Talk:Hardwick Fundlebuggy's Prison Journal

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

After making that wardrobe from IKEA in only four days, this is probably the greatest achievement of my life. Obviously I'd like to thank Chairman Mao for ruining China as my inspiration for the work. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 09:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is this jerk? Hardsick Fandlebaggy sounds like a real pervert. He should be put in a sack and thrown into a river. Why oh why can we not get back to articles about drainage systems and carpet lint? That's just my opinion, anyway. I am not a sock puppet. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 09:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So what was he banned for, anyway? I can relate when it comes to unfair bans... --User:Nintendorulez 20:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was unfair? -- sannse@fandom (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was fair in the end. I say the true reason for the ban in the article but deliberately leave out the circumstances because it involves others and my aim here is really just to make something funny out of it all, and not to tread on anyone's toes. So I won't go into the circumstances here. People can find it all out for themselves if they dig deep enough. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Having dug deeply: [1], [2]. I post my findings on the interweb for all to see. The Pulitzers should come rolling in now! (please don't ban me.) -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what someone else wrote can be minor or major. Was is just correcting a typing error? Was it changing what some else wrote into something radically different? I've done something similar. I didn't edit someone else's words but what I wrote could have been mistaken for what Skully wrote. Oh dear. Proxima Centauri 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Hardwick Fundlebuggy. Your work is so good. Mine isn't like yours. You've left Uncycl. You've banned yourself. Please return! Proxima Centauri 17:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Those who can edit these articles best seem to be former banees. Proxima Centauri 19:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure the revisions made have really improved the article...--Sycamore (Talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I’ve compared my version to the featured version many times. I’m not sure which is better either. It’s all subjective. I’m sure they will appeal to different readers. I’ve put a strong link to the featured version and made it funny. Now readers who like the featured version can find it. Proxima Centauri 09:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its subjective, "Don't mess with sucsess" is the motto - I would like (plan) to revert back to the decent version, and remove the clutter and junk you have added - this article has been ruined by your edits.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the more colourful version will appeal better to teenagers. Teenagers are a high proportion of Uncyclopedia readers. I'm guessing here. Whichever one is kept on top there should, I feel be a link to the other. Proxima Centauri 08:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm gonna call time on this, if there are no other objections. I am sorry if you and other people are upset here. You are wrong about the age range, and the article has not been imporved by your edits no matter how old you are. For the record, I'm 21 and a vast amount of users on this site are considerbly older. I suspect the original author of this article is much older than me (better educated and more sexy as well). Now with your edits - you do not have a right to duplicate an article you've written over a feature (or whore either), which is what I am seeing here. I doubt anybody would agree that this mess is an improvemnt. I don't want some drama or a flame war to kick up here, I have listened and and I have looked at the edits. I ask politley and repectfully that you leave this article be, and other features, they were voted on the front page, and are usually pretty good, it is better to try and improve bad articles rather than to muck up good ones. Thanks there.--Sycamore (Talk) 13:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd rollback it for different reasons, not necessarily based on what Sycamore said - this was already features, so it reached its height, so why rewrite it? ~Jewriken.GIF 10:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is poetry. Sweet poetry. Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 22:22, Mar 26 2010

Personal tools