Talk:Chicks on Speed
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chicks on Speed article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
| This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2006.
The result of the discussion was 'Keep'.
|
|||
Someone wrote to me because they didn't get why this was funny. It's vaguely about the band Chicks on Speed, and full of references to their lyrics and their history, so if you don't know who they are, it probably isn't all that funny. But I think they're notable enough to parody.
See the Wikipedia page for more info on the band.
P.S., can people tell that the chick on coke is Kate Moss, or do I need a more famous picture of her? --Falcotron 02:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
NRV[edit]
Please see the discussion on User talk:Sir Cornbread on this article's two NRV taggings. It's a somewhat lengthy thread, but I believe it has redeeming value. --Falcotron 08:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it would hold better ground if the article wasn't so close to a personal level. Not that you get laid by chicks on speed but that you have personal accounts of meeting chicks on speed and it is written as if we were talking to each other rather than reading it as a source of information. I'm not out to hate. I just find it hard to add baby chickens. Figure something out & I'll be more than happy to help. Good Luck.--User:Tom mayfair/Sig03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rewriting this article without the "personal level" would be like rewriting The Enigmatic Mr. Grumpkins to make it not so bloggy, or rewriting Unoriginality to not use all the jokes in Originality. That's the entire point of the joke.
- In fact, thinking that the simple confusion of the band Chicks on Speed with actual chicks on actual speed was a good enough joke in itself, I originally wrote an encyclopedia-style article about tweaker girls with oblique references to the band. I showed it to a few people, and they found it not the slightest bit funny. Then I rewrote it this way, and they found it hilarious. And judging by all of the comments (except Sir Cornbread's) during the whole triple-NRV-tagging insanity, I think others agree. That's not to say that the article can't be improved, but I'm pretty sure the basic concept is funny (although not as funny some of Sir Cornbread's increasingly irrational behavior; that's better than anything I could possibly write...).
- Anyway, you seemed like someone who was capable of adding baby chickens to anything. --Falcotron 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I tried. If you don't like the way I wrote it out then change it to how you would have done it. Raping baby chickens is an art. --User:Tom mayfair/Sig 07:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why do I get the feeling that you really don't actually get how Uncyclopedia works? Now that you've put it on VFD, just leave it there and (in your screaming, all-capitalized words) "DROP IT AND LET PEOPLE VOTE." --Falcotron 11:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Being here for eight months doesn't prove anything, except that you're a slow learner. --Falcotron 20:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I take that back. It has nothing to do with learning. It's not as if it takes any deep Uncyclopedia-specific knowledge to know not to do things like, say, add an NRV tag to an article after an admin has taken your first one off. It's not as if there's anything specific to Uncyclopedia that would tell you that ranting, bizarre demands, shouting in all caps, juvenile name-calling, and worst of all doing all of this on voting pages and unrelated users' project pages, are inappropriate. That's just common sense. --Falcotron 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Youve been doing all the same stuff you fucking hypocrite. I never made bizarre demands, what the hell are you talking about? It also takes common sense to know that writing a crappy stub isnt what Uncyclopedia is for. I dont feel like endlessly arguing about some crappy article I NRV'd three days ago. Why don't you just do us all a favor and go back to wikipedia? The only reason that the article will survive VFD is that Tom added some actual decent content to it. -- Sir C
Holla | CUN 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Youve been doing all the same stuff you fucking hypocrite. I never made bizarre demands, what the hell are you talking about? It also takes common sense to know that writing a crappy stub isnt what Uncyclopedia is for. I dont feel like endlessly arguing about some crappy article I NRV'd three days ago. Why don't you just do us all a favor and go back to wikipedia? The only reason that the article will survive VFD is that Tom added some actual decent content to it. -- Sir C
- Remember that time I suggested you read WP:CIVIL? Now's a better time than ever. You seem to be taking the failed NRV then VFD vote very personally. Just leave it already. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly said I don't want to argue about this anymore, but this user keeps on posting personal attacks on me on various pages. In all truth, I want to be totally done with this, I tried to make it clear in my last comment. I dont want to be involved with this article any more. Tom mayfair did a good job with expansion, and I actually think it is now fit to stay. -- Sir C Holla | CUN 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly said I don't want to argue about this anymore, but this user keeps on posting personal attacks on me on various pages. In all truth, I want to be totally done with this, I tried to make it clear in my last comment. I dont want to be involved with this article any more. Tom mayfair did a good job with expansion, and I actually think it is now fit to stay. -- Sir C
- Remember that time I suggested you read WP:CIVIL? Now's a better time than ever. You seem to be taking the failed NRV then VFD vote very personally. Just leave it already. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you've repeatedly said that you don't want to argue anymore--and then carried on arguing anyway. And you're still doing it now. You went and added another "last word" below after saying you were done. You don't have to admit that you're wrong; you just have to stop. --Falcotron 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. --I started out being completely nice, you'll notice. It's just that this guy would not drop it, even after I moved it to VFD. At first, I did try my best to be nice, but it didnt work. -- Sir C Holla | CUN 21:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't drop it because I was trying to prevent you from deleting my article, which you NRVd three times, then VFDd, then began posting lies on the VFD page trying to argue people out of their keep votes. You're the one who started getting uncivil. I'll admit that I got a little snarky after you started shouting imprecations at me on the voting page, but I think I've been pretty restrained. I know you're convinced that I've done all the same things as you, but I think your memory is clouded with incoherent rage. Remember, this is a wiki; the history is all there in black and white. So you can go find where I called you a moron or a dumbass, where I shouted in all caps (other than quoting you), where I dragged the argument onto a new page, where I demanded that you stop posting on my talk page and then continued the argument without you, etc. I looked, and couldn't find any of that. Odd, isn't it? --Falcotron 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your article sucked. Period. Its fine now, thanks to Tom, who is a great contributor for a noob. You're in denial. You dragged the arguments on to several other pages. You were talking shit about me to several other users. I archived the talk because you flooded it, it is still incredibly easy to find unless you're stupid. And you're still an incredible hypocrite. You criticize me for getting in the last word, then you come and do the exact same thing. I don't care even slightly anymore. Post whatever floats your boat here, and I AM DONE RESPONDING. Oh, and have fun getting the last word in, because I know you will, despite what you said to me. Hypocrite. The end. -- Sir C Holla | CUN 21:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your article sucked. Period. Its fine now, thanks to Tom, who is a great contributor for a noob. You're in denial. You dragged the arguments on to several other pages. You were talking shit about me to several other users. I archived the talk because you flooded it, it is still incredibly easy to find unless you're stupid. And you're still an incredible hypocrite. You criticize me for getting in the last word, then you come and do the exact same thing. I don't care even slightly anymore. Post whatever floats your boat here, and I AM DONE RESPONDING. Oh, and have fun getting the last word in, because I know you will, despite what you said to me. Hypocrite. The end. -- Sir C
- Yes, one of the many things I criticized you for is getting in the last word. And, unlike all the rest of the things I criticized you for (remember, the history is still there--all of it, not just your talk archive; you might want to skim through it once you calm down), I'm also guilty of that one. I apologize for that. --Falcotron 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Tom Mayfair's Changes[edit]
I'm not sure about Tom Mayfair's changes. I like all of the added jokes; but I'm not 100% sure how it all fits with the existing flow of the page. I do love the way the pics are rearranged, however. Anyway, while I have some ideas for how to integrate it better, given that it's so far 1/1 (even if that 1 is Sir Cornbread) in favor of the changes, I'll wait for other comments before I do anything radical., so I'm leaving it as-is (other than a couple of minor grammatical changes).
I am, however, seriously disappointed that it still doesn't make any reference to baby chickens. I thought for sure that if anyone could fit them into this article, it would be him. I refuse to believe that even Tom can't pull that off. --Falcotron 10:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll try to think of something. God, the pressure. --User:Tom mayfair/Sig 20:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I love the Methamphetamine picture, especially the caption. --Falcotron 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
All the new stuff is funny as hell (and keeps getting better), but I'm worried that this reads like two different articles sutured together. I was going to try to rewrite some of the stuff to make it fit in with the band, but now I think that would ruin all of the humor. We could split off a separate tweaker chicks article with most of your stuff, and then try to fit in some references between the two (not just See Also links; I mean references within the text). Or maybe an article about tweakers in general, which could include stuff about Keanu Reeves not being as lucky as Sandra Bullock, etc. On the other hand, splitting would mean this article would lose its best pictures (some of the best pictures on Uncyclopedia, in fact), which would be sad. I don't know; what do you think? --Falcotron 04:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- We'll just have to see what happens with a merge. I'll use my sandbox whenever I can and show you what I have. But it's my bedtime. Good luck.--User:Tom mayfair/Sig 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)