Uncyclopedia talk:VFH/archive1

Questions

What's going on here? Is this just for pages that we want added to the highlights? Or do we need to vote for current highlights to prevent them from getting axed? Or shall we just vote randomly? --Dr. Johnston 01:26, 15 Mar 2005 (EST)

Can you nominate your own articles? I'm guessing no, but I thought I'd ask. --Algorithm 05:59, 17 Mar 2005 (EST)

Read the instructions. You know, the stuff at the top of the page? --Zyrac 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did I put my glasses? Please respond immediately as I have urgent need of retinae.

Nominated Article Not Showing up?

I nominated my own article, because my ego is the size of a Buick, but it hasn't showed up after a couple of days. I used the VFH with the squiggly brackets around it to do the nomination. Is it just a matter of time before it shows up on the vote list, or is something wrong? Or am I missing something? Is there a conspiracy afoot? I think so. --Detective Arno Dick 03:07, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You have to add it to the list yourself. 03:29, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just add the title of your article in alphabetical order, like so: ==Title==, and sign below it to vote for it. It's not automated. --—rc (t) 03:44, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a bunch. (Now I officially feel stupid) --Detective Arno Dick 03:54, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem odd that someone who can barely work Uncyclopedia is voting for their own article? --Joachim22 06:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Eh, it doesn't take coding skills to write a good article. I haven't read the one in question, though, so I'll reserve judgment. --—rc (t) 06:15, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

All featured articles have been tagged

Template:ArticleFH with that--Insertwackynamehere CUN 03:20, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This has been replaced by {{FA|date=...|revision=...}}, a similar template which links to the revision as-featured. --Carlb 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Highlights

How long until we can boot entries that only get one vote? Because, erm, some of these pages are never going to get more than one. --Rcmurphy 22:13, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Let's just give it a month or something. Entries last voted on in March can be axed, I guess. --stillwaters/Talk 10:51, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT)

What about articles that have two votes, but haven't had votes for almost two months? At what point to we give up on those? Do we? If not, I can see the VFH getting unwieldy. Yesterday, there were 50 nominated articles. It's down to 45 now, but that's a lot, still. --RadicalX 11:00, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

I think we maybe need to change the highlighted article more often this would help to keep the numbers down at least.--Elvis 10:30, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

Does anyone object to axing two-vote entries that are more than two months old? That would cut down on the bulk considerably. Even thirty entries, about half of what we have now, would give us several months of front-page highlighting. I see no reason to hang on to entries that haven't gotten a vote in sixty days or more. --Rcmurphy 23:30, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Yer go on then --Elvis 09:11, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Be it so! --Rcmurphy 16:30, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hm. That didn't clear it up as much as I'd hoped. --Rcmurphy 16:42, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

How about putting the ones that have a very low vote/time ratio on a “second-string” list? Sometimes the VFH is a good way to discover old articles that just need a little attention. --KP CUN 04:29, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Note: this system is long deprecated. --—rc (t) 04:58, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical

Blah, I don't like it alphabetized, because I'm too lazy to look through the history to see what's new instead of having it conveniently at the top. Mindspillage 09:06, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

Well, they weren't conveniently at the top. People were adding them willy-nilly throughout the list. Some at the top, some at the bottom, and some just arbitrarily in the middle. At least now there's some kind of order to it...But I doubt it will stay alphabetized. --RadicalX 09:29, 13 May 2005 (EDT)

Just compare the current version of the VFH with the last version of the VFH you saw and all the new articles will be in red. I think, at least, I'm new to this so there could be some giant hole in my theory that fucks it over completely. --Spooner 13:23, 15 May 2005 (EDT)

Feel free to remove my Ketchup article... I've had one featured, which needs moved BTW, and have two more on the list...though no one seems to be voting for Coconuts--slack 15:27, 21 May 2005 (EDT)

What's the number of votes you guys are calling the cutoff to be featurized?--slack 15:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In theory every day the article with the ost votes gets selected, in theory.--Elvis 08:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really think the alphabetical listing is a pretty poor way of doing things; it creates a rather strong bias for articles early in the alphabet and it makes it a real bitch to add new articles that are later in the alphabet (yes, I know there are tricks, but it's still a bitch). My main complaint is the bias really; a chronological ordering would make it easy to see what's new, and also make it easy to see what nobody cares about. It works well for VFP. --Sir gwax (talk) 13:32, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I second those sentiments. --Isra1337 13:36, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Today's" Featured Article?

Considering that featured articles remain on the front page for more than a day, wouldn't it make more sense to just leave it on for a week and call it "This Week's Featured Article?" It's a minor issue, but I think it might look better than seeing Today's Featured Article stay on the front page for, relatively speaking, too long. --DrAwesome 17:31, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --47Monkey MUN HMRFRA SFC | Talk 21:39, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Fnuck no. Since when did anything on Uncyclopedia make sense? --Savethemooses 17:16, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think the way we've got it is good. Besides, a week for a featured article is way too long - it would take us almost a year just to get through the current buildup on VFH. --Rcmurphy KUN 17:29, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but hasn't the current featured article almost been up for a week? I mean, if there are plans to start updating it every day, that's one thing, but my suggestion was just based on the fact that featured articles seem to stay up that long anyway. --DrAwesome 20:10, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Nope, War on Terra was put on the front page on 8 August. I've been trying to limit an article's run to three days - though it doesn't always work that way - so I'll probably change it to something new a little later today. --Rcmurphy KUN 20:30, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hey RC, remember those 3 featured articles you promised me? *wink* --Savethemooses 21:43, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. I stand corrected, sorry. --DrAwesome 23:33, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I added VFH templates to all the nominees without them

enjoy :P--Insertwackynamehere CUN 01:09, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages?

Can we nominate talk pages? If so, I nominate Talk:Tourette's Syndrome --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:49, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Weeding

There are 100 nominated entries. I call ridiculous. --Katie loves you! 16:24, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

See Uncyclopedia_talk:VFH#Deleting_Highlights below, if it needs doing go for it (but make it clear in you edit summary what you are doing and why)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 16:36, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Determining what actually gets featured in what order

Euroipods only had a few aye votes, while others had much more aye votes. It sounds to me like it was just featured based on admin preference rather than the actual vote tally. I say that whatever has the highest score gets featured first, in that priority order. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 21:42, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Look, Euroipods was an aberration, okay. Seriously, please get over it. Votes usually do determine what gets featured (within some other guidelines). --—rc (t) 23:47, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure it never happens again. I still don't know why it was featured, or even why it wasn't QVFD'd. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 11:43, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We need to show more than a paragraph on the front page

Given how nobody other than me every bothers to purge the current events, and Did You Know is quite long, while the anniversaries are quite short, the main page looks awfully lopsided. I bet if we showed two paragraphs it would look more even. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 21:42, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That was why I started putting smaller excerpts on the front page - to get people to shorten the other sections consistently. They're not always consistent anyway - sometimes Anniversaries is long, sometimes I have to put up a longer excerpt depending on the format of the article - but I think it's been working somewhat. --—rc (t) 23:50, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

And some featured articles aren't more than two paragraphs anyway. --—rc (t) 23:50, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Always in a limbo?

I'm guessing that failed article nominations are never really taken care of and are left with their VFH tags. I have a proposal for a possible failed VFH template:

Wannabe Featured Article This article failed in its attempt to become a featured article. Instead of moping, why don't you try to fix it? You can vote for better articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.

This is only a proposal, of course, so please feel free to change the message. If you can't tell, the picture in the bubble is a picture of fries (a joke on the Mr. Potatohead that comes with the featured article template). -JBob 00:07, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My only qualm is that there are articles out there that are good, but just aren't featured page-type material. It seems sort of like insult to injury to the page's author if someone else nominates the page, it doesn't make the count and then the article gets stuck with a tag whose text encourages random peolpe to rewrite it. Maybe put in a Susan Lucie joke, or something that makes fun of the disingenuous phrase "it's an honor just to be nominated." Or maybe some play on "many are called, few are chosen." My 2 cents. --Isra1337 01:24, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Quazi-Featured Article This article was nominated to become a featured article; however, due to a voting discrepany in Florida involving Oprah and rabid squirrels, it didn't make the cut. It's the thought that counts, right? You can prevent Oprah's nefarious plans from working by voting for other articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.

How about that one? -JBob 04:59, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My objection is satisfied. But if I were you I would wait until one of the admins comments before attempting to implement it — it seems like they are the ones who wind up having to do the dirty work of removing failed nominations. --Isra1337 13:29, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like it. However, the problem is that, well, I don't think we should quasi-advertise a lot of the nominations because they're quite frankly garbage. Maybe if we only put it on failed noms that got >3 votes or something. Also, people should, but rarely do (and I know I forget to), put nominations both on VFH and Uncyclopedia:Best of. The "Best Of" list isn't patrolled like VFH (though we'll remove entries that are seriously just stupid). --—rc (t) 04:02, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to reorganize them by date tomorrow. I don't know how much it'll help, since there's not really a voting period (but one month does seem a little long), but it should make it easier to list nominations. Do you think we should adopt Wikipedia's system for article nominations? I think most people would get it. I'll also try to work on removing the VFH templates from old nominations. Should I implement the template and add it to minutely funny ones? (it's possible to add all of them and then sort through the Quazi-Featured Article category to get rid of exceptionally dull ones.) -JBob 04:47, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Before you reorganize it I'd wait for more responses at the DUMP (it gets a lot more traffic than these talk pages). I think you can go ahead and add your template to old noms, though. Thanks for the help in organizing stuff. --—rc (t) 04:56, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Im for the idea of a "failed vfh" template. Jack Cain 09:15, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's already done. Feel free to implement them in articles that need it. I'm not sure about a quality check, but if the article is blatantly unfunny, just remove the VFH template. Also make sure to check to see if the nomination is still ongoing. An easy way to check this is to click the last link that comes in the VFH template to see if the section exists and to check the history to see if the VFH was old enough to have ended. -JBob 18:54, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Removing Waterproof from VFH

I've decided to remove Waterproof, my own article, from VFH. Since it is my article, and it's just been stalling in VFH, I figure nobody will mind. However, someone other than myself nominated the article, so I figured I should mention it here so that if anyone is a bit put-off by me removing it they can say so (at risk to their own life). Keitei submitted it and I already left a message with her explaining why I removed it, since I'm too lazy to retype it in context, I'll just copy and past the message below.

"Me again. I just wanted to leave you a message about the fact that I'm withdrawing Waterproof from VFH. I was happy to know you were such a fan of my article (and I love it too) but I think it's a bit too short to be featured, and the VFH page is getting unwieldly with so many nominations. I wanted to submit my Ninja Pirate page, and since CRLH--another one of my articles--is being voted on, I thought it would be best to remove Waterproof so that nobody thought I was spamming the VFH page to try and get an article featured."

That's all. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

New world order

As per this edit and this discussion, I consulted Rcmurphy about switching all the old nominations to chronological as well, and he agreed. So I protected the page and sorted it manually, cleaning/compressing the votes too. I removed a few unsigned nominations that had no votes (like I Can't Believe it's Not Murder and Main Page), as well as assigned dates to nominations that had none (but I should have thrown them out I think). The page was a mess, and is slightly better, but it should be easier for Rcmurphy to prune out old ones with no new votes. Rc also suggested moving the H1 headers to H2 ==[[Like This]]== to make the page more readable, so I did that too. --Splaka 02:48, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought this applied to new entries, but it looks like it applies to latest votes, too? -- T. (talk) 16:03, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Just re-read it. I've been remiss in not moving stuff I've voted on though. My bad. :( -- T. (talk) 16:08, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to move stuff every time you vote. The chronological order is just for the initial nominations (it helps me sort through the entries when I'm pruning). --—rc (t) 17:30, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's what I initially thought too, but (from VD):

When voting, bump it to the top. I think i'll go faster. --Chronarion 21:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

And from the VFH raw page:

!-- New rule! If you vote for an entry, move it to the TOP. New entries go on TOP. This will make it faster. --

So we stand corrected. -- T. (talk) 19:23, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Somehow I missed that (in two different places). I think it's a bad idea altogether. --—rc (t) 01:58, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, same. Putting the entries in chronological order of nomination would at least make some kind of consistant order. (Of course, we all know I'm just tetchy becuase my article's at the bottom, so maybe you should disregard this. Damn, my Canadian genes are showing again...) --Just Tenn. You were expecting Sophia? 16:25, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

In theory, the cream will rise to the top, leaving the bottom stuff more easily scrapeable. Anything getting little or no votes will sink like a stone... It's just a bit tricky to find stuff sometimes, given the length of the list at present. -- T. (talk) 16:40, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I guess the crap would float high, too, unless you only bump for +'tive votes. Get your pool skimmer. :) The mediocre stuff will feed on the bottom, I guess. -- T. (talk) 16:46, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's also a lot harder than editing a section at a a time, given the eternal bloated hugeness of VFH. --Just Tenn. You were expecting Sophia?

Just a question

When did featured article run time go from three to two days? Seeing that the newest one was up after two days, I went through and looked at the previously featured and found they all went up after two too... I guess my eyes must have been closed when the switch was made. --Katie loves you! 18:55, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We're doing them more often because VFH keeps getting filled with crap and keeps growing to outrageous sizes. At one point they could be up for weeks, now we have to rotate them much faster or else we die under the mass of VFH. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:37, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning

I know that VFH gets unweildy sometimes, but seriously: ¿We're deleting things with 7 or 8 Fors and no Againsts now? ---Rev. Isra (talk) 22:09, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Update: talked to Chron, and some of those deleted are now on a 6 day probationary period at the top of the list. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:33, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Official whine

Wah. I didn't write Virtually Virtual Reality, but I think it's extremely VFH-worthy. But the votes are 2 against and one for (and the one for forgot to bold his vote, so it probably won't count). What more could you add? What's not to like? Where did I park my car? (That last is so that at least one of my questions has an answer) -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:51, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Every chapter is just the same as the previous. And the repetition of Virtually-virtual ends up being annoying. --Rataube 18:10, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Good point, though I thought that was part of teh funneh. Oh, well, time to exit the simulation. Where'd I put my virtually virtual knife this time? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 14:31, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

"The"

As a writer on this site I know that many of our contributors work very hard on writing original material for the site, knowing that only the best of their work will even have a chance to be on VFH, and that even then the odds are not with them. But it is these writers who really make the site. The admins vastly improve the site, and the community makes it a nice place to be, but the writers are what makes the place possible, because what impresses people and keep them coming back are well-written pieces, not stunts or puns or gimmicks or self-referencial stuff. That's why it saddens me to see that so many people are in favor of turning the front page over to one simple joke rather than honor one of the writers who has worked very hard to make the site better and recognize one of the articles that is one of the best on the site.

If we simply must have "The" as the featured article, I propose we at least compromise by still featuring a real article. We could do this by having the front page say: "Featured Article \ The \ Featured Article \ (the real article)."

---Rev. Isra (talk) 04:37, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I Agree. --Rataube 18:09, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

As a writer who has an article up for VFH right now, I agree to some extent. However, I do believe that this sort of gimmick is fun sometimes and maybe for one day sometime "The" should be the featured article alone. Perhaps we should wait until April Fools Day (unless there is something already planned well in advance that I am unaware of) and feature it then, a long with other April Fools related things. Every dog has his day, and as long the gimmick nominations don't become so prevalent that they bump the legitimate articles off the page, I see no issue with it once in awhile. The articles that are bound to be featured will be featured eventually. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 18:32, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Whoever added the paperback template

You're a comic mastermind of the highest order! Carlos thanks you! --Sir Carlos the Mean CUN VFP CS CM CUNT (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Kittens

Kitten related casualties went away? Oh, I'll miss it, VFH will never be the same without him!--Rataube 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for locking featured articles

I think the article World War I (video game) used to be funnier than it is now. Now, it seems to be over edited, with some parts very boring to read. I suggest people protect all articles once they become featured to prevent "over-editing." However, edits to a featured article can only be made by senior members or through community discussion, otherwise, anything new that people think up can be made into their own creative piece. This suggestion implies a different policy from that of wikipedia.org, but in the end, I think it will keep the uniqueness that makes these featured articles shine.--141.213.196.250 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think I agree ... no-name! Lenoxus 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree....if someone has "funny" to add they can leave a message on the talk page. Featured articles should be the cream of the crop, allowing a group of anonymous asshats to crud all over them is wrong..... :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

What's the limit here on agreement? 'Cause I'd like to agree again, just for the heck of it. --Lenoxus 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I agree too. How can we set about annoying the admins with this?--Gubby 16:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Scores: Such a bad idea

I noticed that scores were added to all the VFH noms. Problem with this is that I already see several incorrect scores. We have a really poor track record keeping these updated correctly on pages that have had them a while, and I think it is just going to be a lot of work to try to have these unless we can figure out a way to automate it. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific, I just counted and found that 10 of the 20 scores were wrong. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If your expectation is that the scores will be 100% accurate 100% of the time, then no it's not workable. As a general indicator of who's leading, who's tailing, and who's stagnating after a prolonged stint (and should probably be retired), I think it's useful. Really, it's RC who has the much-envied chore of making sense of this mess of entries, so I'd be interested in his input, too. --Bear 17:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

RC will always have to count the votes anyway, in case they're wrong. Any nomination that should be removed is usually pretty obvious without the scores too. And as Isra said, most of the time people won't bother updating the score count. It's too unreliable. If it come to a vote, I'm against putting the scores on. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the scores are great for a quick glance, even if they're not quite right. Anyone who can count should be able to tell if they are wrong. Though perhaps they could be labelled Approximate Score or something like that. Bloopy 09:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I can usually tell at a glance the way the voting is going anyway, and even with the scores I'm still going to count the votes manually, as Spang said. We could give it a trial run if people want, but I don't think it accomplishes much. It's different than the vote tallies on, say, the monthly awards, since those get many fewer votes. --—rc (t) 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I know I'm new here and all, but doesn't Uncyclopedia have a tradition of....not making sense? Did you really expect that votes would add up to some number? I mean, I usually expect that votes will be unclear, illogical and not worth counting. Like most of this site, really. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 21:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I like having an approximate vote count, it lets the author know about where they are in relation to the other articles, even if it's not exact.--<<>> 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm only in favor of the score template if it is used to disinform... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Crotch Drops Puppy Luff 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Score Counters

Score: -10

• Against. --Sir Xiao Li CUN VFH NS (Talk)
• Against. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How to Count Votes

Judging from some of the edit summary comments, and some of the bizarre changes to scores, it seems like people are operating on their own rules of determining what +1 or -1 is. Here are mine:

1. A nomination is not an implied for, it's a nomination. Score: 0
2. A vote for = +1. Like in any election, strong for or weak for is still = +1.
3. A vote against = -1. Like in any election, strong against or weak against is still = -1.
4. The only half-votes are IP votes.

--Bear 12:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of this with two exceptions:

1. Weak votes are half votes. People should be able to change the weight of their vote if they're full users. I do agree that a strong vote is the same as a normal vote.
2. There should be a stipulation that re-iterates the fact that unsigned votes or votes signed in a non-existant username are not counted at all.--<<>> 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've always done it Bear's way, except I usually count nominations as Fors unless otherwise specified, but I think I will change that. Recent nominations have usually been "Nomination and For," so I think people are diffentiating the two now. Actually, considering this pattern, I'm going to put a disclaimer at the top of VFH.
Regarding half-votes, "weak" and "strong" descriptors can be useful just in generally giving your opinion of an article, but counting all the halves is a pain, as is deciphering in-between votes like "weakish." —rc (t) 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak and strong votes refer to the probability that the user would change their vote. They have no effect on the "weight" of the vote during counting. - User:Guest/sig 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think nominations should always be counted as for, and I think most people would assume they are. If they are writing Nomination and For, I would say that they are just paranoid of there being some ridiculous policy where nominations don't count as a for. Why would someone ever nominate an article if they didn't want to vote for it? I agree that weak votes should not be half votes. Bloopy 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Goa Tse

Of all votes against Goa Tse no one has yet spoke against the article as such, just been enraged by it's subject. I find this remarkable, since Uncyclopedia so gladly promotes both Adolf Hitler and the FBI. -- Swami A. Suresh 11:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I'm biased, but I think people must not have read the actual article before voting against it. Considering the related subject matter Goa Tse is not offensive in any way. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

VFH Opposite Day?

Well.. I don't know if that's what I'd call it, but you can probably guess what I'm talking about when I say it. A day or two ago I asked Rc if we could somehow have just one day where the articles on VFH would be flipped around, you know... the oldest nom would be the first on the page, and the newest the last.

Anyway, Rc rejected this idea, apparently it would be "unfair" or something like that. He said the only way it wouldn't be unfair is if it were to be a regular thing. So I said, "Okay, we'll have it once a month." He said no. "Once a quarter?" I asked. Still the answer was no... it went on like that for awhile until I got tired of talking about it...

Anyway, I decided the best thing to do in the situation would be to post something about it here, and see what the rest of you people think, I think it'd be a great idea and it would help some of the older, stagnating articles get back on the move. Sure it might be unfair, but it'd be a good way to keep VFH fresh and always moving, instead of having 5 or 6 articles regularly voted on, and the others just sitting around.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I say do whatever RC wants so he doesn't try to quit! ♥ --Splaka 04:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I say we stop featuring articles altogether and just have the main page completely blank... let the buggers find their own damn featured articles! --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Crotch Drops Puppy Luff 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We can't do that, Minds. It'd cause rampant chaos and disord-... hmm, you may be onto something here...--<<>> 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeeeeee, I'm not a complete fuckwit... just a partial fuckwit --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Crotch Drops Puppy Luff 22:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Stuff seems to get removed a bit too quickly.

After only 4 or 5 votes things get removed from VFH before we've truly seen a good number of opinions on it, which is kind of unfair. Essentially, if the nays vote before the ayes, the article gets thrown out immediately. Today a lot of things have been removed after very few votes and after only an hour or two. Couldn't we give a minimum 48 hours before an article is removed? (Unless it's blatantly obvious crap, NRV, etc) --User:Nintendorulez 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess it's probably mostly a conspiracy against me... --Mindsunwound: (MUN) Crotch Drops Puppy Luff 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is.

-3 is the threshold for immediate removal and has been for a while now. There is not much of a chance that an article will be able to garner enough votes to be featured if it starts out with four straight negatives (assuming the original nomination is a for). Think about it this way...if an article quickly reaches -3, it will need six straight For votes just to reach +3, and even that isn't enough to let it survive for very many days. Based on the initial pattern, six straight For votes is not very likely. Besides, VFH needs to be kept slim or it gets extremely inconvenient to navigate. —rc (t) 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that for after there's been several votes, but with only four votes it's unfair. Perhaps a -5 threshold, or -3after48hours? --User:Nintendorulez 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... so, blatently crap like "Anal Fissures?" Or, blatently crap like "Main Page?"   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just explained why we use -3. In total it would take (to use the same example) nine votes in quick succession to drop a page to -3 and then up to +3, which 1) is not likely and 2) would gum up the VFH works more than it's worth. Recent articles have needed around +12-14 votes to be featured. Voting patterns that would raise an initially -3 article to that number are quite unlikely. —rc (t) 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale Nominations

I've noticed that nominations that are still in the positive (+3 - +5) but are starting to stagnate after a couple of weeks are removed, as they should be. However, there are a couple of noms presently on VFH that have been there since January. Each is over 14 weeks old, and each is only at +9. Are they destined to become the next 'Kitten Related Human Fatalities'? :) ~ T. (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... Opposite Day!!!! (Up top ^)   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with those nominations is that +9 is (usually, not so much at the present moment with the PLS entries dominating) pretty close to being a real contender for featuration...and they've maintained that high score since pretty soon after their nominations. It is annoying to have those old ones hanging around for so long, and if the average score for a featured article continues at its current high mark I'll go ahead and remove them.

Okay, well, after writing the above I went through the past few weeks and it looks like the average score has indeed been pretty high for a while now. I suppose I was remembering sans score tallies (yeah, I know, I said I didn't want those in the first place). Next time I need to cut down VFH I'll make sure to consider those.

Tompkins, I still don't like the opposite day idea, but if you're set on it I guess we could always give a trial. With the assumption, of course, that you'll do all the work. :) —rc (t) 04:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing an unfair rant - is that allowed? I guess it's all in the history anyway - who knows? . --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, H.F. - actually it's "Sir Hardwick" now - don't worry, Citizen Kong will do just fine, it's a superb article, with a really nice copy-editing job on it too, I might add. In the meantime, we've also got to encourage and promote old people as well as new people! It was really nice to see Le Corbusier up top there, even for just a day or two, and if a few people check it out who haven't done so already, that's a good thing. Mustn't be impatient, especially since you've got one under your belt already. Some people take months to get that far, if they ever do at all. And please, keep up the good work! I would've nominated you as n00b of the month, but I've sworn off that sort of thing forever, I'm afraid. (And have you actually been to Swindon, by the way?)  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, yeah, you behaved like a real adult there Fundlebuggy. Forget what I said. I was being unfair, not Tompkins. Trigger happy. Lovely copy-editing job too, Some User. I have been to Swindon, as it happens, but Bracknell is where it's at these days. --Hardwick Fundlebuggy 07:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just a trial. If we find it's ineffective or significantly unfair (we don't get that many lasting nominations, mind - when everything is flipped back Citizen Kong will still be near the top, maybe even at the topmost spot) we don't have to make it a regular thing. —rc (t) 05:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Order of featuring

Is there a specific order in what gets featured i.e. starts at bottom of page and moves up? just curious.--Witt E, 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, RC tries to feature the stuff with the best score, from oldest to newest. The noticable exception to this rule is Euroipods, but there are others. I'm sure there there are others... right?--<<>> 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's basically it except for a couple small exceptions...sometimes, of course, an article gets to be featured for a reskin without being voted on or without having the highest vote total if it fits with the reskin theme (Holocaust Tycoon, Leporiphobia). Once or twice I've put off featuring an article for a cycle because it doesn't fit with the rotation or something - for example, I put off Maozilla for a few days because the featured article directly before it was Mozilla Firefox and two Mozilla articles in a row seemed rather like overkill. And Euroipods...there may be more but that's all I can think of offhand. —rc (t) 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it me?

Or does there seem to be number of articles nominated of late that seem to be very weak? Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it's always been that way. --Hindleyite | PL | CUN | Converse 17:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading votes on your articles

Ouch! Reading your article's VFH entry is clearly not for the faint of ego. :) Still, I do appreciate the nomination, and I was pleased with how the article turned out. --cScott 11:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. There should be a warning at the top of the page: DO NOT READ VOTES ON YOUR ARTICLE IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE FUNNY... YOU WILL BE UNPLESANTLY SURPRISED. The voters have broken many a good writer's heart.--<<>> 14:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding to Category:Quasi-Featured

Is it possible to add a note to those maintaining the VFH about Category:Quasi-Featured? I haven't really thought up any solid guidelines and most (if not all) of the ones currently in there are simply failed nominations. However, I read this and thought that the whole idea of having the QFH template added to articles with positive scores is a good idea. I'm sure this is probably being enforced out of common sense, but just to be on the safe side, you know? Anyways, I'm currently cleaning out the QFH category of ones that just don't have anything to them (only two so far up to the letter C), but if the whole positive-votes-only thing is enforced, I think that cleanups won't be necessary. Just a thought. -JBob 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the self-appointed champion of QFH, back in my pre-admin days. I added it to the positive scores. If it has a {{QFH}} and sucks royally, you have my blessing to remove it. People like to ... add... VFH and QFH to their "articles" before anyone notices their... "work." Believe me, if it has a {{QFH}} and doesn't deserve it, you should be able to tell easily.--<<>> 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Where did the Sudoku nomination go?

Is there some policy about randomly removing certain articles and not placing a "quasi" template on the article in question? --Lenoxus 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It had a score of -3. (two fors, four againsts, and an implied against from Todd when he removed it.) I believe quasi is reserved for articles that have a low but positive score. --monika 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There's no particular policy about QFH, but I usually put them (when I remember, which is, uh, sort of uncommon) on articles with at least +5. —rc (t) 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, works for me. I guess I sort of assumed that there's always a wait until it reaches the bottom of the list, but I guess not. I would say it had only -2, because to me the system of "implied against" seems like a Catch-22 — e.g, "This article had one vote in favor, but now it has none, because I removed it for having no votes" So, like, how much time are articles given before they are removed? Or is -2 (fine, -3) the point at which all nominated articles are removed? Also, how long until I get to nominate it again? Thanks for answering so promptly... I don't mean any offense against either of you or anything... cool --Lenoxus 18:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno the answer to the second part, but things are always removed (by admins) when their votes get to -3 or lower. (It's not any more arbitrary than the original picking of -3 as the cutoff.) As for not liking the "implied against", would you have the admins edit the thing twice in a row, once to add an against vote and then once again to remove it? Or would you rather admins not have a vote? I'm not seeing a Catch-22 anywhere... (as with you, not trying to be mean or anything...) --monika 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I would rather that admins vote against it, if only for the sake of records. Just like most of these open with "Nom and for" I think it would be useful to see something like "Nay and remove" at the end of failures, that's all. Just simple wish that isn't even strong enough to be a request, more of a "When I grow up to be an admin..." kinda thing. --Lenoxus 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What Monika said. And you can renominate articles whenever, but people will remember quick renoms and many aren't fond of them unless the article has been significantly improved subsequent to the first nomination. Trust me on this one. —rc (t) 23:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again. --Lenoxus 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

HowTo Question

So are HowTo's not supposed to be voted on here? I've heard people say, well no b/c it's a HowTo. Does that DQ them from VFH? I didn't see any written rule on it, so I was just wondering. Maybe people think HowTo's automatically aren't as funny? Mrthejazz 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any particular rules as to what kind of articles can be nominated - UnNews stories and at least one HowTo have been featured in the past. Some people prefer more encyclopedic articles on the front page, though. Personally, I think regular articles are preferable, but I'll vote for an UnNews article or HowTo if I find it really good. Humor trumps all. —rc (t) 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You run this place, and you don't even remember how many HowTo's have been featured, shame on you! There have been two, and they came within like a week of eachother, not that that matters or anything...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You act like I actually pay attention to the articles. How silly! —rc (t) 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dice Man

I understand this is not really the place for mass argument discussion, but I feel the lists are part of what makes the article good. Sure, they could have been compressed into sentences from the bulleted lists, but I feel they would not have the same impact. Just my opinion, in the same way as Swordsman is entitled to his. I, personally think the article is quality, otherwise I would not have nommed it. --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Image Review - Use it | Converse 14:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree apparently. It's nice to have someone take the time to write opinions for me, even if they're not my opinions. Gives me more time to make sandiwches and drink beer. Col. Soreman enjoys the odd bulleted list himelf, though so I can't see what all the fuss is about. Anyway, I read it again and I think it's brilliant. I'd forgotten how good it was. So there. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fisher Price: A Retrospective

To all those who voted against this article, I would like to put in my two cents: do you all realize that this is a subtle parody of modern art? This retrospective tells us that, in a manner not unlike that in which the Flying Spaghetti Monster struck a blow against the teaching of creationism in school, works of art (like Fisher Price) should only be seen as what they were intended to be (in this case, a pointless insult), and that art critic's so-called "analyses" of real works of art can make even the most pathetic, horrible writings into something meaningful--thereby destroying all credibility the art world may once have had. It's hilarious not because it is rude (or because it sounds like an English teacher while it is rude,) but because it is so close to the truth. In fact, it makes its point under a guise of crassness, just like it claimed its subject matter did! Knowing this I would like those who voted against to reconsider. Wehpudicabok 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your two "cents"! --emc! ╬ 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

UnNews:RIAA CEO discusses Voynich Manuscript?

Before y'all go thinking "Hey, that MoneySign's being rogue again! The UnNews article had the most votes and so it should have been featured!!", you're half-right. The UnNews article should have been featured, but no, I wasn't being rogue... I apparently just made some kind of hideously awful, but honest mistake...
However, instead of undoing all my hard work on featuring that Voynich-thingy, I'll leave the articles the way they are and promise that the next feature will be the RIAA thing. Heck, I even voted for without reading it... How's that for commitment?
In conclusion: Please don't hate me... :( --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 07:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Payment will be found in the usual place. -- M

The price of nominating a fisher

• Comment. Hey, why not front page "Fisher Price"? This article, though hilarious, is a lot funnier when you've read the original. And, on the original article, there's a little "see also" which leads you to the retrospective which no-one is going to miss.--Gubby 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Against featuring Fisher Price by itself. The retrospective links to the original just as quickly, and the retrospective is far funnier. Wehpudicabok 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment back. In either case you would read both, but my point is that it is a lot funnier when you read them in the right order.--Gubby 01:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment on comment back, plus vote. I very much agree with Gubby. The retrospective can still have its little banner - but it's much funnier if you see the Fisher Price page first. Anyone who goes to the latter (say when just skimming through stuff) will definitely follow the link to the former - the converse is not true. And in any case, putting a crappy 4-word article on the features page is A - funny in its own right and B plays into the joke of the retrospective. So my vote is a for - but conditional on featuring the Fisher Price page. --Some Fool 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • seeing as someone agrees with me on this, I'll vote conditionally for the same as Some Fool voted, see if anyone else wants to step up...--Gubby 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, the original FP would make more sense. But are we voting for that, or what? Should we give it its own voting section? Wehpudicabok 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fisher Price

Possible compromise...?

Okay,.. vote here to feature Fisher Price instead of the Retrospective. I have an idea that on the front page we have Fisher Price, and after a few lines to give the joke a chance to sink in, a link to the retrospective. (After all, Fisher Price doesn't take up much space.)

LISTEN UP. THIS IS NOT A SEPERATE ARTICLE TO VOTE FOR. You are voting for WHETHER OR NOT TO FEATURE FISHER PRICE INSTEAD OF THE RETROSPECTIVE. Also, use this space to bitch about details. So,

Score: +5

• For. --Gubby 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• For And just to make things clear, we're voting for the retrospective - but saying that that which appears on the front page should be the Fisher Price article. ... this was already said, hey--Some Fool 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Bitching About Details - Maybe we could just use something like the image at right, instead of putting just four words in the Feature Article box? The only image on the current version of the article isn't all that relevant anyway — it's just something I borrowed from Unquotable:Anonymous. And obviously Fisher Price has no image whatsoever.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Bitching about bitching. Hmm.. it's a good image.. but what do you mean, putting it on the retrospective article instead of featuring the original? But.. on the retrospective you already find out soon enough that Fisher Price is "go eat shit fuckers", but that is not nearly as funny as looking at an article meant to be about a toy company and seeing that instead. (I'd put the image on the Retrospective anyway ^^ )--Gubby 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The image belongs on the Retrospective because the beauty of the original Fisher Price article is that it is pretty much just "go eat shit fuckers" and some links. --» His Majesty King George VI (the boxes) 22:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ummm...I hate Sony...--HP talk 02:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• For. - User:Guest/sig 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• For. --146.186.240.134 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• For. Love the image too. --» His Majesty King George VI (the boxes) 22:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That image is excellent, Some user, and needs to go on the Retrospective in my opinion. But I think starting up a whole new vote for featuring Fisher Price may be a bit unfair to the author of the Retrospective, no? After all, this is the oldest article on VFH and is almost ready, score-wise, to be featured. Just one sentient being's opinion. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO the two articles are inextricably linked... feature one and you effectively feature the other. --» His Majesty King George VI (the boxes) 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong against. Although the picture is funny, you can feature it with the Retrospective. We don't want another Euroipods on the front page. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• For Not sure why. I guess I'm feelin' positive today. User:Tom mayfair/Sig

This is what I MIGHT consider doing

I MIGHT put "go eat shit fuckers" on the front page, but have the (continued...) link to the retrospect. Of course I'll have to put an article title on the front page as well, as to prevent utter confusion when one reads "Fisher Price: A Retrospect" in the linked-to title. Heck, who knows... I might even put "Fisher Price" instead of "Today's featured article" --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 20:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats actually a great idea, but the retospective is pretty damn close to being taken off and yet again QFH'd, although it's so close. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well... I wouldn't be saddened if that happens, to be honest... I mean, it's not like we don't have enough funnies to put on the front page. So what if people won't see this one on there? Big whoop. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 21:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what? That's what they're voting on up there... I thought it was the picture they were voting on.... PEOPLE UP THERE!!! YOU ARE VERY UNCLEAR INDIVIDUALS!! I DO NOT LIKE YOU GUYS ANYMORE!! Think they heard me? --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, try a megaphone or something... -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but it sends out short-ban waves... Don't think they'd appreciate that. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 21:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Thanks, per the congrats down there. ^_^

So here's an image as to what that part of the frontpage would look like (should it have been featured instead of Smells Like Teen Spirit). --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Or how about something like this, then:

Today's featured article
Fisher Price go eat shit fuckers (retrospected...) Recently featured: Smells Like Teen Spirit - Snopes - UnNews:RIAA CEO discusses the analog hole - Voynich Manuscript - HowTo:Solve The 1x1x1 Rubik's Cube

Add whitespaces or change stuff if you want to try yourself... I still haven't decided on even if I want the danged thing featured to begin with. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another sub-thingy that I'm removing from the voting space now (Fisher Price nomination)

• • Comment. Actually, MoneySign, I'd much rather have the Retrospective featured (I nommed that too). I saw that you moved it to the talk page, and that inspired me to do this. If that many users wanted it featured, it should be given a shot, right? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 20:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: ...that many? 4 registered users (only just because Tom mayfair voted) and an IP address... That's hardly qualifies as that many. But anyways, I'm not going to remove this voting, and it will be featured should it win (I think), but fact that it's up here might influence the course of the other Fisher Price nomination... Just sayin'... --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-At the same time, I bet more people would've voted had it not been buried at the bottom of the page. Lets see how it does, I just love the retrospective, and what you proposed on the talk page would essentially get that featured anyway. No worries. Oh, and I don't think I ever congratulated you on winning last month, so congrats! -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cambodia, the article

In the interest of conversational fluidity, Sir Cornbread's vote is herein reproduced. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 01:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Sorry, but I didnt find it all that funny. It also kinda feels unfinished, ends too abruptly. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 22:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like you're not getting too many laughs here of late. But I do take your point about the ending. I don't think it's the most hilarious article going around, but of course satire and comedy aren't always the same thing. I was trying to use satire to highlight how Cambodia is still struggling all these years after everyone forgot about it because they thought it was going to be all right. But if you don't like it that's cool. Cheers -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 00:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah I have to agree. The only article he really votes for on VFH are his (See Rap). --em|c|! ╬ 00:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're going to sling mud, ensure that you're right before you start tossing. Cornbread votes a lot, not just on his own shit. Modusoperandi 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I was thinking it must have been sarcastic, because just underneath here (Memento; 3rd vote) he's voting for someone else's work... Of course that wouldn't explain the vague Rap-remark... --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Let's leave it at the fact that I was beaten as a child...excessively. And he voted against my Grue's Clues article. Let's be real here, he votes against a lot of stuff. --em|c|! ╬ 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • One of the hardest facts to face here is everyone has got their own brand of funny and everyone gets their vote. Sir Cornbread has voted both for and against my work, and I respect that about him. It tells me that he votes based on his appreciation of content and not based on who writ the thing or whatever like that. That's commendable. There are quite a few here who are tough voters, but hopefully that pushes us all to be better writers. Or pushes us to drink. Excessively. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 01:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I respect him, but I don't like him. I think he's French. --em|c|! ╬ 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanks for coming to my defense while I was away, MoneySign, and Modusoperandi. To start off here, I don't get what you'r trying to say here, Immy, but thanks for that last part, glad you realize why I vote like I do. Secondly, Armando, if I'm not getting laughs, then tell me how many things you've had featured. Lets see who the majority of people here thinks writes better stuff. You can't criticize me, because you can't back it up. EMC and Armando: If I vote against your stuff, tough, deal with it. It doesnt mean I hate you or something, it just means that I don't think the article is front-page quality. You're also dead wrong. I've voted for two of my articles. Ever. Granted, I've only tried twice, but still. I vote against a lot, and for a lot. I only vote for what I think is far beyond the quality of a normal Uncyc article. If you're going to criticize my voting, check the damn facts first. Of all the stuff on VFH right now, I bet I'm about 60-40 in favor of against. That hardly counts as voting against everything. And Immy, MoneySign, and Modusoperandi, thanks. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 02:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Hey, Sir C. Just for the sake of clarity, the number of articles I've had featured is zero (0). I think you misunderstood me. I meant you're not getting laughs from Cambodia and, more particularly, Falcotron's Chicks on Speed. I wasn't criticising your work, and I'm not bent out of shape that you voted against Cambodia. Like I said in my intital response, a) I take your point about it ending abruptly, b) I know it's not the funniest thing on the site, and c) I'm cool with the fact that you don't like it. We cool? -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. Sorry I misunderstood. If you can fix up the ending a bit, I'll probably change my vote anyway. And thanks for not being like that guy and getting all pissed off. No problem, thanks for being a reasonable person. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Glad we're on the same wavelength. I'll try to ensure that my comments are a bit less ambiguous in future -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Well, mister EMC, I don't like YOUr signature... I'm not entirely sure what you're doing, but I think you've got all that coding placed as your (raw-checked) nickname in your preferences. That, or you copy/paste the damned code each time...
          In any case, please create User:Electrified mocha chinchilla/sig with the coding, then change your (raw-checked) nickname into {{SUBST:nosubst|User:Electrified mocha chinchilla/sig}}.
          As a final note on Cornbread: like Imrealized, I strongly appreciate and respect people that vote on the matter at hand (article, image, noob, ...) rather than the person who created it, the person who nommed it or the people who voted on it sofar... --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • • Thanks MoneySign. And Immy, my bad, I thought you were against me, when you were really defending me. All you did was move this crap here. I thank you. Emc also, I've voted for your stuff before, too. I vote against you once, and suddenly I'm a dick or something? -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 02:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I respect all involved here (with the exception of myself, who is kinda an ass) and just wanted to see the situation diffused before someone got hurt (once again, probably me, because I'm accident-prone and emotionally-fragile). Everything seems to be chilled out now (hopefully), so you can all get back to making this place the hysterical comedic epicenter that doesn't take itself too seriously and I can get back to doing nothing. -- Imrealized ...hmm? 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I acutally saw Famine shooting some users on the Ban Patrol. Maybe we should disperse before he happens to come around and execute every last motherfucker of us! (pulp fiction opening tune in the background) Mordillo Hands off the virgin!Time till next rocket hits:

No, no, no, Mordillo. Famine doesnt shoot people, he bombs them. Evryone knows that... -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies for my posts yesterday. I have nothing against Sir Cornbread or his voting record for VFH. Please understand that roughly 60% of my contributions to Uncyclopedia are made in times of heavy alcohol consumption. I realize that my signature is extremely sloppy, due to the fact that I am a Wikipedian and there, we press these dandy little signature buttons that make signatures appear out of thin air. It's absolutely amazing. Consider this the last sloppy signature of mine. I love you all. I want to have Sir Cornbread's babies. --em|c|! ╬ 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe taking it a bit far, but thanks. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)