User talk:Issar El-Aksab

Welcome!

Hello, Issar El-Aksab, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Pointe LaRoche 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsiman

To answer the question from your edit summaries, yes, there needs to be a better reference. The IGN article describes the game, but not its similarity to Subway Surfers. I agree that the similarity is strong, but unless that idea has been presented in a reliable source, putting it in articles is original research, and not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Ibadibam (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Ah, I was afraid of that. Would a pair of YouTube videos (already existing, not made by me) from both games do? They would immediately make the similarity VERY evident. (Heh... maybe even TOO evident: the differences that do exist are mostly non-visual.) At any rate, Pepsiman is, to my knowledge, the oldest running game that has a 3-D character steadily dashing toward the horizon, and in fact consisting exclusively of that. A precursor. Worst case scenario, only the precise comparison to Subway Surfers really needs deleting until officially backed by some authority source.

The thing is, I do believe the similarity is objectively obvious to anyone who has ever played both games. All the way to the unlockable alternate costumes. The link I provided already described Pepsiman in a way that could almost be copy-pasted verbatim into a Subway Surfers review. What kind of non-OR reference would do? Do I need to find someone who made the same comparison? And who exactly would be official enough for WP standards? Just any professional game tester? What about dedicated amateurs with a BIG blog all about videogames? I'm pretty sure Google can help me find something pretty fast... provided I know exactly what it is I need to look for.

A final option would be a Pepsiman game WP article. I seem to have noticed that being an obscure/niche videogame is no grounds for ostracism, yes? I'm already planning one on Swagman, given that the Keepers of the only existing WP article for that word are crispated on keeping it exclusively focused on one topic.

Actually, I would really appreciate it if colleagues with serious WP (and video games?) experience could do some of the research they'd like to see. It's rather simple when one knows precisely the criteria demanded, which I don't really. And my new job doesn't leave me time enough for lengthy debates on minutiae. It would be a crying shame is one busy user resulted in unnecessary gaps on Wikipedia. This is how I've always tried to deal with worthy yet amateurish contributions I encountered: whenever possible, wikify by myself instead of deleting.

Thank you in advance for your help. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Identifying reliable sources for the kinds of sources we're looking for. In short, we need sources that are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as articles in newspapers or reputable gaming magazines. This rules out YouTube and most blogs, which are self-published. In this particular case, I don't think it's obvious that one game is a "precursor" of another created a decade later, especially when reliable sources say the latter "single-handedly invented" the genre. Huon (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the most useful link.

However, regarding the "reliable sources" you mention, I regret to say they are – at least in part – misinformed. While indeed Pepsiman wasn't an endless running game, this is the only element which really distinguishes it from the game that "single-handedly invented" the genre 10 years later. It's only an ancestor, of course. Hence why I just called it a precursor, not the first of the endless genre. But the aforementioned sources are excused from not knowing that rather obscure game, whose poor ratings didn't help reach any fame.

Also, I admit I have no idea whether that precursor had any influence in inspiring Temple Run & Co. None officially acknowleged, I suppose. There are very few Google references to Pepsiman + Subway Surfers, but I ask you: isn't this in-game video[1] more than convincing? Do we really need more than seeing the obvious? Even my (game addict) 9-year old nephew spontaneously says they're "the same".

Please inform me of where the (eventual) discussion will take place, obviously my talk page isn't the best suited place for an issue that involves at least three articles.

Again, any help in finding satisfactory links and/or creating a specific article for the game will be appreciated. Or, I can rephrase my edit so as to remove the elements that you deem OR. That would reach a rapid consensus and make a good compromise. For something this simple, I'm sure I'll find the time. :-)

Please advise. Issar El-Aksab (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's plenty convincing. But we aren't concerned with truth on Wikipedia; we're concerned with established information. Wikipedia can't even say that the sky is blue unless we find a source that says so. There's an essay called Wikipedia is wrong that discusses this succinctly. Ibadibam (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I understand. No wonder it ~~often~~ sometimes feels so bureaucratic around here... And yet, in this instance you still haven't disintegrated my entire contribution, intelligently discussing it among sensible people instead. This I very much appreciate. If you're expecting me to take care of my own edits once pointed to their shortcomings, you're assuming correctly.

The problem with this strict "by the rules, question everything" method, of course, is a philosophical one that Descartes thoroughly established centuries ago: it is virtually possible to doubt anything, as there's always an expert that can/will challenge another. The old experts-backed "absolute proofs of Saddam Hussein's WMD arsenal" springs to mind.

Thus I have two suggestions. Fist one is quite short: how about CONSENSUS? Couldn't it suffice here, if the vast majority of competent users agrees after discussion that this YouTube video is self-explanatory? Just an option.

Second option is even simpler (and compatible, too): I will ASAP rework those edits of mine into a more objective, strictly factual version that shouldn't pose any problems. Leaving others to – eventually – establish the exact role one game had in the birth of the other. Specifically, I believe the very description of Pepsiman in that link I gave strictly establishes it as a "running game", which makes it, if not a "precursor" (possible weasel word here), an "ancestor".

Like I said, I haven't got the slightest idea whether the obscure oldest one was ever copied by someone, or they just re-invented that gameplay by coincidence.

So... does "ancestor game" feel objective and encyclopedic to you, and free of POV? I'm all ready to rework my entire contri on that basis. I even have the time for it. :-) Issar El-Aksab (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deleted my edit summary

The rule is "Bold, revert, discuss". Reinstating your changes before discussion shows bad faith in the judgement of more experienced Wiki editors.Serendi ^pod ous 07:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]