Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TerminX 13:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Duke 3d
editOn Wikipedia before making large changes to an article you are supposed to discuss those changes on the talk page. You and other uses seem to be having an edit war. Edit wars are not productive. All the users who have a view on this issue should post their comments to the Duke 3d talk page so that a consensus can be reached before large changes are made to the article. For example, your message to TerminX belongs on the Duke3d talk page. In addition you assert some things ("TC can't and must not fall under the original game article") based on your own ideas, other Wikipedians may disagree with these and other ideas, so that is why posting on the talk page works, so that all users with a view can form a consensus. Qutezuce 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Echoing what Qutezuce said above. Modern ports are the current state of Duke3D and deleting entire sections of an article merely because you apparently don't like it is highly inappropriate. Furthermore, you should pay attention to an article's history before making an ass out of yourself again the future -- 1) I didn't add the HRP link to the Duke3D page; 2) Though I moderate it, I did not add the 3DR source code forum link to the Duke3D page; 3) 3DR doesn't hold any rights over the HRP, and for that matter, the HRP is indeed GPL as nothing in the HRP has been created from actual data found in Duke Nukem 3D, and 4) I didn't write the text that you removed, I merely reworded it after it was added by someone else. I'd also like to note that while the EDuke32 port does allow you to create fancy TCs, by default it provides the classic gameplay of Duke3D. It is not a TC, it is JFDuke3D with extra features.
In conclusion, seeing as a) you don't pay attention to what you're editing; b) you don't seem to know what you're talking about (for instance, the wording on the "Duke Nukem 3D Total Conversions" page shows that you really have no clue in this case), and c) I've invalidated all of the alleged reasons you have for wanting that portion of the article removed, maybe you should really just leave the article alone. TerminX 01:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both for finally starting a dialogue. I'd ask you both to bring this discussion to the talk page for the article so that all users will see and be able to participate in the discussion. I'd also ask both of you to be a bit more civil. Qutezuce 03:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)