User talk:Zarathustrauk

Welcome!

Hello, Zarathustrauk, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there... no, a little more to your left... yeah. Anyway, here are a few good links for people like you:

• Beginner's Guide
• Our Vanity Policies - why we don't care about your friends
• How to be funny and not just stupid

If you read anything at all, make it the above three links. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, try these:

• About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
• How to get started editing on Uncyclopedia
• Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue

I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button () above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.

At Uncyclopedia, writing articles is not a requirement, but it certainly is a fun and easy way to express your creativity. To write an article, it's recommended that you start it in your userspace (for example, User:Zarathustrauk/Article about stuff) so you can edit it at your leisure. If you decide to create it in the cold world of mainspace, make sure it is in accordance with the policies laid out above, and if you're not done put the "Work-In-Progress" template - {{construction}} - onto it as well.

If the current colonization doesn't suit your fancy, then browse our rewrite and idea categories. We have lots of articles just sitting around for someone to improve, so don't be afraid - dive right in!

If you need help, ask me on my talk page, ask at the Dump, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, the Uncyclopedian Adopt-a-Noob program is there to bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. Again, welcome!  ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 00:10, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

What's Going On Here?

Are you and Gentlehug11 related? Looking at your edits something is going on. I can always do a thorough investigation. Let me know before I consider further action. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:50, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if this is how I am supposed to communicate as I'm new to the site.

Yes we are friends and have been editing the page together, I've helped him with picture formatting etc. I have another two friends working on it as well but they haven't posted yet I don't think. Is it an issue that we know each other?

First sign your posts - in your case Zarathustauk. See that squiggle button on the User Talk bar? That is where you sign after you have left a message. Secondly, the article you and your friends are contributing to looks like vanity or at best a local in-joke to me. It has a good chance of being deleted on those grounds. If you want to keep it, the article can be moved to your user space. I can do that for you. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:06, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Check here.UN:VAIN for what I mean. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:09, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. It certainly isn't vanity, there is no reference to anyone real and it is hardly evincing real events. I do not understand how it could possibly be construed as vanity, it's not like we've referenced each other's mothers.

In regards to whether it is some form of local in-joke, again I find it difficult to distinguish. I thought the point of this website was to create material and attempt to make it funny. It is clearly made up, so it's either local to me, or local at best to a group of friends. I would imagine that most of the articles on this website which go deeper than naming a film as gay (which I'm sure everyone will think is hilarious) will have some element of localism. Surely all jokes once came from an original source? Or am I wrong, does everything on this site have to be factual and known to all? If so, I've clearly misunderstood the point of it. If someone comes up with a better article on 'The Battle of The River Mole', I'll clearly have to step aside and apologize for the inconvenience. Despite how unlikely that is, I imagine you will delete this harmless page before then.

I think it's a shame that you are being so restrictive, especially to new users. I understand the need to regulate the site as clearly you will get a lot of idiots writing about themselves and 99% of the material will be unfunny. That said, there is a wiki element to this website which means that anyone can edit it. If you want a clever website written only by you and your cronies, only referencing main stream jokes then perhaps you should close it to the public.

--Zarathustrauk 10:16, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a parody of medieval history and medieval historiography. The River Mole seemed as reasonable as anywhere else, especially considering how many real battles were fought in south east england. An established user appears to have contributed who had no prior knowledge, so it doesn't look to be completely lost on everyone. --Zarathustrauk 10:48, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Did you check the link I gave you? Look at your article this way. If you came across a group of writers laughing at their story titled 'The Battle of Tonksville, Tennessee' with Hitler, Chuck Norris, Oscar Wilde in lead roles etc..etc. would you think that is funny?? It could have pictures, perhaps some neat lines but what about anyone who has never been there??? That is how I view your story. It could be equally called the Battle of Mole Mountain or Mole Rift Valley without adding or subtracting from what you are doing. That is being random. You let one stay and then a site, any site will be deluged with other 'wacky war' articles with Stalin, Hitler, Your Mom, My Little Pony...

Articles here can be in the style of a wikipedia entry that appears to have been lost in some translation machine, an overview article (for example look at this one Game of Thrones, a 'game' All Quiet on the Western Front or this UnBooks:"Incoherent Overwritten Literary Trainwreck" by Thomas Pynchon. You can also look at this page for articles that have been featured Uncyclopedia:Hall_of_Shame. To get there every writer has had many false starts and some prefer to use their talents elsewhere reviewing articles, catching vandals. Since you have come back and asked questions, this is a positive sign to me that you are at least aware that articles like yours can pose a problem. That is why I was willing to move it to your own home page. If you want it deleted instead, just ask. I hope this answers your questions. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:28, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Then why not base your battle on real one that did occur? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:31, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Romanus,

Why is this any more parochial than an article about the rivalry between New York and New Jersey? In answer to your question, if the writers were parodying American civil war history/historiography there is a possibility I'd find it amusing. It's not about direct experience of the River Mole. Rather, it's about direct experience of medieval history/historiography. Battle of River Mole also parodies a specific event: the Battle of Hastings. Didn't you spot the Bayeux Tapestry reference? I see no problem in permitting parodies of medieval history or medieval historiography. To be candid, this all seems very arbitrary to me and I rather suspect you miss the joke because your knowledge of medieval history/historiography is limited.

Gentlehug 11:34, December 28, 2011 (GMT)

p.s. the all quiet on the western front article isn't funny.

Sorry, do you mean like: Battle of Brisbane Battle of Miami Battle of Sydney

Apparently these have made the grade despite their locality. Incidentally, my friend added Chuck Norris as a joke, to try and bring the level of comedy down to the gutter.

I understand why you question the area of choice. However, when parodying an Anglo-Saxon battle, it makes sense to place it in an area which was invaded by the ango-saxons, where kings of counties did in reality fight. That said, we don't need to reference the various towns. The reason we have is that similar battles on Wikipedia go into such detail. We were trying to follow the rules and make it realistic. We hadn't got round to making the references funny yet, we've only been writing for a few days and were just fleshing it out.

I'm not convinced that a made up river would be any more amusing.--Zarathustrauk 11:47, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

The battles you have found aren't funny either but it takes time checking a lot of stuff here. My question to you both is why not just parody the Battle of Hastings? The article that is currently sitting there isn't much good and you could re-edit that to include your ideas. Also to answer Gentlehug's question about whether I know anything about medieval history/historiography, that can be checked by looking at my edit history here. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:56, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok.

Gentlehug 12:55, December 28, 2011 (GMT)

New Start

I had to remove the duplications above. Also can you both sign your posts and tidy up your paragraphs when talking to me? Thanks. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

One Day Ban

You and your friend Gentlehug11 are creating half finished articles all over the place. That's not on. If you want to start something, create a page in your own user area to work on first. I have also reverted the Klaus Kinski edit as you both appear to be creating your own sub wiki here with links and stuff. I have given you both a one day ban to cool down. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 16:05, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Clemency appeal upheld. See my talk page. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:01, December 28, 2011 (UTC)