OldUnreal (Engine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history

Gonna say it straight and simple now: just stop removing the d*mn link, it's not funny anymore. Go outside instead.

They just want a "reliable third party" source, reasonably so, but also completely unreasonable at the same time. They're following the rules and not allowing them to be bent when they should.

I understand that, however I don't understand why do they give so much crap about it. I mean, seriously now... Who are those people, anyway?

Because they think they so talent by deleting it but its a lie

But they also probably figure they want official crap only, not from some random people. Little do they know we probably know more about Unreal and have more stuff from it than Sweeney!!!!!!1111one

Critical warning (inb4 oxymoron):
       In CoopGame.SendPlayer:
       if ( left(URL,6) ~= "endgame")
                     ^
   Semantic error 0xFSWEENEY: string length mismatch
Recommended fix: patch to 227

I just lost the game, didn't I?

and joined again the discussion...

I'm surprised that it's not semi-protected yet.
Anyway, the sooner you release the final the sooner it will be officially on WP. I guess that's one of the good points of doing several smaller patches instead of one big.

But how is it exactly 'unreliable'? I think that someone on there just has subzero life and nothing smart to do. Like why, but constantly, are they removing it? It's just so childish... I only added the links once, I'm not fighting against anyone on there, but seems that some others are. I may as well join it though ^///^

Or wait until final release... lol

Oh Wikipedia, you so funny.

come on people, I don't want any of you to edit the article, although its plain wrong at the moment, the so called Linux port there is just a UT mod to play Unreal1 single player with UT in Linux - but you can join the discussion.

I scanned through the discussion at Wikipedia and saw something like: "FUCK, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN". This type of 'discussion' only works counter-productive. OR take the agonizing diplomatic approach, or keep yourself out of the discussion. Aggression and frustration won't help anything.

I won't stick my hand in this wasp nest anymore at least.

thats not the discussion I wanted encourage to either

Just stop and let it live by itself. OU can live without being mentioned on the english wikipedia, any thing that may happen will only cause more problems. 227 is mentionned on the French and German already, if they don't want it on the English one, who cares in the end ?

on one hand you are right of course, but on the other hand its just wrong whats happening there and the current information is incorrect also.
This bothers me way more than the fact if or if not Oldunreal is mentioned there.

on one hand you are right of course, but on the other hand its just wrong whats happening there and the current information is incorrect also.
This bothers me way more than the fact if or if not Oldunreal is mentioned there.

That's what I noticed as well. The info is incorrect. What troubled me the most was the authors inability to help get the information reguarding 227 posted under the"so called"  WP rules, not to mention the entire article itself seems to be posted by an unofficial source. Doesn't this also go against the WP's?


Edit:  Also upon further reading of the article there are clearly links posted of unofficial nature. I've listed them below. Some of these sites clearly are for monetary purposes. Could this be the real reason for this conflict? Was the pages creator involved with these. Since he references them I would assume yes. Or is it a simple matter of jealousy? My 2 cents worth.

8.^ Unreal Gold for Linux - icculus.org
9.^ Unreal Gold (Linux) - Gampespy)
10.^ Unreal I Installer - The Linux Game Tome
11.^ Gaming and Linux in 2003 - LinuxHardware.org
12.^ Unreal - Tux Games
13.^ Unreal 1 Available at Tux Games - LinuxGames

I think that if Unreal 227 gets it's final release that the external sources may get 'reliable' enough for a mention. Just wait and see. It is better to let the time do it's job then to waste it all right now. Maybe it is wasted already, if OldUnreal is really blacklisted.

Wikipedia is above all politics. They invite everyone to edit, and if you bite and edit you get involved in the game of politics. Only a handful of users are skilled and smart (knowledge) enough to deal with it the right way. Not as accessible as they appear to be.

But as Agent Smith already said: Appearances can be deceiving.

on one hand you are right of course, but on the other hand its just wrong whats happening there and the current information is incorrect also.
This bothers me way more than the fact if or if not Oldunreal is mentioned there.

That's what I noticed as well. The info is incorrect. What troubled me the most was the authors inability to help get the information reguarding 227 posted under the"so called"  WP rules, not to mention the entire article itself seems to be posted by an unofficial source. Doesn't this also go against the WP's?


Edit:  Also upon further reading of the article there are clearly links posted of unofficial nature. I've listed them below. Some of these sites clearly are for monetary purposes. Could this be the real reason for this conflict? Was the pages creator involved with these. Since he references them I would assume yes. Or is it a simple matter of jealousy? My 2 cents worth.

8.^ Unreal Gold for Linux - icculus.org
9.^ Unreal Gold (Linux) - Gampespy)
10.^ Unreal I Installer - The Linux Game Tome
11.^ Gaming and Linux in 2003 - LinuxHardware.org
12.^ Unreal - Tux Games
13.^ Unreal 1 Available at Tux Games - LinuxGames

Quoted all of that for truth and I agree.

Wikipedia is above all politics. They invite everyone to edit, and if you bite and edit you get involved in the game of politics. Only a handful of users are skilled and smart (knowledge) enough to deal with it the right way. Not as accessible as they appear to be.

I think it's just an endless, pointless war. "Skilled" ("special", "different", ..."delayed") ones, against Commonsensians.

In my opinion wouldn't having the source and all that stuff to make a 227 patch make us legit? >.>

In my opinion wouldn't having the source and all that stuff to make a 227 patch make us legit? >.>

Positive. There surely are reverse engineered patches but 227 team got permission from Epic, or else Epic would sue everyone here long ago.

The thing is, we don't have proof that they have the source, so unless they post it... :\

The thing is, we don't have proof that they have the source, so unless they post it... :\

I see what you did there.

The thing is, we don't have proof that they have the source, so unless they post it... :\

227 is proof enough. Noone could make such a patch without source. Aside from that, screw wikipedia, if they don't want the real info then fuck em. Sorry had to rant some.  

227 is proof enough. Noone could make such a patch without source. Aside from that, screw wikipedia, if they don't want the real info then crappity smack em. Sorry had to rant some.  

Well, how could they, who probably have no idea about the way Unreal Engine works, know that?

I'm gonna have to...

I found this website on my search for a decent 227 source.

http://www.unreal4fun.de/e107/download.php?view.6

It simply says it exists and it has a linux port, and is pretty much unbiased. The website seems pretty extensive with the unreal series.

Beyondunreal's wiki also lists 227f. They are a well known website and they are indeed known to correct errors on their news entries, as wikipedia states is required.

http://liandri.beyondunreal.com/Unreal

I think these two sources should be reliable enough.