User talk:Flyingbird
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
How do You know Birds Can Fly? I dont believe it.
- That is an empirical fact, I have been flying since I crawled my way out of my two eggs. If you wonder why I crawled out of two eggs instead of one, the third one was there for the sake of redundancy. Flyingbird 16:51, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- You've created lots of interesting articles, while you're doing it can you put them in categories Thanks! --wibblewobble 22:39, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)
- Thanks, I am not used to categories on uncyclopedia yet and often do not have much time, if I can leave that to others, that would be my preference, otherwise I'll write far less articles! Cheers. Flyingbird 22:46, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Wed Sep 14 user Flyingbird stopped contributing to Uncyclopedia, for the complete contents of his article on Donald Duck were deleted. Flyingbird 18:33, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Seriously? That's a petty reason for leaving. Seeing as you amde the article in APRIL, It's silly to think that major changes would not have happened, especially considering that it was a fairly small, text-only article. If you're getting upset at the overhaul fo that article, you must have a fragile ego. If you want your original text to remain, try reworking the page to make it fit in, instead of reverting it wholesale and whining about it.--Sir Flammable KUN 18:38, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I am not whining - if reasonable articles can simply be totally removed, it is not worth while contributing to uncyclopedia, simple as that! Flyingbird 05:14, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Your article doesn't have to be totally removed. It's still in the history. You can adapt it to make it fit in with the current article, you can start a new article about it and change the details to make it fit with another character (isn't there a Daisy Duck?), you can...well, that's all I can really think of right now. But seriously, Flammable's right. If everyone gave up on Uncyclopedia after losing one article, we wouldn't have many people contributing. I wouldn't be, for one. --—rc (t) 05:57, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I think the person who replaced it is the one who should have merged the new content with the existing content. If everyone is so lenient about totally replacing existing articles, I do think you will not have many people contributing indeed, for what's the sense then? Anyway enough interesting things to do outside uncyclopedia. Cheers. Flyingbird 16:09, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, if you look at the current article, it is so general that it could just as well be an article on Fred Flintstone, Hirohito, George Bush or anyone else. Sorry, but that is not even funny IMHO. Some people think that calling someone a homosexual will automatically make an article funny. NO WAY! Flyingbird 18:57, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Is there an uncyclopedia community? All I get so far is, that it is 'normal' that someone removes a complete article. If it is, then it is not worth while contributing to it. The attitude is fundamentally wrong IMHO. Flyingbird 19:03, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- No, it can be totally removed anyway so no need for fixing. Flyingbird 19:17, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Then go away. You're obviously not willing to understand that if you want to keep your old material, you may, in fact, have to be creative, instead of doing the tried and true cliche of making random connections and compeltely false statements bereft of wit, adding one tenuous link in your article in hopes of garnering a laugh. At this point, you're only here to bitch, moan, and essentially, troll, and you're wasting precious time I could be spending making stupid templates.--Sir Flammable KUN 19:22, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- That is what I am doing, going away, can't you see? ;-) Quack quack quack quack quack ;-) Flyingbird 19:30, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
