Home  ›  Sigvatr Im in the News Again

Sigvatr Im in the News Again

Written By Saturday, March 19, 2022 Add Comment Edit
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-grade, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This commodity is inside the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative attempt to amend the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If y'all would like to participate, please visit the projection page, where you lot can join the discussion and see a list of open up tasks. Video games Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games video game manufactures
 C This article has been rated equally C-Form on the project's quality scale.
 Low This commodity has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance calibration.

Taskforce icon

This commodity is supported by the indie task force.
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the telescopic of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to meliorate the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If yous would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you lot can join the give-and-take and see a listing of open tasks. Islam Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam Islam-related manufactures
 C This article has been rated equally C-Grade on the project's quality scale.
 Depression This article has been rated every bit Depression-importance on the project's importance scale.

And has been for a while. Apparently the amends was fake. —Preceding unsigned annotate added by 122.108.174.203 (talk) 06:28, sixteen September 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Electric Retard has went dorsum online. I removed that part.

59.189.60.29 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Never mind that, the Muslim Massacre site is back up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.63.145 (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think links to forum threads are acceptable sources for references according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Is at that place something I'k missing here? --Banime (talk) xviii:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'chiliad going to work on removing the unsourced claims, additional help can exist useful in cleaning upwards this article to brand sure it meets standards. --Banime (talk) 21:51, xiv September 2008 (UTC) [answer]
The more I look at this the more it does await to be similar some sort of spam by those something aweful goons? However I am going to clean up the article as it does have a number of sources then far. --Banime (talk) 21:57, xiv September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I'g waiting to see if more sources sally before starting on the article once more, the forum posts weren't desirable so information technology's good to meet them gone. Good work. Someoneanother 19:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC) [answer]

The article used to state that "Players command an American 'hero' armed with a machine gun and a rocket launcher", but these are actually but special weapons, normally actor is only armed with a pistol, other special weapons are at to the lowest degree shotgun and hand grenades. I'll change the article appropriately. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'd remove the "if it were a game showing Muslims killing Israelis, the whole globe would have sought revenge.""-part from the commodity, or atlest notify that there are such games (The Suicide Bomber Game for example), none of which have gained similar notoriety as MM. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Even in the Something Awful post it's but referred to as Muslim Massacre, the other bit is more than like a tagline. Views? Someoneanother 17:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [answer]

No. If this ridiculous coatrack excuse of an article has to exist (although every bit predicted at Afd I see no sources being added beyond a single week of news clippings), it should non reside at such a misleadingly commmon proper noun as Muslim Massacre. The 'developer' behind this rubbish has already had his off-white share of cocky promotion out of wikipedia, he doesn't deserve anymore through mistaken incoming links. The article should actually correctly be titled Muslim massacre game controversy if information technology has to remain indefinitely, to properly run across the wikipedia naming policies, as that is what this commodity is about, not a game that has goose egg notability exterior of the (supposed) controversy that goes beyond fleeting news coverage, which information technology is supposed to have to properly demonstrate encyclopoedic worth. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I'thousand here because I've just found a further two sources on Play This Matter: [i] [2]. It's an indie game site, not a newspaper, and they were both published today, which is exactly the kind of coverage which I was waiting for. If it needs disambiguating so Muslim Massacre (video game) covers it, merely I'1000 asking if the second part of its supposed championship is a tagline or indeed part of the title. Someoneanother 17:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
MickMacNee, just leave. There is no hypothetical situation that, on this discussion page, could exist that would make you able to produce a argument that isn't completely inflammatory. At no point do you not produce a trolling argument in your bulletin. Oh, and hint: Controversy is notability. I have no thought why you think otherwise, but nothing implies otherwise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Why don't you but read the encyclopedia dramatica article on this whole "controversy", and the first playthis link above. If you nonetheless don't run into why a weeks worth of news headlines combined with your misapplication of notability means that wikipedia is going to exist the only place resembling a serious bookish piece of work that this whole nonsense is going to exist recorded in for evermore, then I realy don't know what else can be said to brand y'all run into the betoken. If y'all desire to rewrite this commodity to actually cover what yous say is what makes information technology notable, so go correct alee (and it's going to exist difficult to word that without original research, and demonstrating every bit is required by policy, the presence of analysis beyond the original news clippings and in serious third political party topics about the full general bailiwick), but y'all are apparently unaware of this policy requirement, as you go along wrongly repeating the inclusion criteria for a wikipedia article. MickMacNee (talk) xix:eleven, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  1. Why don't you lot explain why the controversy sources are inadequate? Hmm... my guess? Y'all can't explain them away.
  2. Well, I don't run into. Why don't you evidence whatever assertion that notability has an expiration date? Oh, and but curious - how exactly do yous find that there's been a "Week of news"? There were 7 articles released in just the terminal week. It's almost ONE month since information technology appeared, and it still has news articles regularly.
  3. Uh, just curious, at what point is Gameplay and reception of the game not covering the game? Side by side affair you know, y'all'll be telling the editors of Super Mario Bros. 3 this.
  4. Funny how I'm the only one stating inclusion criteria. Would it impale you to constitute that this article has insufficient notability? Or would you explain why controversy is bereft, and why this subject has not been covered recently, despite having been covered recently? - A Link to the By (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
You haven't understood at all. I have already detailed to you in the concluding mail the exact standard that 'controversy' articles need to meet to justify a serious identify here, possibly your chosen topic area means you can't sympathize why Mario Bros 3 has nothing to practice with annihilation in this respect. If whatever of these seven articles this calendar week were relevant in that context and not just more of the aforementioned, then I am puzzled as to why the commodity has not been moved in that direction at all, either by y'all or everyone else. The current defence of news notability is not and never was the standard for or goal of information in wikipedia, no thing how badly the electric current polcies are and then badly understood past many. I discover it ironic that the ED commodity is actually closer to a proper commodity about this 'controversy' than this is, their article at least recognises the main topic, in their own unique way. This one certainly fails. MickMacNee (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [respond]
The fact that you refused to respond to my comment on what it'due south missing shows that it'due south non missing annihilation. It has gameplay, reception, coverage in many news mediums, in many countries, and news sources are nevertheless covering it. The fact of the matter is that there IS no "missing content that a notable commodity should take", and it's fairly probable that instead of addressing actual complaints instead of vague, sweeping complaints that it'south missing stuff without ever specifying one thing that it lacks. What does it lack that SUper Columbine Massacre RPG! has? I don't want to hear "NO U DONT Understand THIS Article SUX", I desire specific examples of content that is missing, missing to the point where it absolutely must be included, non a section on its musical score. And I want examples of how it fails notability. If you lot don't present this, I volition open an RfC over your repeated attempts at disrupting this talk folio. - A Link to the By (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

(Indent). I'm but going to post data from wikipedia verbatim, because I'g getting tired of you missing the point, obfuscating, talking nearly other stuff and now, threatening me with an RFC/U and pulling out the harbinger men. The information is ordered in the form of a policy, and then a guideline, then an essay that has been sufficiently accepted as correct to be put in wikipedia (WP:) space, and threfore is not a minority view at all. The policy -> guideline -> essay path is the one you need to take for description when, as is articulate here, yous are not interpreting the basic policy correctly (not your mistake, enough of people are also doing information technology everyday in lazy fly-past thoughtless boilerplate Afd votes).

Practiced thing they didn't practice it here (a majority of people like-minded with you must be pretty common place, so I doubt anybody'south magically wrong for having disagreed with you this fourth dimension). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [respond]
From WP:NOT#NEWS:News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage tin can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, simply not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their ain. ... Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a unmarried event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article near that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. ... Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews
Naturally this is biased to BLP info, but the principle is the aforementioned and transferrable to events occuring out of a video game release when the video game itself is a non-entity. You have failed to plant why an infobox or any other irrelevant vg cruft in the article is worthy of entry in wikipedia when the actual notbable event is the controversy over the release (beyond the fact you seem to think this is correclty considered a video game article hence the mario bros references), or how the controversial event has established notability independant of the news coverage of the single outcome (release of a controversial game).
Information technology is treated like a game by multiple review sources, and there is relevant information in the infobox. There is no such thing as "VG cruft" - there'southward such a affair as SPECIFIC VG cruft, VG cruft that you do not seem to care to specify. Gameplay is non vgcruft - Super Columbine Massacre RPG! deals in its controversy more than than its gameplay, but both games' gameplay is worthy of inclusion. Mentioning gameplay is important to aid readers sympathise what it is, and because it has been treated as a game past multiple reliable secondary sources, its gameplay is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. If reviewers believe information technology worthy enough to be reviewed, why isn't information technology worth beingness mentioned? They're certainly not reviewing its controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Run into beneath for an reply to this house of cards. And again, finish referring to otherstuff, it is quite irrelevant (although it is a handy technique in defending multiple poor articles). And as for the notability guideline, you merely do not understand the use of the term 'secondary source', see below. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
From the General Notability Guideline: Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this benchmark, it is non suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not .... Wikipedia is non a news source: it takes more than just a brusque burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability
Hence your constant assertion that the full general topic that "controversy is notable" applies hither without farther consideration, is wrong, because the controversy as it has been included clearly violates Not#NEWS past not having whatever sources that do non qualify every bit not simply repeating transient news copy of the controversial event. It matters not i flake if that copy lasts for a week or (as I doubt is true just y'all claim) a month, if they all essentially report the same thing, somebody finding a video game release offensive.
Nearly a month of steady news coverage in reliable, secondary sources is not a "short outburst of news reports". It was condemned by a significant figure in the Muslim customs. Eastward.T. isn't notable for any reason except for its incredibly low quality, and that'southward really the only notable aspect of it at all. The gameplay, visuals, etc. of Due east.T. are infinitely less important than its reception. Same with the CD-i Zeldas. Non only has it been covered over its controversy, it has had reviews of information technology in major review sources. It's a combination of being mentioned in many news outlets for its controversy AND the game itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Again, see below for respond to the firm of cards. Significant figure? I don't call up so. Steady news coverage? I don't call back and so. Once more, more than otherstuff though. I can't be sure given your lack of fifty-fifty a provision of a link, merely humouring the ET otherstuff defence, I retrieve you take probably made a blinding error in comparing two incomparable game tech eras and game 'products'. And y'all've entirely missed the point nigh reliable sources, reliability never was in question for the news reports. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, thirty September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
From the essay Wikipedia:News articles: Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are contained of the subject, notwithstanding are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used past encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance. Simply a crime that led to a meaning change in the law, an event that really became a awareness, or a death that led to new prophylactic practices, may have long-term encyclopedic value, and could merit an commodity if sufficient secondary sources were available to plant its importance., this is just oart of it, merely actually the entire essay was written for defences exaclty like the one yous are continually and blindly repeating for this article on the basis that google news + controversy = inclusion.
You have provided zero secondary sources (note:this term does not describe news articles), and exercise not even hint at what the wider topic of signifiance fifty-fifty is, instead talking nearly Mario Bros 3, or where this 'notable event' would be incorporated into the rest of the encyclopoedia (I already demonstrated in the Afd that there is no such credible college topic even every bit bones every bit Listing of controversial video games that has been accustomed as having merit here). Even if yous expect at video game controversy it is clear this article would not even rate more than a judgement as low level trivia, that is even earlier you endeavor and justify a mention in or claim equivalence to any commodity in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. That is only how plain out of place arguing that this article is notable is, outside a narrow and incorrect application of WP:RS and WP:VER with respect to news.
For one, telling me that an essay requires me to provide non-news articles is irrelevant because it is an essay. For another, we have multiple reviews of the game in multiple reliable review sites. - A Link to the By (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Essays established in wikipedia space are irrelevant? Now I know y'all're non putting any thought into these replies. And one of the two review sites you must be meaning as 'multiple' is specifically disclaimered in WP:VG as not reliable in of itself. Again, you don't seem to understand that 'secondary sources' when trying to assert that the game has proper lasting notability doesn't mean providing show of a review of the game or a news article drectly about controversy arising from release of the game. (But, the indicate being if yous could provide sources of this nature yous would accept done so past now, instead of rehashing the aforementioned google news/wp:vg points that were made on day 1) MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The to a higher place fabric is more than enough to go the indicate across in terms of accustomed and established wikipedia principles and practices, if y'all nevertheless don't go it at all, nosotros are definitely in the realms of unreality. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Well, just some communication: Since you're blatantly wrong, the give-and-take will never motility in your favor. Consensus agrees that it'southward notable, and you citing an essay doesn't alter the rule that consensus is truth. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Invoking the Truth always wins. I was never more so convinced of your basic misunderstanding of the entire issue equally I am at present, with this latest attempt at a reasoned policy based reply unsupported insistence of real, lasting, relevance and noteworthiness to anybody hoping to find an encyclopoedia reference work at this domain. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, thirty September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Anyway, dealing with the bespeak yous recollect is then compelling you repeated it three times, you are trying to build a house of cards hither, you lot are pretending that the press attention effectually the game and the presence of game reviews are not linked, when clearly they are caused by the same thing. That fact is fifty-fifty spelled out for yous in black and white in the Playthis links to a higher place. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, thirty September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

MickMacNee: I personally think it's stupid that the game ever made the news in the first place, but the fact that the game and surrounding controversy are stupid doesn't change that they were declared notable by the community every bit much equally I may dislike information technology. However, arguing with LttP hither isn't going to change the minds of the people who all decided to vote it as notable at AfD. If you experience the AfD was a miscarriage of justice, then you tin can endeavor challenging the close through WP:DRV, the proper process for such challenges. If you aren't going to DRV the page, then you demand to stop antagonizing people most information technology and move on.
A Link to the Past: DFTT. --erachima talk 01:09, xxx September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Information technology's a off-white bespeak, but I would betoken out what nigh experienced editors know, DRV is patrolled by the same people who patrol Afd, and so the same wrong-headed ideas about wikipedia 'notability' and other policies sally in both venues, so if you are listing at DRV because you think that policy has been misapplied without an obvious smoking gun (and whatever people recollect about supposed serious deliberation of policy points, vote counting and ghits rule all in Afd/Drv), you certainly inappreciably e'er get a different effect (it does happen, simply it is all spring up in the groupthink bizarreness of followtheleader effects and such like, and relying on a most complete new ready of eyes). No, the sad fact is, this commodity is probably here to stay due to the brokenness of Afd and basic misunderstanding of policy, not because it is notable in the manner nigh experienced editors sympathise the term. I am non trolling, but I take your point, and as said above in that location is enough info now on tape here to go the message across to anyone who is likely to be able to 'get it' in time to come. MickMacNee (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
People not agreeing with your opinion of what a policy means does not get people misunderstanding it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:57, xxx September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The German article has been deleted. -- 85.178.111.thirteen (talk) 09:30, six Nov 2008 (UTC) [reply]

If it is worth noting the screen-name of the creator it is worth noting where that screen-proper name comes from. I will continue to revert any removal of the modest role i added to the start of the article unless the commodity is locked or i am banned. It is articulate that MickMacNee does non intendance almost this article at all and is a constant detriment to this articles improvement. Then until further notice i will revert whatsoever attempt made by him to remove the reference to Something Awful in the intro of the article. -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [respond]

It'southward quite easy to get articles protected in the confront of such blatant threats of disruption. I would exist very interested in what possible reason you could accept to want to risk a site ban simply to accept this 'critical information' included in this commodity. The fact he is a forum member is every bit unimportant and insignificant equally the supposed lasting outcome and influence this 'game' was claimed to have, but which has mysteriously still failed to appear. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Well clearly you are wrong and your edits are incorrect, i'm certain the other editors appreciate me asking you to not come to this article always once again if your only intention is to become information technology removed. It's obvious you're the only person who cares well-nigh its inclusion then claiming me all yous want i'm however in the right by reverting your vandalism of my edits. :V. Take a nice solar day -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Learn the definition of vandalism. You haven't provided the relevance, so it'southward gone. Have a nice day. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Cite some reason for me to remove the reference if you are going to remove it, instead of deciding on your own whats irrelevant. I'chiliad not going to stand down from my position until then. My reason? The game was released on the Something Awful forums. In that location'due south your relevance. Your move, buddy. ;V -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 00:eighteen, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [answer]

On second thoughts, it is only right that a place like SA gets the proper credit for producing things like this. Information technology's probably time to effort again for an all out deletion anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Before you go, advice: The aforementioned argument that failed twice before, in a situation where nil has changed, cannot and will non succeed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he tin can figure out the length of things hands. 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [respond]

If y'all wish to attempt to delete the commodity once again that'southward fine. Information technology strengthens my statement in the optics of the other editors that you only care near this commodity being deleted. As I stated in my edit summary if you cheque the article on 4Chan it states that Moot was a member of the SA forums. If that is relevant for the commodity on 4Chan than surely the info I added is relevant because nosotros state his forum name and the game itself was originally released on the forums. Also I want to add a cheers to New Age Retro Hippie for backing me up. Also Earthbound is an splendid game. -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) xv:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [answer]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. Not liking an article's existence is no bar to editting it. Other crap in other articles has no bearing on what can be or non be in this article. His forum proper noun is relevant, simply it is not his forum proper noun, information technology is his general internet persona. What y'all haven't shown is that everyone in a reliable source cares that he happened to cull SA to release this pile of crap on the world. But as I said above, information technology is probably on reflection a practiced matter that the commodity highlights this. As for future deletion, I advise Retro reads the closing argument of the previous Afd, and what I said above. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC) [answer]
And read the second AfD yous brought. It failed just similar the offset one considering it got enough attending and has plenty content to warrant an article. That you employ such strong words to depict your obvious dislike for the game shows that notability takes a dorsum seat to your resentment for this article existing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. twenty:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. Not liking an article'southward existence is no reason for it to be deleted. 219.90.144.181 (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'g very familiar with Wikipedia -- 76.98.161.thirty (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC) [respond]

I would appreciate if the download link went back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.134.108 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

how-do-you-do i made this game and looked at this wikipedia articel every yr or so and laughed at how fabricated and sensationalized it is caus i dotn give a fuk about wat people thihnk virtually me and then along ablhabhl etc etc

but anyhow i idea i wuld let u know from my indicate of veiw a few things but i dont care if u edt that article based on this maybne its confronting wiipeda rlues watever who givs a shit:

one) the gam is just chosen "muslim massacre" the part that says the game of modernistic religious genoice was just aprt of the some thingawful forum thread i made for it, it was merely the thread proper noun but not the nam of the game, the game name is only muslim masacre

ii) after i tok the game down adn posted an arabic apoligy i waited 24 hours or so and and so put it bak up

3) i stated in the media that the police force hadnt contacted me even though they said they were incvestigating the game. after that statement hit the media, asio made an atempt to contact me in person and i talked to the asio dude and shit and he said watch out caus those guys are guna kill u but i dont retrieve ur a nazi pedophile or wahtever

4) the game tokl iii-four weeks to make

5) people caled my identify of emplyment and my parents identify to give me death threast, after the fiasco of the game in the media i threw out my mobile phon and never got a landlin phone again, to this day i havent had any kind of telephone or number u tin can contact me at

vi) iv loosely stated in many places in an of the tape fgashion that the whole muslim masacre thing was 50% makin a game i idea was fun and 50% personal sociaal experiment and i=t certainly was an interesting eperiment to play on humanity i treasure that experience even tho it ruseled some jimmies only thers realy no "meaning" to the game u just fukin ice muslims, u cunts work out what it means

7) i did answer to some of my critics vicariosly thruogh the media, like here: http://news.sky.com/story/632954/muslim-massacre-game-condemned

Mr Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Foundation said: "Encouraging children and immature people in a game to impale Muslims is unacceptable, tasteless and deeply offensive."

He added that video games encourage violence, especially among children. "When kids spend six hours a 24-hour interval on vehement games they are more than likely to go outside and commit violence."

In respone, the game's designer who calls himself 'Sigvatr', told Heaven News:

"To Mr. Mohammed Shafiq I would like to say that if a kid spends six hours a day on violent games, I think that they aren't likely to go outside at all, so he should not be worried."

thx dudes its been a wild ride, my new site is http://icecold.club (wip)

Name changed. Note that MickMackNee was indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. Dougweller (talk) x:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) [answer]
The following is a airtight discussion of a requested move. Delight practice not modify information technology. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk folio. Editors desiring to contest the closing conclusion should consider a move review. No farther edits should exist fabricated to this department.

The event of the motility asking was: not moved to the suggested title, simply someone may desire to exist bold and motion information technology to Muslim Massacre (video game) as discussed below. Number five 7 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]


Muslim Massacre (computer game) → Muslim Massacre – Unnecessary disambiguation – '''tAD''' (talk) 01:37, eleven February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [respond]
  • Oppose: In that location accept been many massacres of Muslims through history, far more than notable than some queryable videogame. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, xi February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose but, in cases of arguably sick content like this, I think it would be appropriate to notify the Islam Wikiproject to check preferences. Personally I would favour deleting the content. Wikipedia is no place to soapbox this kind of material for posterity. People do things for the sake of controversy and, despite what the authors say, many will non regard it as fun or funny.
Declining deletion the article should be moved to Muslim Massacre (video game) in commonality with other such games. GregKaye 23:39, xi February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose - foul subject matter needs to be clearly marked, perhaps (incitement to religious hatred) or (racist game) might be improve dabs. Surprisingly not mentioned much in Google Books, Wolter Pieters Gevoel Voor Kennis 2009 Page 189 has "De 22-jarige Eric Vaughn lanceerde op 11 september 2008 de game Muslim Massacre. De Arabische wereld reageerde fel. Vaughn, dice naar eigen zeggen het buitenlandse beleid van de vs belachelijk wilde maken, maakte publiekelijk zijn ..." In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Its a 2008 game with a late 80s quality. I don't meet how it has any place here. GregKaye xi:21, 13 Feb 2015 (UTC) [reply]
A merge to the pop trash corner of Islamophobia? In ictu oculi (talk) xi:35, xiii Feb 2015 (UTC) [reply]
If that commodity had a title description such as Anti-Islamic sentiment then I would meet this as a marginally better fit. I don't have strong opinions as to the contents relevance to the Islamophobia commodity but, whether this article is in existence or not, whatever editor tin add content there. GregKaye xi:xxx, xiv February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Move to Muslim Massacre (video game) per WP:NCVGDAB (as Greg above said). Anyone is complimentary to first a new AfD if they remember the article should non be on Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim!  ·✉ 06:xiv, nineteen February 2015 (UTC) [answer]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested movement. Please practice not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new department on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be fabricated to this section.

It is kind of ridiculous to accept Electric Retard redirect here when there is not a single mention of information technology in the article. It is very confusing if y'all don't happen to already know information technology was made past the same guy. 202.245.72.4 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [respond]

Raised it with the last editor who turned it into a redirect (once more). Doug Weller talk 15:47, 26 Feb 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • I just reverted the changing of the redirect to a non-notable article, back to a redirect. Electrical Retard has received one,973 views in the past 90 days. The content from that commodity was merged to this i years ago after its AFD. [3] Just since then its been erased. I don't care if you delete the redirect or not. D r e a m Focus 17:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you. Now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 28. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Material from Electric Retard was merged to Muslim Massacre (video game) on xix Feb 2010 past Cunard only no longer constitutes any part of the article. Per WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history, I am listing the users that contributed to that article before the merge date. They are: Zoomzoomkaboom (creator; 3 edits from 01:54, 23 March 2007 – 02:55, 23 March 2007‎), Sanfranman59 (02:20, 23 March 2007), 81.98.126.54 (03:26, 23 March 2007‎), Propunker (03:35, 23 March 2007‎), 203.56.41.65 (5 edits from 05:twenty, 23 March 2007‎ – 05:30, 23 March 2007‎), Icezizim (05:48, 23 March 2007‎), Domenic rosati (16:02, 8 April 2007), Onorem (16:03, 8 Apr 2007), Woowooop (xiv:33, 24 April 2007‎), DarkSaber2k (fourteen:35, 24 April 2007‎), El oh el o em gee (3 edits from 18:03, four January 2008 – 18:06, 4 January 2008‎), CultureDrone (18:nineteen, 4 January 2008‎), Attataric (05:29, half-dozen July 2008‎), Ascension*From*Ashes (05:30, half dozen July 2008‎), LoofNeZorf (8 edits from 13:10, 27 January 2010‎ – 13:31, 27 January 2010‎), Cunard (11:13, 16 February 2010), and Sharksaredangerous (22:00, 16 February 2010‎). For more than information, please run into the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6#Electric Retard. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello boyfriend Wikipedians,

I take just modified 2 external links on Muslim Massacre (video game). Please accept a moment to review my edit. If yous take whatever questions, or demand the bot to ignore the links, or the folio altogether, delight visit this uncomplicated FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added annal https://web.archive.org/spider web/20080914020620/http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007733.html to http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007733.html
  • Added annal https://spider web.archive.org/web/20131017015411/http://world wide web.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/17/muslim-massacre-creator-my-apology-was-faux to http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/17/muslim-massacre-creator-my-apology-was-fake

When yous have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix whatsoever issues with the URLs.

This message was posted earlier February 2018. Later on February 2018, "External links modified" talk folio sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot . No special action is required regarding these talk folio notices, other than regular verification using the annal tool instructions beneath. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they desire to de-ataxia talk pages, but see the RfC earlier doing mass systematic removals. This bulletin is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (terminal update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you accept discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you lot can report them with this tool.
  • If you plant an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can ready them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot (Study issues) 09:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

harpercoudifter.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Massacre_%28computer_game%29

0 Response to "Sigvatr Im in the News Again"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel