Talk:Kasumi Ninja

ScrewAttack's Comments

Citing ScrewAttack's Top Ten lists in an encyclopedia strikes me as rather ludicrous, especially when the comments being quoted are little more than childish profanity. Screwattack's Top Ten lists are clearly intended as a joke; their #1 best gaming peripheral of all time was a vibrator that the gamer places against her crotch while playing, their #1 "worst power-up" was the poison mushroom in Super Mario Bros. 2, and they included in their "top 5 reasons to keep your Wii" the supposition that it's the system you're most likely to convince your girlfriend to play. Since cutting out an entire reference is controversial, I'm opening it up for discussion here, but I really think we ought to delete any reference to ScrewAttack. Quoting their Top Ten lists is like quoting a Saturday Night Live Top Ten list.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So...that's why you're dismissing it? Sorry, Martin, that isn't really good enough and reeks of both NPOV and OWN. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While I have no opinion of support one way or the other regarding the removal or keeping of screwattack, I will comment that your accusation of NPOV and OWN is incorrect here. WP:NPOV has to do with content in the article, not an editor's viewpoint. An example of violation of NPOV would be if the article were to have only positive reviews when negative ones also existed. Or if the article had been written with a slant towards the negative or the positive, without treating the presentation of material in a more neutral manner. Likewise, WP:OWN would require he be a primary editor or someone involved in frequent reverts of a multitude of material here (down to the mundane like borders and infoboxes). That is not the case, I see a new editor and a single source of conflict here and an attempt by said new author to bring up the topic on the discussion page here. Now, what I can see this turning in to is a possible revert war between the two of you, which will result in repercussions for both. So I would say that, as is part of the normal consensus building process, any further editing of the material in question should be frozen until WP:Consensus is generated. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since he's saying that he'll remove any references to ScrewAttack, that tells me OWN. And I've been called on NPOV in the past when I've removed things without considering the other side's side of the story, so I don't understand how NPOV doesn't apply to him. IMO, there has to be more than just his reasons to disqualify one of the most referenced video game sites on the Internet. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, it isn't helping things that you're making all these contentions without even having read my post on this discussion page. I never said "that I'll remove any references to ScrewAttack", nor did I "remove things without considering the other side's side of the story". I brought up the matter of ScrewAttack's comments on this talk page days before making any changes. No one contended my reasoning, which they would have if they thought ScrewAttack's comments should remain, unless they preferred to argue the matter over a revert war instead of a rational discussion. So I hardly made the changes at my own discretion; on the contrary, I made every effort to seek out any dissenting opinion.

To help this issue along, here's a full transcription of ScrewAttack's comments on Kasumi Ninja:

"Oh man, if you want a blatant rip-off, look no further. Kasumi Ninja for the Jaguar attempted to have everything Mortal Kombat had: digitized graphics, blood... even the storylines were pretty much the same. But the one big difference about Kasumi Ninja: It all sucked balls. I mean, come on, gamers aren't stupid; they can spot a knock-off from a mile away. Besides, you put a game on a go-nowhere system like the Jaguar, and you see how many 'best of' lists it will make. Even if the game was good, the craptastic Jaguar controller didn't help the cause. The only positive thing about Kasumi Ninja: this dude. The red-headed Scottish man actually shoots fire out of his crotch. If this game didn't have pelvic flames, it would have been a lot higher."

It should be obvious from lines such as "Besides, you put a game on a go-nowhere system like the Jaguar, and you see how many 'best of' lists it will make" that the reviewer is just joking around in order to amuse his audience rather than giving a frank "Top Ten Worst Fighting Games", even without hearing his less than straight-faced tone of voice. Also note that "Top Ten" lists are a regular feature on ScrewAttack, which in itself suggests that the contents are not supposed to be taken seriously, since ScrewAttack is not a review site. I don't doubt that Kasumi Ninja is one of the worst fighting games of all time, but ScrewAttack's Top Ten is not the place to go for a notable reference on that.

Finally, for violations of OWN, I suggest you look in the mirror. You ignored my post on this talk page and reverted the ScrewAttack comments without even giving any reasoning for doing so. When I deleted them, pointing out this talk page, you reverted them again, and you still have given no reasoning for doing so. (False accusations of OWN and NPOV violations don't count, nor does saying "your logic behind your dismissal is flawed", since you have failed to point out any flaw in my logic.) Your actions clearly demonstrate that you feel you do not need to either justify your changes or consider opposing points of view.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the video. I did not ignore your post on this page- in fact, I read it several times. And to me, it sure seems like there's no reason other than your being offended by certain words to dismiss what's said. ScrewAttack, you say, is not a review site- and on its face, that is true. BUT, there are reviews on the site. It's not the primary focus of the site, but still. And yes, no one CONTESTED your reasoning. But not for the reason you think. No one CONTESTED your reasoning because there's really no logistics behind it. Potty language really isn't a logical reason to dismiss something. I don't appreciate your theory that I didn't read your comment before reverting, because I did. I also don't appreciate your attitude, which judging by above makes you seem like a sore loser. You said you made an effort to find consensus to keep them? Nine days is not enough time. And considering the odds are rather large that you would find consensus one way or another considering the lack of people coming to this page, then your "consensus of not keeping it because you don't like potty language" doesn't count either because it's a statement made by just one person, who is using that as a reason to declare consensus. I considered your point of view. I did not find your point of view to be a valid reason for removal. Perhaps if you had made a better point than "I don't like potty language". --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me clear up that I knew you were aware of the video; I was posting the transcription solely for the benefit of anyone else who might be viewing this page.

And forgive me, Chris, but your reasoning - that no one objecting to my removing the ScrewAttack comments or contesting my reasoning for doing so proves that everyone thinks that there's no logic in removing them - is patently delusional. Claiming support of the silent majority is well-established as a logical fallacy, and you're taking it to new heights of fallacy by claiming that their being silent proves that they support you.

As for your claim that "Nine days is not enough time", it's obvious that you don't believe that yourself, since you made your reverts without even posting anything to the talk page, never mind nine days waiting, or even a single second of waiting. Furthermore, the claim doesn't even make any sense, since Wikipedia's watchlists go back to a maximum of seven days.

I said that you had not read my posts because a basic principle of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Since you were claiming I said things that weren't even remotely in any of my posts, the only other possibility is that you were lying. Or are lying, since your assumption that my reasoning for removing ScrewAttack's comments is solely based on the potty language contained in them is also baseless. But just for future reference, potty language IS sufficient reason to remove comments from Wikipedia. Read up on it at WP: Profanity.

I strongly suggest that you read through some of the Wikipedia guidelines. Your unjustified reverts and subsequent commentary on this talk page have broken more Wikipedia policies and principles than I care to list. ...If, however, you're not willing to read up on the rules of the site you're using, simply ask yourself what point there is in posting here at all. The Kasumi Ninja article already shows your preferred version, and I'm certainly not going to bother getting into a revert war with you over it. Your "sore loser" comment shows that you have no interest in making the article as good as possible, only in "winning". So why bother debating with me? I'm only posting here because I have a compulsion to point out logical flaws, and because I see a faint hope that you'll listen to my suggestion and read up on the rules. And even I'm going to make this my last post here, I think.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope so, because you really aren't making any sense. The "sore loser" comment I made wasn't due to what you believe to be my obsession with winning. What it has to do with is reading your two page long responses to what I said, contradicting yourself a few times along the way (you say something about me claiming the silent majority and criticize me for it yet don't do the same thing to yourself when you use that same logic to remove something) and not making anywhere clear what your point is. In fact, the only reason why I said it seemed like the only reason you didn't want the ScrewAttack information on this page was because of potty language was because it was the only clear point you made. As far as assuming good faith and all that, I assumed good faith in your motives until I read your post here. After I did, it became clear to me that you weren't willing to accept something based solely on your biases towards where the information came from- which, believe it or not, is a much more direct violation of the good faith policy than what you're accusing me of. My interest is in relaying all possible relevant information to this page and any other that I edit, and I would think that if it came a well-known gaming website with high level content partners, which has enough notoriety (for lack of a better term) to have its own page here, it would more than pass the relevancy test. Obviously you don't see it that way, and that's really not assuming good faith. It's not like the information was culled from one of the many amateurish fan pages on the Internet. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, no offense Martin, but I think you're stating the obvious here. Anyone who's watched ScrewAttack's Top Ten, or read the Wikipedia article on it, knows that it's a comedy show whose most popular episodes are “Top Ten Boobies” and "Top Ten Douchebags of Gaming". Whoever referenced it in this article was either on an editing spree and not really thinking whether or not what they were adding was notable or relavent, or they were just using Wikipedia as advertising space for ScrewAttack. Making a whole discussion topic around such a reference is silly. Just delete it.--24.60.220.148 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, first of all, please do not post behind an anonymous IP. Second of all, do not assume my motives. What I was posting was relevant, notable, and went hand in hand with the negative reception the game got. ScrewAttack is not a comedy show, it's a gaming related website. If you're gonna cite two examples to prove your point when there are so many others on the site that refute it, then don't bother. Yes, there are stupid episodes that are basically played up for comedy, like the two you cited and a few others. At the same time, that is not anywhere close to a legitimate reason to discount the reference here. Why? There are many more that are encyclopedic, including the best and worst lists. I hope you saw the note that I left on your anonymous IP address page. Think about it the next time you remove cited information from a page, okay? Because I won't hesitate to have this IP reported to AIV. I see through your contributions that you're nothing but a troublemaker, so I'm sure you've been AIV'ed several times already. I just don't feel like digging through every bit of info.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, WP: Consensus has been reached here. Martin stated why the comments should be removed, and I agreed. In your pages worth of trolling posts, you have failed to even allude to the reason for removing the comments. Two reasoned opinions clearly outweighs one unreasoned opinion. Continued revert warring on this matter will only get you into trouble, as was noted above.

Also, I'm pretty sure that posting threats to a user's talk page, as you just did to mine, is violently against Wikipedia rules.24.60.220.148 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, while in some cases it may be appropriate to warn someone that their behavior may lead to their being indefinitely blocked, threatening to ban a user for no more reason than that they reverted one of your edits is very much against Wikipedia rules. Chris P2K5's repeated use of such Mafia-style tactics are the main reason why he was indefinitely banned shortly after making the above post.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Kasumi Ninja reviews

Hi! I'll try my best to find all the contemporary reviews listed at MobyGames for Kasumi Ninja + ones that are not even listed there ;-) KGRAMR (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done! I hope this helps for those interested in expanding the reception section :-) KGRAMR (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Potential copyright issue

It can be seen that the text of the character descriptions has been directly copied from the game manual. StraightDown (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC) StraightDown (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Check the historial of the article. Somebody already put the complete bios of every character here before and this has nothing to do with me by the way. The best thing it can be done it's to make it shorter 'cause yeah, it's too long. Though I'll say that the stuff such as the GamesMaster and GameDaily references needs to be moved into a legacy section in the game's article. To make it more easy, it was @Morbid Angel83: who included the complete bios as it can be seen here: [1] KGRAMR (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)