Talk:Ken Kutaragi/Archive 1

message: Felt you'd wish to know. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IP address [[Special:Contributions/200.147.38.146|200.147.38.146]] traces back to Brazil. 

message: I've been meaning to look at this dispute in more detail but haven't had the time until now. The problem is that there seem to be reverts going on on a large scale, that dispute multiple sources and facts in the article. This makes reaching a consensus difficult since there are simply too many facts to debate. You really need to talk about the facts & sources on a per-case basis. However, given the tone this debate has descended to, with revert warring, accusations of sock-puppetry, anti-americanism and bad-faith assumptions, I feel those involved really need to do a RfC. If that doesn't work, request mediation. I'd be more than happy to help with this process, but there needs to be a normal discussion without revert warring and accusations flying around. Good luck! Jacoplane 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC / Mediation probably the way to go 

message: Brazil4Linux is now using (traced Ips back right to him in Brazil) Sockpuppets of Quackshot, 200.147.97.92 and 200.151.100.114. This is getting ridiculous. If he doesn't stop vandalising this page, we have GOT to get it protected, GoldDragon. Daniel Davis 23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you prove that I Brazil4Linux sockpuppet? --Quackshot 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, stop it Brazil4Linux. You created your account within two days of engaging in this revert war, you've ONLY edited the Ken Kuteragi article (and one other) in that time, you speak in the same stilted english that he does, and you've only reverted precisely the exact same text that Brazil4Linux's sockpuppet IP accounts have done. You're a sockpuppet and you're not fooling anyone. Daniel Davis 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Brazil4Linux Sockpuppets 

message: I've requested mediation here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Ken Kutaragi. Jacoplane 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I preffer B4L version is more neutral than GoldDragon. --64.34.174.104 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well of course YOU would, Brazil4Linux, because it's your own version. Can't you stop hiding behind anon ips, revert wars and sockpuppets and actually just talk to us? Daniel Davis 14:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You holds as a ridiculous with these accusations.Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Quackshot 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: Please do not delete material from the talk page, as it is considered vandalism. You may be blocked temporarily because of it. I have placed warnings on the talk pages of those editors that have blanked this page. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Doom127 blanking my words here 3 times in revertions. Let's see 24h consensus involved one-way POV parties.. --Quackshot 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no "thanks" involved; he's not "taking" your side, any more than he's "taking" my side, QuackShot/Brazil. He's just preserving the text of the argument that's going on here. As for YOU, you're not the least bit interested in "consensus", you just want the article put back the way YOU want it to be, and anyone else be damned! You've reverted, repeatedly, perfectly good changes that good people have made on a huge number of pages, merely out of nothing but hatred and spite, to perpetuate this edit war. There's NO reason why you should have blanked out other people's contribs on ANY of the pages you've done it to. You've done nothing but completely ruin the continuity of a number of articles.  Daniel Davis 04:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing material from talk pages is considered vandalism 

message: "he persuaded Sony to fund his research into what eventually became the PlayStation" ... "despite being considered a risky gamble by other Sony executives, Kutaragi had the support of Sony CEO Norio Ogha."
* POV. Where are the sources that say He "persuaded" Nintendo? "considered a risky ganble by other Sony executives" this also need sources.
* Move NPOV tag do Controverses section. Has many opnions from of the press there. It's simply coarse assign responsibility and pseudo-facts on opinions. --GroundZero 02:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I've heard recent discussion about "Playstation-SNES". I'm assuming that you're referring to this: 
"In the late 1980s, after becoming interested in Nintendo's Famicom system, he persuaded Sony to fund his research into what eventually became the PlayStation. Despite being considered a risky gamble by other Sony executives, Kutaragi had the support of Sony CEO Norio Ogha."
Correct?
I know I've posted this link earlier, but I believe it has relevance to this discussion. It clearly provideds a basis for the fact that the paragraph isn't POV at all. It provides facts regarding Kutaragi, the SNES and the Playstation. And honestly, I believe that it provides quite a bit of insight into Sony's corporate environment at the time. It also demonstrates that Kutaragi was willing to take risks if he believed the rewards were enough, even if others didn't see the potential. Furthermore, it shows Norio Ogha's faith in Kutaragi, from the SNES sound chip and onward. Daniel Davis 02:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuteragi, the SNES and the link to the Playstation 

message: I asked User:Fred Bauder, who can check User IP's, about GroundZero. 
**Its all coming in from the same country, on variable ips. Brazil has one provider. GroundZero and Quackshot have another. So probable but not definitive, you'll have to go by the edits. 
Along with the previous edit I think we can confirm he is a sockpupper.  I am waiting to report him until I can ask him a question on his talk page. Jedi6 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is truly unfortunate. That would mean that, for over a month this whole mess has been the result of one bloody persistent individual who refuses to accede to the consensus of the group? Daniel Davis 23:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GroundZero is a sockpuppet

message: After reading the talk page and becoming thoroughly lost at the enormous numbers of sockpuppets on both sides of the debate, I looked over the differences [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Kutaragi&diff=31396701&oldid=31395898] (correct me if these aren't the two versions that are being argued over).  As I see it:
*Everything up to the Executive Rise section is better-worded in Doom127's version, but not much has changed, so simply for readability, I'd say go with that version for the intro.
*I'm confused at all the controversy over the word persuaded, since both versions have that wording.  I do feel it's POV, but who exactly is complaining about it when it remains unchanged between the two versions?
*I prefer the Doom127 version of the Job Status section, but feel that the phrase "controversial management shakeup" is rather POV and would be better served as written in the Quackshot version.
*Once you get to the controversies section, both versions use a huge number of weasel words and POV statements.  It's rather hideous.  However, Quackshot's version is far less POV, and isn't so enormously slanted against Sony.  It gives information about the financial losses but doesnt, er, gloat over it.  I'd say with some rewriting to get away from some phrases (such as the overuse of the word "many", as has been previously noted).
That's all. Kertrats | Talk 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of the above sentiments, basically the article needs a major rewrite.  If I had to choose between the versions I feel that Doom127's version is slightly better in terms of readability and would prove easier to fix going forward than Brazil4Linux's version.  The controversies section in particular needs a lot of attention.  PaulC/T+ 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Bolded text, I'm saying this here but looks like Fanboysm is POV major argument here. GoldDragon and Brazil4Linux are extreming POV texts, and Doom127 endorses GoldDragon POV version, I think this article needs complete rewrite. And to finish, we are not seeing t consensus here Kill the controverses section or make a complete rewrite of the article. --GroundZero 20:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems to me that both versions are unacceptable. 

message: Ten days is enough for protection. Hope the air has cooled off and editos can proceed with contructive edits from now one. Happy editing. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection removed 

message: One of the bullet points: "Kutaragi says that PlayStation 3 is capable to run games at 120 fps." (This was followed by some weasel words about "some people complaining" that people couldn't perceive this, which I removed.) Shouldn't this be in the PS3 article rather than here? If there are no complaints I'm going to remove this entirely. It doesn't fit in well with the other bullet points in that same section, which are about Kutaragi's professional career, not technical specifications. Firebug 00:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its true that Kutaragi's trash talk, such as Xbox 360 being an Xbox 1.5, and the PS3's 120 fps, has little place in the article, as we had discussed earlier. As usual, all executives like to boast about their companies' capabilities, such as Bill Gates saying that Halo 3 will come out right in time for the PS3 launch. -- GoldDragon 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think these comments are important because they illustrate why Kutaragi may have been demoted from the board.  False statements (they are false, no?) like this from the head of the gaming division within Sony is not exactly the best business practices...  That said, I wouldn't miss it if it were taken out... but there is substance behind the point.  PaulC/T+ 07:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PS3 FPS

message: There are a ton of references in this article... would it be a good idea to list them into a references section? Is there an easy way to do this with the wiki code? PaulC/T+ 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like a really good idea; a link to Ken's biography book might be helpful too. Daniel Davis 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The major change I enacted was the swapping of the "setup to fail" and "large losses" paragraphs, as well as rewording the linking sentences. Now, Kutaragi's demotion can be seen from two points of view; he did not manage to fix the consumer division but it was also a very difficult job that he was tasked with. The heading "Analysts assessment" could rather be a detailed section on Kutaragi's tedious relationship with Sony's innner circle. --GoldDragon 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reorganization