com/recipient.php">psychotomimetic</a>
  CLICK HERE!!!!!!!! 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. A decent article, but the front page should feature originality. ~ T. (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - we need more physics on the front page. - User:Guest/sig 07:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For And it really works! ... R'son-W 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For If Schroedinger had known antigravitory cats it would clearly has changed the course of quantum physics. Besides, the formation on the pixels on the screen send optical signals to my brain in which electrical processes induced chemical signals to mu muscles to overcome the tense friction in my jaws. Hence I giggled. -- Swami A. Suresh 17:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Quality programming for all ages. --Electrostatic 06:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

for http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Laser_kittens

• Strong For - this is genius...definitely belongs on the front page. --Imrealized 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for pssible cleanup required before it hits the glare of the front page? --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For! For! For! - Heck, the image alone is enough to make the front page! -- Charles "KaRoLuS" Tindall 12:44, 24 March 2006 (EST)
• Blase For - Excellent image, very funny, needs to be a little cleaned up. -- Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 15:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Hilarious --Materialist 05:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against --KATIE!! 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church

Featured --—rc (t) 06:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• For. I saw these guys picketing a presbyterian church (god hates fag Presbyterian churches!) and a highschool graduation (god hates fag highschool graduates!)it was disturbing yet strangely hilarious, especially when we started picketing them. This is a great article.
• Like Hurricane Katrina, sometimes the trooth is teh funneh. This is one of those cases. Fred Phelps is like a walking Uncyclopedia in and of himself, but without the sense of humor. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Wow. Good job adding the Wikipedia tag. I'd never heard of these people, thankfully. They must be mocked...--<<>> 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, IF World's Greatest Asshole Comeptition gets written. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Phor but I think his name is speld Phred Felpps. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. XD! --OsirisX 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak (1/2 vote) Against. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh hell ja! I hate this prick... slander away! --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Aye! Arrr, good article. --DeathByPie 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• HISSSS A parody of a parody. How clever(Yawn). This article is like making love to a Shrimp Boat Captain; it leaves one cold and clammy. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Made me giggle, in a good way Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, I know this isn't a popularity contest, but W.W. is a cool dude.--Claudius Prime 17:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Just can't bring myself to do it.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• For I can --Willy on wheels! 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. As Ozzy said: "I've never seen anything so bizarre in my life, you know?" --Dr. Pepper 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For Could use some work, but it's conceptually very good. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 16:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - Yes, I'm voting for my own article. It makes me laugh, anyway. —Cornet Sir Wilde Weas'l KUN VFH FP 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• FOR FOR FOR - you're the boss!
  • Unsigned. --—rc (t) 03:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Because the man deserves to be lolled at, mostly. Crab

• For I enjoyed this article, especially the captions for the pictures. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - I had no idea these people existed until I saw this, so I learned and I laughed. Then I cried because these people exist. --Imrealized 11:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:Osama bin Laden awarded star on the Walk of Fame

Featured And I can cite a precedent if necessary. :) --—rc (t) 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and for - David Gerard 07:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I am for awarding people with stars!  – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   07:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - High-quality writing and on-target satire. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Two thumbs up, could become the next Ed Wood.--<<>> 17:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• For  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For the article, not Bin Laden (and why can't Bush find him?) Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For what reason would Bush want to find him? Sadly, his still being out there is a handy excuse for attacks on fundamental US rights, such as the so-called "PATRIOT act". --Carlb 14:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Sure. I appreciate the votes, internet friends. --—rc (t) 03:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See below --—rc (t) 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Me gusta muchisimo. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Kubrik, Kirosawa, Bergman and Passolini would approve.--Rataube 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: I just wish that I could attend the ceremonies. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• For: Todd's dramtic reading of it for UnNews audio sealed the deal. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Todd has the perfect "News Caster" voice.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks. Too bad it isn't a great paying job, or I might've stuck with it. :) For. ~ T. (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Ah-ha-ha. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I struck out my first vote so that I could vote for the post-Todd Lyons broadcast version instead. Awesome. --—rc (t) 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Home Haggis Maker

Featured --KATIE!! 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate. I was just waiting for the formatting to be clearer. This is, um, beautiful - David Gerard 11:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Proper funny, and the infomercial style is genius Jack Mort 12:11, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
• For. --KATIE!! 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yep.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 15:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Good subject choice AND nice execution. Well done!--<<>> 17:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'd deffinatly buy this for $525.85! --OsirisX 22:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - quite a different style from most articles. Funny too, which is always a bonus. And contains Haggis. Whats not to love? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 11:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Definitely. ~ T. (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. This is easily the worst piece of dreck I've ever seen on Uncyclopedia. It ought to be deleted, not featured. Oh, and uh, sorry.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• For, but I borkened the last part of it when I tried my hand at it. Swordmaster 19:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Afterall, who doesn't love sheep stomachs stuffed with entrails. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, I'll vote for my entrail-filled tripe. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• For "Haggis...its what's for dinner" Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Spot-on informerical parody. As good as black pudding. — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 12:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Ron Popeil! Jlove1982 21:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak For A bit repetitive, but I get the jokes. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme For - Awesome x 5. User:Das Boot 15th March '06 1609hrs
• For - One of the funny things is that if Ron Popeil saw this, he'd probably steal your idea. --Imrealized 11:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oh my god.... that's horrible! For. --POJoe!TALKCONTRIBSF@H 15:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• This is wrong. Utterly, horribly, disturbingly wrong, wrong, WRONG. For, For, For. --CaptainSpam MUN PUTPBAA 04:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Humility

Featured --—rc (t) 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate. Some user does it again - David Gerard 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Oh yeah. This is awesome.--<<>> 20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For.....another excellent, if delightfully bitter, article from Some User. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 20:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For I actually read an article (completely) that I didn't write. Because that almost never happens, I have to vote for it. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• For - Bitter? Who, me?  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Very well Written and Witty --Draconas 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Only because this will promote the far superior Self-aggrandizement article. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   06:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For as so much humility should be rewarded (even if it defeats its original purpose). --Zig 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. Surprisingly, this is good. - User:Guest/sig 11:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• For--Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk) 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. I guess it's not that great, well depends what you're into...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• For Of course I've never been burdened by it, but I have friends who are. Dame GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 13:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• For. ~ T. (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Writer's Block (renomination)

Featured --—rc (t) 06:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• As Keitei suggested, renominating and for. - User:Guest/sig 09:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hell yes - David Gerard 13:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• I already voted, but seeing as how I haven't voted here, HELL YES. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• for --User:Keithhackworth/sig2
• I still don't count but regardless I am still for. It took me a minute to figure out why someone had crossed out a lot of the article. I guess I'm just kinda stupid. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 20:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Love the article, hate the affliction. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've already voted for this, so I won't again.--Bradaphraser 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• for. Doug 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why are you making me vote for this again? DAMN YOU ALL!!!—Mandaliet 04:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. I know this is gonna come back and kick me in the ass later on, but whatever.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Because it's amusing. Nah that wont do. Becuz itz gud! --OsirisX 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against Sorry, I'm still against, but I do think it's pretty good. --—rc (t) 06:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, for providing a brilliant insight into the juvenile and ridiculously insecure minds of unyclopedia editors :D --Poofers 08:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Fore! no, too overdone and unoriginal. I need a better pun... Ah screw it For. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Interesting in spots, but I cannot imagine seeing the crossed out lines and dialogue as a front page article. --Winston 04:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - Me like it very much. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Too many crossed out lines to make this funny. -Deathz0r 23:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This was much funnier without the crossing-out. If someone lets me cross them out, then this should definately (*1000) be featured. Sir Carlos the Mean CUN VFP CS CM CUNT (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I didn't do them, but two people have complained so I'm removing the cross-outs. We can always put them back. --Spencer (yiff) Cheer up! Hitler's still dead. 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against Leaves a bad taste in my mouth - Nonymous 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against. EmoElmo 15:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• For.--Dac Vin (Down with colorful sigs!) 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Especially like the last bit. Now I just sound like a retard...ah well T.W. North 18:52, 23 February 2006 (EST)
• voted for: VFH; reason: really funny article about writers' block, which I had read. --Gamiac 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. *insert generic writer's block comment* --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|CM|+S 05:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Against. --KATIE!! 05:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be Stupid

Featured --—rc (t) 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate. Don't. Just don't. - David Gerard 07:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. Too short, but definitely a must read for newcomers. :) - User:Guest/sig 15:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Heh, words for the wise. I mean stupid.<<>>17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - hell, this should be Policy. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• I won't. --KATIE!! 17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, because I believe this is the article I made the chart for. --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. I gave up writing a good article, and just decided to start throwing out insults instead.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It worked! Just like trying to get some finding your soulmate, it only seems to work after you've stopped trolling the bars actively looking. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Against. I don't see anything funny in there. But maybe I'm stupid, hence I feel offended :-P. --Zig 12:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• For It's funny enough to me, though maybe it could be less conversational, and there's the oversized pictures again! --Some user 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For It's a good point. Ghelae 08:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - How to Not Be Stupid for Dummies? 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp 11:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. It's too short, but it's quite funny at the same time. -Deathz0r 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - Not enough articles yell at people--Claudius Prime 17:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against.--Winston 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. EmoElmo 15:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• For I followed each step carefully - let's hope it works. --T.W. North 19:24, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)
  • LOL - David Gerard 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hehe, I like it. For. --Gamiac 23:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against Eh. --—rc (t) 23:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Very Creative.--User:Jtaylor1/sig 02:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sexual innuendo

Featured finally... --—rc (t) 05:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominated. Wins on execution and an actual LOL - David Gerard 09:53, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 10:52, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For - Nonymous 11:47, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For, and not just because I helped write it! I think that the idea was gold to begin with, and can only get better with more filthy bastards working on it! --King In Yellow 14:38, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For insertion right upfront --195.92.40.49 16:48, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For worthy of highlight from the opening.--Bradaphraser 20:17, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has become less subtle over time, and Dawg and co have convinced me that it's now too crass for the front page. A reluctant against.--Bradaphraser 23:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• It gives me the heeblie jeeblies... but it's not good enough for feature. --KATIE!! 23:14, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • The heeblie jeeblies have won out. --KATIE!! 20:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• For Thats it...just a little more, please? Aw c'mon, just a little more... Prettiestpretty 23:47, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Needs some pictures... but Weak For anyway.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:58, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think we all know that it really shouldn't be featured. So i change to a EXTREMELY SUPER-STRONG AGAISNT!!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• For I don't know if it even really needs pictures. It's one of the most brilliant things I've read on Uncyclopedia! --207.112.86.30 00:05, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• F O R ~ Kakun 02:16, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Fornication --EvilZak 03:28, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Es muy bueno. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 06:52, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I feel like voting for something. ¬¬Mandaliet 09:22, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against if only because I have issues with putting adult content on the front page. Also don't find it as funny as the other nominations. - Guest 17:35, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For. I think this should have grasped a feature by now. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 20:55, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against putting so much blatant adult content on the home page. If you're going to do it, be subtle. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:42, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against Well-written, but let's face it...I knew exactly what the article would be like before I even opened it. I'd rather be surprised. --—rc (t) 05:20, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. As Guest and Dawg suggested, I think it's best to keep the front page free of this brand of humour. Also, though I can see that work was put into crafting it, it didn't actually make me laugh. -- T. (talk) 11:28, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For i dont care if i wasnt suprised its funny and better 2 offended people now then let them join and edited and then feel the wiki is for them and 2 have 2 listen 2 them complain down the line when they find the article.--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 09:52, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Comments Censored("2 hot for VFH")--Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 14:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Orgasmically For No really, it was that good to me --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 23:13, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• Against. Although it was amusing, it was predictable and not too terribly funny. -- EpicFantasyStory 20:37, 18 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• I did it For the nookie! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 15:24, 19 Jan 2006 (UTC)
• For Very funny, damn the etiquette of the front page. Claudius Prime 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Against. I don't really find this funny or clever. --Zyrac 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong For Now this is funny. Shiakarn 00:40, 27Jan 2006, GMT
• Against. Too racy. --71.32.75.47 07:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Foruck. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, yes! --Andrusi 18:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• For --S P I N N I E 03:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against putting adult content on the front page. --Xiao Li 09:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Current vote count stands at -- For: 21; Against: 10 (if I counted correctly.) If nothing else, this nomination has been good for getting the voters out, eh? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• For --User:waynejkruse10 Cant be bothered to log in, This one made me laugh, the quote is v.good
• For This is fantastic. Ok, it's obvious, but it's still funny. Not all featured articles can be as subtle and clever as euroipods. Sir Carlos the Mean CUN VFP CS CM CUNT (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Anal Sex - Dammit, I tried to be subtle. (for) --Willy on wheels! 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Made me laugh, but still Against as per Guest --Logixoul 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Foreplay "Against putting adult material on the front page"? That's the beauty of sexual innuendo - if you shouldn't understand it, you don't! Crab

Making up Cthulhu quotes

Featured ~ T. (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomination. Although I didn't read much Lovecraft and I miss many of the references, I find this specially hilarious. Besides, if u vote against your soul shall be huffed. If u vote FOR your soul shall be huffed. If you don't vote at all, guess what? Yes, your soul shall be huffed--Rataube 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• For Gotta love the squid-faced wonder, what with me being a minion and all.--<<>> 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• What is this godforsaken crap? It's a cult, huh? -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   08:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Arrrrrr. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. \m/ --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - I guess from now on I'm just going to vote for my own stuff as a matter of policy.  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional For - Unless there's another Cthulhu article that out-does this one. 2nd lt. sir wild weasel kun vfh fp 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• For! --68.94.70.89 16:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Loved it, though I've never read Lovecraft. Shame on me! -Deathz0r 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• For, even if he is my bastard prick half-brother. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• For - Loved the Andrew Dice Clay quote--Claudius Prime 17:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• For great justice. --DeathByPie 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• For be touched by His slimy appendage -- CoyoteJoe 20:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Against: I love Cthulhu like a brother--I mean, heck, he's my illegitimate son's godfather--but I absolutely despise "making up quotes" pages. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Did u read it? This particular one does deserve the honor.--Rataube 13:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• For. Okay, I don't get most of it. But I laughed, so I vote. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. I saw, I read, I laughed. -- 21 February 2006

And forgot to sign. ~ T. (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That was an anonIP - 62.240.165.30, posted at 21:30. Not that I'm keeping track or anything. --Some user 05:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal. :) The first line of the page lists the policy on unsigned and undated votes. ~ T. (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• For. You don't even have to read the whole thing to love it! - Judgement 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Cthulhu. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OCD

Featured! (Again!) ~ T. (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Self nomination ~ This is mostly to prove to Mhaille that I'm still trying to write, despite my schedule. I like it, but what do I know? Feel free to add/edit. --T. (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. The "examples of order" section is brilliant.--Zyrac 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• FOR--Rataube 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• For I had to laugh, it's true.--Bradaphraser 21:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. Not because of my image that was just added (I still don't think it's that good), but simply because it's a great article. Three w00ts for Todd Lyons! --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|CM|+S 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• For Considerable laughter, good show. .--Claudius Prime 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• For -- Droopy 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't forget to scrub behind your ears at least five times an hour. I mean it. --Algorithm (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• For. I'm glad people are enjoying this and not being offended. Seems that a lot of us actually have this to a much lesser degree (myself included) so it seemed ripe for picking. :) --T. (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• For --Some user 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For Spotting yet another oxymoron --CoyoteJoe 13 February 2006 22:41 (UTC)
• Purrrr Charming. Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Haven't I voted for this yet? Better late than never I guess. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. "Double featuring" this month.^_^--Winston 15:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Forgot you were here little fella.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Four. How about Adrian Monk? Just so you know: --TimeStopper 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)--TimeStopper 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Torture

Featured --—rc (t) 04:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nominated - David Gerard 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oh definitely. Uncyc needs more I'm-gonna-go-to-hell-when-I-die humor. --KATIE!! 08:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• A shamelessful self-for. Oh god I feel so dirty. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 08:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For--Claudius Prime 10:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. What a crop. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• For.--Bradaphraser 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. That gives me ideas... --—Hinoa KUN (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• For --Some user 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak for. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah Logixoul 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Who wouldn't be for Torture? Statistics show that it's not an effective form of information gathering but it IS however very entertaining. Especially when it's outsourced. -- – Mahroww a.k.a. Timothy Roe Sanière   00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Purr. But good is torture if they can't be driven out of their minds by Jerry Lewis? Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• For. Not that i believe it's right or anything...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)