Talk:Duke Nukem 3D/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 2006 1.1 Link changes 1.2 Reorganization 1.3 Speedrun of Duke Nukem 3D 1.4 Add-ons

2006

Link changes

Starting over the topic TX and I started. The old one was wrong and boring - I guess TX will agree. Let's do a much better one. So I 'm asking about adding a comment for xDuke link as 'most played for online gaming' - which is a proven fact. We can add other comments to the other ports as well. I'm suggesting JonoF 'most played for single player games. Support HRP pack', eDuke 'Same as JonoF but in better with extended mods capabilities'. Not sure for Rancid. Dave is updating it. Surely the comments will change as ports are updated...

This way people who are in a rush won't need to read 10 pages to understand what they are downloading.

Any suggestion for it or against it?

Btw I occasionally see people using eDuke online now. This started a few weeks ago - at the time I added eDuke to my page. Not sure if the cause though. eDuke exe shoud be renamed as JonoF exe to be played online (else DukesterX won't take it). That will be fixed in DukesterX2 (dx2: when it's done. No release date for it yet) Matt 132.203.107.212 04:12, 14 March 2006 "who's xDuke?" Do you know(UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is merely to provide completely unbiased information; such a comment is not a proven fact as it is simply the result of one small thread on one small forum. Such commentary by nature violates the NPOV guidelines here and is generally irrelevant to the scope of this article; people who are "in a rush" can evaluate their options at their leisure and make their own decisions. Information present on Wikipedia must not be biased in any way. TerminX 06:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Information present on Wikipedia must not be biased that's why what's written must be NPOV - standing for Neutral Point of View, i.emust be a proven fact. Adding those comments is a neutral Point of View since they are informative proven facts I think. It's not a speculation or supposition. It's like saying Canada is the biggest country in America, is a correct NPOV as it's a proven fact. One can see more examples that xDuke is a reference for online deathmatch there or there (yellow rooms in the picture are xDuke rooms running) or there 13 posts, 12 times xDuke is cited. There is one missing because the guy just doesn't say what port he uses. Simply starting up DukesterX will show all the yellow rooms (xDuke rooms). In this sense I think it's a verified fact and thus an NPOV information that xDuke it the most played port for online Duke3D. ==>Can people who are reading this Talk page give us their (neutral) point of view? thanks. 132.203.107.212 09:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that threads about your port on the only forum that your port is discussed on are neither factual nor proven. You cannot just say "It is a fact! People on my forum said so!" By that logic, I could add a comment that says EDuke32 is ten times more popular than xDuke because I happen to get ten times as many web hits. Such a comment, however, would be in complete violation of the NPOV policy as it is in no way neutral, just as your link text was in no way neutral. You are welcome to refer to your work as the second coming of Christ or whatnot on your own personal web site, but you are not welcome to do so here. Wikipedia is not a place for one to advertise their work, it is a place for neutral information. This is, of course, why various sysops and administrators here seem to have sided with me on the matter. Perhaps you simply don't understand the difference between neutral text and advertisement as English may not be your native language, but no matter; my position on the issue has been made clear and Wikipedia's policy is set in stone. TerminX 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is against the comments I want to add. Only you is against because you are eDuke32 port author, and because i'm xDuke port author. You just do not tolerate other authors to change anything to duke3d's article, ensuring you to have the full control of wikipedia. This way you have managed to add 2 blocks of text about eDuke32. I have none about my port xDuke because you are deleting the slighest word I'm adding by finding various excuses that look very serious. You have managed to move others ports link to the bottom so you get a better place for your eDuke32 link (I can bring up the log of wikipedia that shows it). You are using strategies to try to make me look very bad so you look very good. You are trying to exploit sysops by stating they agreed that my comments were not neutral. Lies. They have not. What else can I say? maybe I should restore the old Link changes topic I have removed in this talk page. It was explaining how you managed to exploit the big yahoo sysops to delete the Yahoo forum you got banned from... wasting +300 people and all their message because you hated them. You are an ultimate convincing master, congratulation. 132.203.107.212 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. Just solve the damn problem and cite sources. If you can cite any (and not resort to original research), then the comment can stay. Otherwise, it has no business being there. Any contested statement should have a source cited, or it is fair game for removal. Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So Johnleemk is a wikipedia Sysop. I guess you were needed. One can see more examples that xDuke is a reference for online deathmatch source 1 is a newcomer who complains he can't find anybody using the port 'jfduke' he has downloaded for netgames. Another experienced netgame player explain him it's because everybody uses xDuke and give him the right link. How much time could this user have saved by reading the proper comments on wikipedia? source 2 : yellow rooms in the picture are xDuke rooms running... Blue if Jonof or eDuke32. Now the source 3 is a opponent finder for netgames with 13 posts, 12 times xDuke is cited as prefered port for online gaming. This web site is specialized in online gaming of duke3d ports only. It is independant from all the port coders. If it's not enough I can show more home pages of duke3d fans but it basically explains the same again so... Can you please confirm that it is valid enough? Thanks. 132.203.32.224 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He said you need to cite sources, not post threads from the forum you hang out on, on a site that also happens to post news updates for you; not only are these "sources" invalid on the ground that they're completely unverifiable, but the "sources" in question are inherently biased towards you by association. It's a good thing someone is here to point out that your "sources" are just your forum friends. Otherwise, you might come off as an "ultimate convincing master"! TerminX 09:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are not verifiable sources. If you cannot find any verifiable sources, the content should not stay. End of story. Johnleemk | Talk 11:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk, please give reasons - something better than 'TerminX' said so. Show me for exemple in what this is not a valid primary source for cition. Read No original research. Especially the Primary source section: Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations . Show this thread is NOT a primary source and thus not valid by showing that all the following conditions are not met: that this thread is NOT an interview, that's this thread is NOT a record of field observation, and that it is NOT a tabulated results of a questionnary (fyi: it asks people what they use for their netgames) then show why this thread IS biased. Once you have shown us those conditions what you say will be valid and fair. Your help is appreciated. 132.203.32.224 20:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC) mk

Apparently you missed the part where it says primary sources must be published by a credible publication (AKA not a Geocities site, not a blog, not a bunch of forum postings, and what have you). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Johnleemk | Talk 03:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. my source stating than xduke is most played are greater than your sources (I haven't seen yours showing I'm wrong?). Explain in this case why you are right (with no sources) and why I am wrong (with the most accurate source I can provide, not great, but reasonably reliable and verified). You can for example say that it’s because my source are not verified enough for you. In this case please answer the point 2 below. 2. You are 15 years old, I'm 31. You must understand you can't apply the policy and law in their toughest sense. It's always applied in reasonable way. For example, in Reliable sources that you are referencing to support what you are saying it's written: When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources. There is a wealth of reliable information in articles signed by experts that appear in tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, as well as reputable specialized encyclopedias such as the New Grove and the Dictionary of National Biography. Note that unsigned encyclopedia articles are written by staff, not by experts, and do not have the same level of credibility. How much of the duke3d article is falling in such verified sources (then it must be NPOV as well, meaning we can't accept anything coming from a commercial web site. Oh and it's also stated commercial web can't be linked at all in the link policy of wikipedia). Can you imagine what happens if you really apply that? We can delete like 75% of the whole duke3d article and maybe 50% of the whole wikipedia. Please review your position. Don't give up - u cool hehe - and tell me in clear words why you are then allowing TerminX to delete my comment and why you are not allowing other people to delete all the other parts of the text that have absolutely NO verified/reliable sources cited. This is why you must be fair and reasonable in your choice. Being too strict will only go against yourself. Think about it. Not beeing pure and too strict helps in real life too, to be more accepted by the mass, more social. A binary or pure policy and law never worked and only lead to abuses. Thanks. 132.203.32.206 06:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Removing the information from the article is not the same as stating it is wrong. Rather, it will reflect that there is no reliable source (as defined by POLICY) that can corroborate the claim(s) at this time. My age has nothing to do with this dispute, and neither does your's. And the difference with half the material that could be deleted is that nobody has claimed it to be wrong without obviously violating policy. Most of the material on Wikipedia is crap anyway (just press the random article button a hundred times and see what that tells you). Johnleemk | Talk 12:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Age has to do something with this dispute. Age is more about experience and understanding things. Usually the older the wiser. For example I can't access the General Electric CEO position because I'm too young and lack of experience and maturity. The same way you can't access the electronic security architect position I had for the NATO because you lack of experience and maturity you are not trusted. That's it, there is nothing to discuss about it, it's not bad, or else we would have 10 years old police agents in the streets and Allan Greenspan would have been replaced by a 12 old years girl. Difference of age makes this dispute here, because you don't understand my point of view, and think you are holding the truth. But let's work it out as you worth it. Now I'm showing you your limit of applying the policy on Wikipedia, and showing why you're doing wrong: To show you this I just have to find a part that has no source cited and claim it is wrong - that's *exactly* what terminX is doing with my part, and you agreed he's right even with my reasonable sources and proofs I gave -. So I used the same logic and started to remove 2 blocks of text in the main duke3d article. Look at the log. I'm not kidding. I'll remove 1 block text I don't agree with per day from now, that doesn't have a source cited from this article or doesn't have a VERY RELIABLE source cited (that's what you said about my part: not reliable enough). So i'm nopw using your logic against wikipedia. We have to be fair after all, isn't it? Then I'll start attacking other articles on Wikipedia. That's the way you see how things should. Are you really sure it's good? I think it's really really bad. Tell me what you think about it. 132.203.32.206 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

More specifically, here is what is wrong: the level of reliability needed to leave a part on Wikipedia must be in proportion of the importance of the matter. For example a statement about genetic cloning should have a reliable source. Reliable here means a scientific publication, published in a recognized magazine, say magazines as Science or Nature. But there is no way to find scientific publications for a statement as duke3d port being the most played/recommended port for netgames The best you can have are forums, home page of fans and users of duke3d and probing people to see, globally, what they tend to use. The web is a perfect and reliable source according to such a statement. Of course, it would be good to have everything certified and reviewed by scientific committee (as Nature magazine is doing) but it's simply impossible. Be realistic and wiser. The world is not perfect, and won't be. Instead of trying to go against this, try cooperating, try adapting, then only we can improve progressively. English isn't my native language so I hope I'm clear enough. Btw here is another [proof] of the excellence of xDuke for netgames and excellence of Jonof port for single games. It's in French. Use a translator if you don't understand French. It says "there is no good or bad port... but xDuke port is best for netgames ... and Jonof port is best for single games". You remember the statement I wanted to add again? I was stating exactly the same thing. How strange heh?. Of course all the hardcore dukers know it. But you will always find someone who doesn't agree, consensus can't be reached with the mass. Again, it's needed to be reasonable and wise. You are claiming to be a nerd on your page, which is cool I’m one myself, but understand that rigid principles – although they are logically perfectly right - do not work when dealing with the mass and an analogic and non-perfect world. That’s exactly the reason why nerds are considered as extremely anti social btw. No offense, but think about it. 132.203.32.206 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the real world, age doesn't matter on the internet. Maturity matters. Not age. Your arguments on this topic are a red herring anyway. Also note that your statement that "unimportant" topics should not have as stringent requirements for references directly contravenes policy. Johnleemk | Talk 03:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My question was: is deleting this good or not?. You have answered Your arguments on this topic are a red herring anyway. You are avoiding the YES/NO answer, and I'm going to explain why: because you are stuck. If you say YES, then you are ruining Wikipedia. If you say NO, then you will have to admit your error.

Maturity matters. We are not more mature than what our age allows us. Logic helps a bit to be mature faster, but you seem to forget logic doesn't replace experience of life. If it were, law would be applied by computers. 15 years old people have 15 years of experience, not more. 50 years old people have 50 years of experience. You are extremely mature, but you have your limits as I have mine. I'm not blaming you, this is normal, we can't ask a 15 years old guy to pass Law and Management courses, and you can't invent them, because Law and Management are more than just logic. They are based on the experience of life. When you'll pass those courses (in 15 or 20 years from now as I did for my MBA) you will forget the strict logic because you will start to understand we are not living in a computer world with binary and digital brains. We are in a human world in which the Human Factor is ruling. For example, read that short management article, called "Law & Order: strict policies may be bad business" [|here]. What do you think about it? If you think what is explained in this article makes sense for a better world, and that it applies everywhere then you can claim you are starting to have some management maturity and skills. Wow! if you don't agree then I say you are still very mature, but not more than any young logic nerd (that I respect, because many people, if not most, are not even able to be logic).

So I'm going to ask my question again, since you have avoided the answer. It is a very clear question that has YES or NO answer. I am deleting everything that has no sources, because I claim they are wrong, and because your are making it a right to delete it in this case. This follows exactly what you have told us. Question: is deleting those texts as I do help Wikipedia? (YES/NO)

If you answer YES then I will keep going on and find other people to help me deleting the other articles to clean wikipedia. If I am arrested, I'll explain that you are supporting those actions and made it a right that protects me. If you answer "NO", which I really hope, I'll revert those changes asap and add my comment back as well. We removed it for the same exact reason we removed the other parts of the text: source not reliable enough I know you are very brilliant or I wouldn’t spend so much time with you. This is not an offence. If you think it's an offense to you, pl. let me know. I'll try better methods. I just want to help. In conclusion, I'm strictly doing what you tell me to do, you are 100% responsible. I'm a computer. You are the brain controlling it. Your move... I will proceed your next orders.

Edit: forgot to sign. PS: I deleted another part in duke3d article because I don't agree it and because I don't find any reliable sources for what was stated. I'm removing parts on a per day basis as I said. You also have to protect me because you are a sysop supporting the reason why I am removing it. See the log. It's bad. I urge you to tell me it's bad so I can revert everything 132.203.32.206 07:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 :: Q: Why did you remove info about the game itself which is clearly present within the game? The OJ Simpson chase among other things are in the game. Are you sure you've played Duke Nukem 3D? Please leave relevant info, and if you are unsure please ask someone before editing. Thank you. 209.181.252.244 08:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I second this one. What's with those deletions? We need a source to say that all of those references are in the game? When it's right in front of our eyes and hardly open to interpretation? I think not. Granted, the list of references could be trimmed down a bit, but then the ongoing edit war on assorted DN3D ports would be a better target for culling (see much of the above). --Plumbago 09:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you are wrong on all counts. Removing material you obviously know to be correct is a violation of policy. Remove something that: 1) Has no source; 2) Is dubious or debatable. Removing in-game incidents is stupid because they are inherently verifiable if you play the game, whereas you won't know what's the most popular mod/hack/port/whatever if you just play the game. If you think that that stuff never happened, then state explicitly so (e.g. "I did just like the article said but nothing happened when I reached it"). Johnleemk | Talk 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi 209.181.252.244 and Plumbago. We are working Johnleemk (sysop) and I on wikipedia policy interpretation. The problem is not Johnleemk properly speaking. It's because TerminX is messing up with the Wiki content, exploiting sysops who are not in the field and exploiting the policy of Wikipedia to his advantage. He is trying us to have some fights, but fortunately Johnleemk is very patient and keeps the talk on. These parts I removed are not to be really removed (I hope!) so don't worry. Plumbago asked "We need a source to say that all of those references are in the game?" Absolutely. Here is what Johnleemk (sysop) said, just scroll up to see it: If you cannot find any verifiable sources, the content should not stay. End of story. Johnleemk ... and also: Just solve the damn problem and cite sources. If you can cite any (and not resort to original research), then the comment can stay. Otherwise, it has no business being there., so yes, we need sources. Even if it's obvious, just by looking at it, we need a reference to a very verifiable source. It must not be what we call an original research neither, that is you must not conclude yourself that you think "there are references to movies..". That's wikipedia policy, so becarful. -Don't flame Johnleemk, he's not the source of all the problems. TerminX is |and he must be laughing like crazy at this time - So what is true is not enough. And then if you provide a source, it must be a source that is more than proven, like NY Times sources or something of this caliber. Showing a forum, public debate etc .. doesn't work I already tryed for xDuke. This is why stating that xDuke is the most played port for netgames (not single but netgames) was removed even with all the evidences, even if we know it's true. If nobody complains, then it's fine, but if only one guy is contesting then everything must be removed, unless perfectly proven. That's what happened with xDuke. If you start the only netgame interface called dukesterx for duke3d, or just visit specialized forums, you obviously see it's right: xduke IS the the most played for netgame and by FAR. It's a fact but this is was not accepted because there is no formal source showing xDuke is by far the most played for netgames, there are only obvious evidences, but nothing absolutely formal. Now Duke3d article has a part: ...The game freely plunders many themes from cinematic sources, notably the Alien (movie)... The Terminator ...Dirty Harry... that is even much less verifiable than stating xDuke is most played for netgames. Why it's not verifiable that duke3d uses those themes? Because if it were the cinema industry would have sued 3drealms a long time ago. IDSoftware tryed to sue 3drealms for references to IDsoftware's characters. It didn't work because it's not verifiable that's duke3d uses copyrighted IDSoftware's reference the sense of the civil law. Thus this part about themes is not verifiable and must be removed. And there are no sources neither. We need source first, and once we have the source, it must be verifiable. I'm just trying to show it doesn’t make sense and that there is a given way to apply those policies. Johnleemk said : Removing in-game incidents is stupid because they are inherently verifiable if you play the game So you don't agree with what you said before; not only there are no sources for the movie themes used, but checking yourself and writing it in Wikipedia is basically an original research. Double fault! That's why I deleted those parts. So I understand you are giving up the strict application of both the sources and original research policy needed to post a fact? Good! This is very reasonnable. Johnleemk said: whereas you won't know what's the most popular mod/hack/port/whatever if you just play the game. You do know. I think that's where TerminX got you? Because you don't play netgames, so you don't know you just have to play netgames to see the evidence of what I claimed. If you play netgames, then you graphically see that xDuke is the most played port for Netgames. You know what port is most used for netgames, because all the netgames are centralized through the Dukesterx interface. You have no other choices than starting that interface if you want to play netgames. Just start it, try to play a game and see with your eyes the yellow lines. Here is a screenshot of this interface in a crowdy day (like it now happens on every week ends): there yellow rooms in the picture are xDuke rooms running. Check also there for people who wants to be contacted to play netgames. Read their posts and see what they want to use for netgames. Those who tryed to play netgames know. If you are still not convinced, read this. This guy is trying to play another port for netgames, and complains he can't find any open netgame! Why? Because he doesnt use what everybody else uses for netgames, as Jaks is saying in this thread. Remember Dukesterx is the only knows and used public netgame interfaces. So it is inherently verifiable if you play (NET) games’’ that xDuke is the most used. Why is it rejected then? 132.203.32.206 02:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell, stop your whining already. You must be really hurting for web hits to be throwing this kind of ridiculous shitfit over having your unverifiable "xDuke is the best!" text removed. Is this how you operate? You spend a month vandalizing a public information source when someone decides that adhering to Wikipedia policy would be a good idea and that actual information should be present instead of your advertisement? That's hilarious! What exactly is it that you think you're accomplishing, and why is it that you think you deserve something other than encyclopedic information written about you?

Let me make something very clear: everyone I know in the Duke3D community (and considering that I do, in fact, moderate the forums that are at the center of this community AND the forums of the most popular Duke port, JFDuke3D, I know quite a few people) is laughing at you over this, because your fits here have become our daily entertainment. Coders, mappers, authors of other ports.. man, don't you ever wonder why I don't reply to your ridiculous claims stating that I'm "evil" and that I'm trying to manipulate everyone? I'll give you a hint: it's because we're all laughing. Yeah, laughing. At you. You know what the people who aren't laughing say? They say why they say that? They say that because the people in the Duke Nukem 3D community (and by Duke Nukem 3D community, I mean everyone outside of the rather small forum you inhabit) do not know who you are. Do you know why they don't know who you are? It's because you spend all of your time acting like a twat on Wikipedia (and yes, I can definitely cite references on this point) instead of actually doing anything Duke related. You act so deranged that the whole situation has really become more of a comical thing than an actual problem.

On one hand, I kind of want you to stop vandalizing the article, because really, not only is it counterproductive and childish as all hell, but it undermines the 10 years (yes, 10 years) I've spent working with Duke.... but, on the other hand, your changes can always be reverted and it is way too funny to see you act like an ass. Simply hilarious. I suggest you get to work on improving your software to a point where you don't need to spend a month fighting for advertising space on Wikipedia, because as long as you keep vandalizing this article, I'll keep laughing and reverting.

Finally, let me do anyone just joining us a favor and provide some backstory: I banned xDuke from the 3DR forums a couple of days after Halloween 2005 for having links to a warez copy of Duke3D on his site. He only had 3 or 4 posts at the time (yeah, he signed up for the 3DR forums with a link to a site with a warez copy of Duke in his profile... wow, I have to wonder just what that PhD my Google search says he's working on is even in). He then proceeds to send me 4-5 pages of the same crap he has posted here, and then shows up and starts deleting information about my software project from the article. In case any of you have missed it, we both maintain ports of the game. Anyhow, at that point, I figured I'd just revert the changes and that that would be the end of it.. yeah, I guess I was wrong there. Fast forward to Feb 2006, at which time he adds a link to his software which was nothing more than thinly veiled advertisement stating that his relatively new port is somehow the most played multiplayer port of all time. You know, someone going out of their way to state that their software is the most used sounds a lot like AOL's "so easy to use, no wonder it's #1" advertising campaign. Whatever. Anyways, I edit the link to simply state that it's a Windows port of Duke3D by xDuke, and that it's based on the older Rancidmeat port. This information is not only factual, but perfectly matches the encyclopedic nature of the links to other active Duke Nukem 3D ports.

What happened next, in a nutshell: xDuke throws strange shitfit, starts an edit war, cries about it on this talk page, starts to libel me, and has now moved on to deleting random portions of the article in a strange act of vandalistic revenge. But hey, can we really blame him? I think we all did about the same thing in Toys 'R Us when we were three and were told we weren't getting what we wanted. Thanks for reminding me why I don't want any children for a while. TerminX 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say that I feel really bad for the innocent wikipedia users in xDuke's IP range that are likely to be blocked en masse because of his vandalism. Sad. --Aesire 05:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to TerminX: I'm talking about you manipulating because you are trying to make understand others things that I have not said or done. Example? you said kind of ridiculous shitfit over having your unverifiable "xDuke is the best!" Show me where I said only ONCE it the best? I said it's the most played for netgames which is true.

Answer to Aesire: I'm removing this text with the same criterions used by TerminX to remove my text. This is to show Johnleemk's errors by allowing TX to remove it. If TX remove my text for the reasons Johnleemk said, then we can remove almost anykind of text for the exact same reasons. This doesn't make sense of course... I'm glad you noticed it, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. 132.203.32.206 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, and you were, like, pointing out that your greater age (31 vs. 15) was somehow relevant to the debate at hand. Well, you just shot yourself in the foot there with your childish stunts. Stick to arguing on the talk page. Yes, we saw that your edits would be reverted, but in the meantime your stupid changes stop anyone else from properly editing the article (as a simple revert wouldn't include them).

And, just for the record, I can't believe this porting dispute has gone on for so long. Can't we just put the links to ports on the page, and not comment on which is the more important unless there are hard numbers to inform the comments? Anyone who's that into ports will quickly find out which is best/most popular. --Plumbago 09:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Plumbago: temporarily removing those parts was the price to pay for Johnleemk to understand his way of applying a strict policy is rather unfair. I removed the text using the same Johnleemk's policy that allowed TerminX to remove my comments. I think he got it now. Sorry if this did troubles. There is no best port properly speaking and it only depends on what you want to do. That was the whole point behind those comments. I have no prob with the other ports at all. I have added comments for the main ports on xDuke's web site a long long time ago. xDuke web page is promoting eDuke, JonoF, Rancid and Icculus port. On the other hand, terminX is extremely uncooperative and tries to be intimidating as if he's scared of something or lack of confidences 132.203.107.212 05:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

To start off, I will say that I am slightly sympathetic to your cause, and that I don't actually know enough about the game and the multiplayer system to give an insiders view - although I may be able to present a more neutral outside view. However, I will also point out firstly that what you did very much contravened WP:POINT, and also try to explain why what you were trying to do was probably not done in the best way: the problem in trying to say that your port was the most-used one in some way was that the only sources you had for that were from your own forums (and one screenshot showing 8/9 servers used your port, but shown on your forums, and as far as I can gather not really knowing the game itself, from a program hosted by your server). Unfortunately, these present biased sources. As pointed out in WP:V and WP:RS, anyone can put anything on a website, and in particular WP:RS quotes At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Now, while, yes, the New York Times has never written an article on the appearance of the Doom marine in DN3D, it's fairly easy to bring up a large number of independent sources on Google which all concur with that fact - and there are no reliable sources saying the opposite. On the other hand, your claim is backed up with three links to a forum, and there are arguments from significant contributors to the article and Wikipedia in general arguing that your claim is, if not actually false, then at least not sufficiently verified, and while they may not count as reliable sources themselves they do hold a certain amount of authority in terms of the article. Given all of that, and however useful it may prove to be, I'd also say that both sides could probably have stated their points much better without recourse to violating WP:POINT and WP:NPA. Confusing Manifestation 19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point of view of ConMan, I liked it a lot. Thanks! I'm quoting and commenting some parts to help: "and also try to explain why what you were trying to do was probably not done in the best way" Sorry for this. It seemed the only way to make things move. I understand it was not too good. "to say that your port was the most-used one" You are reading TX who tries to make me say stuffs I haven't said. I'm saying exactly this: xDuke is most used for *netgames*, (and wanted to add: eduke is most used for mods and Jonof is most used for singler player games). That's basically what is agreed in the duke community. I'm not trying to promote my port specifically, i'm trying to show what port is used for what. "that the only sources you had for that were from your own forums". A --> It's not my forums. It's only TX saying that so I look like i'm self promoting. All the ports are represented in these forums. "that the only sources you had " B ---> it's the primiry reference as it's the only place where public netgames for duke ports happens. Any other source you would find would be only based on these forums again. It's like saying X got a nobel prize, and I give the nobel prizes official web site in Sweden as a proof, where you see written: "X won the medal". Isn't giving one source enough in this case? DukesterX in the reference and the only one, just check in the link section of the duke3d article. 132.203.32.206 01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

The Atomic Edition needed an explanation, as did EDuke (which appeared to have sprung up in 2003 rather than 2000). I tried to order the various sections in levels of importance, giving PC-related matters preference over console ports, official and commercial products placement over mods, and ports of the game precedence over unreleased or unofficial "successors."

I recommend adding Serious Sam as a successor, even if the enemies are more Doom-like, the physics and commentary are more Duke-like.

Hope you find the additions/cleanup satisfactory. --Aesire 01:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. I would change "Official Addons" title by "Main releases" (then state that Atomic had an add-on), and add 1.3d before Atomic. (order is 1.3d / 1.4 / 1.5 / eDuke32). Ask TX for more. I don't think Serious Sam is too of interest, or just add like one short line about it. 132.203.107.212 04:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For further re-org, the information about the teleportation bugs appears under "Level design", and then appears again almost verbatim under "Multiplayer and Multiplayer history". Somebody should tighten that up. 142.59.153.99 08:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedrun of Duke Nukem 3D

There exists a speedrun of duke3d recorded using the popular jonof port. Should it be mentioned in the article? Just wondering because for instance quake article mentions quake speedrunning and it even has its own article. 83.102.70.100 17:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Someone posted it a long time ago, then some maniac removed it all instead of improving the article. See log to figure out. Please note Speedrun can only be officialy accepted when done with the original game. That's why the jonof speedrun was rejected by official speedrun web site http://speeddemosarchive.com This is because port may alter the original gameplay. ==> To see if the original gameplay is altered, simply play an original duke dos demo (*.dmo) on the port - not a recorded demo you have just done of course. If it doesn't play correctly or doesn't play at all, then it means the original gameplay was broken in the port. The rational behind this is that the *.dmo records the keypresses only. So for a given sequence of keypresses under the original dos duke3d of the *.dmo file, the port should be able to behave exactly the same way and reproduce the *relative* movements ordered by the *.dmo file. If it does then the old demo will play fine. If the port changed a behavior of the physics, even slightly, then the demo will go like crazy or wrong. 132.203.32.206 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Add-ons

I remember playing an add-on of Duke called "Duke in Penthouse" (or something similar). Not too sure if it's the same as Duke in Caribbean...but when a player presses the "use" button (space generally) near dancing girls, Duke offers the girl some money and she usually exposes a bit of skin!

Might be a community mod. Although Duke is able to offer money to women in the original version of the game. Anyway, it sounds like this is an even more dodgy version of Duke than usual! Maybe not one for the article! Cheers, --Plumbago 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Penthouse Paradise was a single user map with a bunch of porno pics cut out and downsampled to Duke's palette. It's certainly not something worth mentioning in an article about the game, that's for sure. TerminX 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounded that way. Thanks for the update. I second your view - we shouldn't bother adding it. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

oh, ok...yes, the name was Penthouse Paradise...and if it's a community mod, no point adding it...there could be hundreds!

Hmm... I currently have the shareware version on my computer, and on the second level of episode 1, there is a strip joint. By giving money to them, some woman briefly show their breasts. RidE the Lightning! 19:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's default Duke Nukem 3D. Nothing special there. I think the shareware version is actually the first episode (of three; original version). Cheers, --Plumbago 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)