Uncyclopedia:VFH

1. For. That's really a nice one. Finally the panic is gone.... Midget 10:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
2. For. Hopefully the people like link-related humor... Dark Ermac 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
3. lol. ~ NEZLR 15:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
4. For. Cute. --monika 15:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Against. Didn't do it for me. The humor seems to be meandering around at best, and inexplicably random or obvious at worst. The first list was entertaining; the second wasn't. The historical examples section was comparatively good, but it came out of nowhere and left just as quickly. The rest is just a repeat of what any gamer already knows, and while that's not a bad thing because a lot of good humor is based on truth, it doesn't add anything to it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 15:33 Oct 06, 2008

1. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Capitulation! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
2. Vive! Geoffprickett 13:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Self for — Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 13:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Yes please. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 15:35 Oct 06, 2008
5. For. Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
6. For. It can get better (hell, enough with this "mimes" nonsense) but, if compared to the previous article, it is a major improvement. Pucktard 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
7. For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
8. For. MrN  21:28, Oct 6

No against votes

1. NF Yes, I read the controversy around this, I read the previous noms, but I think this is a good article and it's time that we gave it another go. It's tasteful in a way that separates us from the rest of the internets. --SYNDROME _{MUN medicate} 04:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Fuck taste. Fuck offense. Funny is funny. -RAHB 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
3. For, again and again.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
4. For. 87.165.215.111 10:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
5. For. Multilit  eralist 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
6. For. Can you say sequel?! Dark Ermac 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak for — Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
8. For. Awesome concept, cleverly executed, and it's been long enough so that the title doesn't sting. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 15:38 Oct 06, 2008

No against votes

• A clever piece. The humour is not obvious all the time, a good read. Multilit  eralist 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Nomination & For. Nezlr's been working on this, and I think it's come out pretty well, personally. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:10, Oct 6
2. For. If you go to Nezlr's userpage, you will find a giant, blinking donut. Oh, and this article's pretty good, too.   CAKE J! <3:03, 06 Oct 2008>
3. For. 71.57.106.110 04:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Fir. why would i ever vote against? Glad i could come up with a potentially feature-worthy article. ~ NEZLR 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
5. For Inflammable!! Geoffprickett 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Reluctant against. I <3 the concept. During the execution, though, I keep getting slapped in the face with humor, such as strikethroughs, a Captain Obvious quote, or the reader speaking to the author via italic text. The tone isn't entirely consistent, and the article would work a bit better if the author didn't sound completely nuts, but just a little nuts, otherwise, it's another case of getting slapped in the face with a fish humor. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 15:43 Oct 06, 2008

No against votes

1. Nom+4 So I go to Strange but untrue's page and I find this. Another quality article which was never featured, possibly because it's "self-referential". Well trousers. It's good. MrN  23:23, Oct 5
2. For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Yeah. --monika 23:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
4. For It's simple, it's untrue, and it's familiar enough and trivial enough to be understood and loved by our greedy, idiotic, illiterate sponsors. --Pleb Dexter111344 • Complain here • Vote now! 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
5. For Very good. Geoffprickett 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No against votes

• Abstain It's very good but Hardwick Fundlebuggy's Prison Journal did it first and less injokey. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 02:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain - As per DJ — Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 15:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Self-nom & for. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  17:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
2. For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
3. For. Anything right-wing is good. Judge Adriano "Legal" Zarbi Come to court! See what I have judged! Block me! 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
4. For. Same as above. Pucktard 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
5. for. OfficerGerrycheeversKunTalk 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
6. For. I liked it. --UU Blah / Pee 19:55, Oct 6

1. Against Well written as per usual (although the Tennis articles are much better). It just didn't make me chuckle. Geoffprickett 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Against. Awesome concept, but it felt like it didn't go anywhere with it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 16:13 Oct 06, 2008

• Pee review. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  17:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Nom+4 Cajek has been accused of "Not being Cajek" enough recently. Here is clear evidence Cajek is in-fact Cajek, and not (as has been suggested) "Not Cajek". MrN  13:07, Oct 5
2. Sticky Personality. Grand General Wizard Etc x2 and Senator G/K/O/CUNT.K.F. WHORE! ZOTM MAFE VANDL UOTM WOTM TOP10 FP PMOTM UWotM 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
3. For. Ooooo, I'm-a be scared of this Santa. ----OEJ 15:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
4. For. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
5. For. Cajek, you have a sick sense of humour. Congratulations. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  11:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
6. For. Yup. --UU Blah / Pee 13:17, Oct 6
7. Creepy. • • • SIR FELLOW Necropaxx KUN {PotM VFH VFP VotM} (Beseech) 15:00, Oct 6
8. I was always scared of him Brilliant. Geoffprickett 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Holy Shit Cajek this is amazing! You had me hooked, and just when I thought it couldn't get any better, you hit me with that ending. Awesome, dude. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 15:58 Oct 06, 2008
10. for. OfficerGerrycheeversKunTalk 16:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No against votes

1. Nom+4 It's got 26 (I think) sub-pages. Monika has created another rather special article here. Not everyone will appreciate what is going on. I'm not sure I totally do, but I assume it's awesome.... MrN  03:52, Oct 5
2. certified PLS loser. --monika 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
3. For. — Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
4. For. I remember seeing this around and not getting it. Then I saw it again, and got it, and loved it, but wondered if the real point of it would pass people by. If you follow it properly, it is fucking brilliant though. --UU Blah / Pee 10:18, Oct 5
5. For. The subpage links are obvious enough to geddit, whether they show up on the front page or not Grand General Wizard Etc x2 and Senator G/K/O/CUNT.K.F. WHORE! ZOTM MAFE VANDL UOTM WOTM TOP10 FP PMOTM UWotM 15:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

# Against. - Minor flaws are fine by me, but the formatting is a little off/plus the whole subpage thing does not move me — Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 09:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Against. I may be out of line here, but I didn't find this awesome or brilliant. It seemed to me to be a fairly straightforward piece; competent but not outstanding. As far as subpages, yes it builds up variations in a sort of novelistic way but that doesn't show on the FP: only the basic article does, and it is simply not outstanding. (Just my opinion, the usual caveats about my being a brain-dead philistine apply.) ----OEJ 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Against Just not really great in my opinion. Kinda for the same reason as OEJ... --Pleb Dexter111344 • Complain here • Vote now! 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
3. against. many subpages, tons of different angles, fake edits, the main page is jumbled and crowded...this article scares and confuses me. OfficerGerrycheeversKunTalk 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain I don't get it, so I feel like I can't vote against... but still, I don't get it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 16:09 Oct 06, 2008
• comment: I'm sorry for having confused and scared people. I'll try not to do it again.

@Gerry - By jumbled and crowded, are you referring to anything of the sort that might be fixable within the confines of the premise?

@Skull - if there's anything I can do to help you get it, just let me know.

@Jack & Dexter - this brings up the good point of how, in the event this gets featured, it would look on the front page. I'll put some thought into it and I'm open to suggestions.

--monika 16:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Self-nom and for: This was nommed quite a while ago when it was originally written. I've gone back over it and added a few chunks, got a positive Pee Review, and here it is. --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
2. For. I always love how commercials say 'call now!', yet how many people would actually do it? This has my support. Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
3. For I was that pee-er. --Geoffprickett 09:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
4. For. Dokosa 14:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No against votes

• Abstain — Sir Sycamore (talk to me) 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain I was impressed, because seeing the headline, I thought it was going to be another one of those UnNewses where I'd know all the jokes before I even clicked on the article. I turned out to be wrong, but to be honest, it still didn't make me laugh much. Probably the best bit is where the man says, "Frankly, it was a little bit derivative of the Bill Hammond Workout System commercial, which is one of my all-time favourites." After that it sorta dies down into mediocrity. It's not bad, it's just not really funny to me. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • bloggings) Quote of the Day 15:47 Oct 06, 2008
• abstain. seems like a solid unnews, worthy of the unnews lead story perhaps, but not the front page. OfficerGerrycheeversKunTalk 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Nom and for. I've peed this and I feel it's good enough to go here. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  13:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Self for. I put my heart, soul and nail clippings into this article. --ScottBurnan 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
3. For It was funny, clever and a great excuse to get porn on the Main Page. --Sir DJ