Talk:Muslim Massacre (video game)

The site is back up

And has been for a while. Apparently the apology was fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.174.203 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Electric Retard

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

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

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)

Sources

I don't think links to forum threads are acceptable sources for references according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Is there something I'm missing here? --Banime (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work on removing the unsourced claims, additional help can be useful in cleaning up this article to make sure it meets standards. --Banime (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more it does look to be like 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 so far. --Banime (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see if more sources emerge before starting on the article again, the forum posts weren't desirable so it's good to see them gone. Good work. Someoneanother 19:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Weapons

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

Muslims killing Israelis

I'd remove the “if it were a game showing Muslims killing Israelis, the whole world would have sought revenge.""-part from the article, 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)

Shouldn't it just be Muslim Massacre?

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

No. If this ridiculous coatrack excuse of an article has to exist (although as predicted at Afd I see no sources being added beyond a single week of news clippings), it should not reside at such a misleadingly commmon name as Muslim Massacre. The 'developer' behind this rubbish has already had his fair share of self 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 it has to remain indefinitely, to properly meet the wikipedia naming policies, as that is what this article is about, not a game that has zero notability outside of the (supposed) controversy that goes beyond fleeting news coverage, which it is supposed to have to properly demonstrate encyclopoedic worth. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm here because I've just found a further two sources on Play This Thing: [1] [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 then Muslim Massacre (video game) covers it, but I'm asking if the second part of its supposed title is a tagline or indeed part of the title. Someoneanother 17:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee, just leave. There is no hypothetical situation that, on this discussion page, could exist that would make you able to produce a statement that isn't completely inflammatory. At no point do you not produce a trolling statement in your message. Oh, and hint: Controversy is notability. I have no idea why you think otherwise, but nothing implies otherwise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just read the encyclopedia dramatica article on this whole "controversy", and the first playthis link above. If you still don't see why a weeks worth of news headlines combined with your misapplication of notability means that wikipedia is going to be the only place resembling a serious academic work that this whole nonsense is going to be recorded in for evermore, then I realy don't know what else can be said to make you see the point. If you want to rewrite this article to actually cover what you say is what makes it notable, then go right ahead (and it's going to be difficult to word that without original research, and demonstrating as is required by policy, the presence of analysis beyond the original news clippings and in serious third party topics about the general subject), but you are obviously unaware of this policy requirement, as you keep wrongly repeating the inclusion criteria for a wikipedia article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Why don't you explain why the controversy sources are inadequate? Hmm... my guess? You can't explain them away.
2. Well, I don't see. Why don't you show any assertion that notability has an expiration date? Oh, and just curious - how exactly do you find that there's been a "Week of news"? There were seven articles released in just the last week. It's almost ONE month since it 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? Next thing you know, you'll be telling the editors of Super Mario Bros. 3 this.
4. Funny how I'm the only one stating inclusion criteria. Would it kill you to establish that this article has insufficient notability? Or would you explain why controversy is insufficient, and why this subject has not been covered recently, despite having been covered recently? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't understood at all. I have already detailed to you in the last post the exact standard that 'controversy' articles need to meet to justify a serious place here, maybe your chosen topic area means you can't understand why Mario Bros 3 has nothing to do with anything in this respect. If any of these seven articles this week were relevant in that context and not merely more of the same, then I am puzzled as to why the article has not been moved in that direction at all, either by you or anybody else. The current defence of news notability is not and never was the standard for or goal of information in wikipedia, no matter how badly the current polcies are so badly understood by many. I find it ironic that the ED article is actually closer to a proper article about this 'controversy' than this is, their article at least recognises the primary topic, in their own unique way. This one certainly fails. MickMacNee (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you refused to respond to my comment on what it's missing shows that it's not missing anything. It has gameplay, reception, coverage in many news mediums, in many countries, and news sources are still covering it. The fact of the matter is that there IS no "missing content that a notable article should have", and it's fairly likely that instead of addressing actual complaints instead of vague, sweeping complaints that it's 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 want specific examples of content that is missing, missing to the point where it absolutely must be included, not a section on its musical score. And I want examples of how it fails notability. If you don't present this, I will open an RfC over your repeated attempts at disrupting this talk page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Indent). I'm just going to post information from wikipedia verbatim, because I'm getting tired of you missing the point, obfuscating, talking about other stuff and now, threatening me with an RFC/U and pulling out the straw men. The information is ordered in the form of a policy, 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 clarification when, as is clear here, you are not interpreting the basic policy correctly (not your fault, plenty of people are also doing it everyday in lazy fly-by thoughtless boilerplate Afd votes).

Good thing they didn't do it here (a majority of people agreeing with you must be pretty common place, so I doubt everyone's magically wrong for having disagreed with you this time). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOT#NEWS:News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. ... Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about 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 same and transferrable to events occuring out of a video game release when the video game itself is a non-entity. You have failed to establish 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 event (release of a controversial game).

It 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's such a thing as SPECIFIC VG cruft, VG cruft that you do not seem to care to specify. Gameplay is not vgcruft - Super Columbine Massacre RPG! deals in its controversy more than its gameplay, but both games' gameplay is worthy of inclusion. Mentioning gameplay is important to help readers understand what it is, and because it has been treated as a game by multiple reliable secondary sources, its gameplay is noteworthy enough to be mentioned. If reviewers believe it worthy enough to be reviewed, why isn't it worth being mentioned? They're certainly not reviewing its controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See below for an answer to this house of cards. And again, stop 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 simply do not understand the use of the term 'secondary source', see below. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From the General Notability Guideline: Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not .... Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability

Hence your constant assertion that the general topic that "controversy is notable" applies here without further consideration, is wrong, because the controversy as it has been included clearly violates NOT#NEWS by not having any sources that do not qualify as not simply repeating transient news copy of the controversial event. It matters not one bit if that copy lasts for a week or (as I doubt is true but you 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 burst of news reports". It was condemned by a significant figure in the Muslim community. E.T. isn't notable for any reason except for its incredibly low quality, and that's really the only notable aspect of it at all. The gameplay, visuals, etc. of E.T. are infinitely less important than its reception. Same with the CD-i Zeldas. Not only has it been covered over its controversy, it has had reviews of it 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)

Again, see below for reply to the house of cards. Significant figure? I don't think so. Steady news coverage? I don't think so. Again, more otherstuff though. I can't be sure given your lack of even a provision of a link, but humouring the ET otherstuff defence, I think you have probably made a blinding error in comparing two incomparable game tech eras and game 'products'. And you've entirely missed the point about reliable sources, reliability never was in question for the news reports. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From the essay Wikipedia:News articles: Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by 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. But a crime that led to a significant change in the law, an event that actually became a sensation, or a death that led to new safety practices, may have long-term encyclopedic value, and could merit an article if sufficient secondary sources were available to establish its importance., this is just oart of it, but really the entire essay was written for defences exaclty like the one you 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 do not even hint at what the wider topic of signifiance even is, instead talking about 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 higher topic even as basic as List of controversial video games that has been accepted as having merit here). Even if you look at video game controversy it is clear this article would not even rate more than a sentence as low level trivia, that is even before you try and justify a mention in or claim equivalence to any article in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. That is just how obviously 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 Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Essays established in wikipedia space are irrelevant? Now I know you're not 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 evidence of a review of the game or a news article drectly about controversy arising from release of the game. (But, the point being if you could provide sources of this nature you would have done so by now, instead of rehashing the same google news/wp:vg points that were made on day one) MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The above material is more than enough to get the point across in terms of accepted and established wikipedia principles and practices, if you still don't get it at all, we are definitely in the realms of unreality. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, just some advice: Since you're blatantly wrong, the discussion will never move in your favor. Consensus agrees that it's notable, and you citing an essay doesn't change the rule that consensus is truth. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Invoking the Truth always wins. I was never more so convinced of your basic misunderstanding of the entire issue as I am now, 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, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, dealing with the point you think is so compelling you repeated it three times, you are trying to build a house of cards here, you are pretending that the press attention around the game and the presence of game reviews are not linked, when clearly they are caused by the same thing. That fact is even spelled out for you in black and white in the Playthis links above. MickMacNee (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

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 as much as I may dislike it. However, arguing with LttP here isn't going to change the minds of the people who all decided to vote it as notable at AfD. If you feel the AfD was a miscarriage of justice, then you can try challenging the close through WP:DRV, the proper process for such challenges. If you aren't going to DRV the page, then you need to stop antagonizing people about it and move on.
A Link to the Past: DFTT. --erachima talk 01:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but I would point out what most experienced editors know, DRV is patrolled by the same people who patrol Afd, so the same wrong-headed ideas about wikipedia 'notability' and other policies emerge 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 think about supposed serious deliberation of policy points, vote counting and ghits rule all in Afd/Drv), you certainly hardly ever get a different result (it does happen, but it is all bound up in the groupthink bizarreness of followtheleader effects and such like, and relying on a near complete new set of eyes). No, the sad fact is, this article is probably here to stay due to the brokenness of Afd and basic misunderstanding of policy, not because it is notable in the way most experienced editors understand the term. I am not trolling, but I take your point, and as said above there is enough info now on record here to get the message across to anyone who is likely to be able to 'get it' in future. MickMacNee (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

People not agreeing with your opinion of what a policy means does not become people misunderstanding it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please remove the interwiki

The German article has been deleted. -- 85.178.111.13 (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove my edits

If it is worth noting the screen-name of the creator it is worth noting where that screen-name comes from. I will continue to revert any removal of the small part i added to the start of the article unless the article is locked or i am banned. It is clear that MickMacNee does not care about this article at all and is a constant detriment to this articles improvement. So until further notice i will revert any 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)

It's quite easy to get articles protected in the face of such blatant threats of disruption. I would be very interested in what possible reason you could have to want to risk a site ban simply to have this 'critical information' included in this article. The fact he is a forum member is as unimportant and insignificant as the supposed lasting effect and influence this 'game' was claimed to have, but which has mysteriously still failed to appear. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly you are wrong and your edits are wrong, i'm sure the other editors appreciate me asking you to not come to this article ever again if your only intention is to get it removed. It's obvious you're the only person who cares about its inclusion so challenge me all you want i'm still in the right by reverting your vandalism of my edits. :V. Have a nice day -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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'm not going to stand down from my position until then. My reason? The game was released on the Something Awful forums. There's your relevance. Your move, buddy. ;V -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it is only right that a place like SA gets the proper credit for producing things like this. It's probably time to try again for an all out deletion anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Before you go, advice: The same argument that failed twice before, in a situation where nothing has changed, cannot and will not succeed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to attempt to delete the article again that's fine. It strengthens my argument in the eyes of the other editors that you only care about this article being deleted. As I stated in my edit summary if you check the article on 4Chan it states that Moot was a member of the SA forums. If that is relevant for the article on 4Chan than surely the info I added is relevant considering we state his forum name and the game itself was originally released on the forums. Also I want to add a thank you to New Age Retro Hippie for backing me up. Also Earthbound is an excellent game. -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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 not be in this article. His forum name is relevant, but it is not his forum name, it is his general internet persona. What you haven't shown is that anybody in a reliable source cares that he happened to choose SA to release this pile of crap on the world. But as I said above, it is probably on reflection a good thing that the article highlights this. As for future deletion, I suggest Retro reads the closing statement of the previous Afd, and what I said above. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And read the second AfD you brought. It failed just like the first one because it got enough attention and has enough content to warrant an article. That you use such strong words to describe your obvious dislike for the game shows that notability takes a back 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. 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. Not liking an article's existence is no reason for it to be deleted. 219.90.144.181 (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with Wikipedia -- 76.98.161.30 (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

download link

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)

hi im sigvatr

hi i made this game and looked at this wikipedia articel every year or so and laughed at how fabricated and sensationalized it is caus i dotn give a fuk about wat people thihnk about me and so forth ablhabhl etc etc

but anyway i thought i wuld let u know from my point of veiw a few things but i dont care if u edt that article based on this maybne its against wiipeda rlues watever who givs a shit:

1) the gam is just called "muslim massacre" the part that says the game of modern religious genoice was just aprt of the some thingawful forum thread i made for it, it was just the thread name but not the nam of the game, the game name is just muslim masacre

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

3) i stated in the media that the police 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 think ur a nazi pedophile or wahtever

4) the game tokl 3-4 weeks to make

5) people caled my place of emplyment and my parents place 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 phone or number u can contact me at

6) iv loosely stated in many places in an of the record fgashion that the whole muslim masacre thing was 50% makin a game i thought 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 but thers realy no "meaning" to the game u just fukin ice muslims, u cunts work out what it means

7) i did respond 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 young people in a game to kill Muslims is unacceptable, tasteless and deeply offensive."

He added that video games encourage violence, especially among children. "When kids spend six hours a day on violent games they are more likely to go outside and commit violence."

In respone, the game's designer who calls himself 'Sigvatr', told Sky 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) 10:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the suggested title, but someone may want to be bold and move it to Muslim Massacre (video game) as discussed below. Number 57 13:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Muslim Massacre (computer game) → Muslim Massacre – Unnecessary disambiguation – '''tAD''' (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: There have been many massacres of Muslims through history, far more notable than some queryable videogame. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• 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 not regard it as fun or funny.

Failing deletion the article should be moved to Muslim Massacre (video game) in commonality with other such games. GregKaye 23:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - foul subject matter needs to be clearly marked, perhaps (incitement to religious hatred) or (racist game) might be better 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, die 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)

Its a 2008 game with a late 80s quality. I don't see how it has any place here. GregKaye 11:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A merge to the pop trash corner of Islamophobia? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If that article had a title description such as Anti-Islamic sentiment then I would see this as a marginally better fit. I don't have strong opinions as to the contents relevance to the Islamophobia article but, whether this article is in existence or not, any editor can add content there. GregKaye 11:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Muslim Massacre (video game) per WP:NCVGDAB (as Greg above said). Anyone is free to start a new AfD if they think the article should not be on Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Electric Retard

It is kind of ridiculous to have Electric Retard redirect here when there is not a single mention of it in the article. It is very confusing if you don't happen to already know it was made by the same guy. 202.245.72.4 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Raised it with the last editor who turned it into a redirect (again). Doug Weller talk 15:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I just reverted the changing of the redirect to a non-notable article, back to a redirect. Electric Retard has received 1,973 views in the past 90 days. The content from that article was merged to this one years ago after its AFD. [3] But since then its been erased. I don't care if you delete the redirect or not. Dream Focus 17:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 28. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Electric Retard attribution

Material from Electric Retard was merged to Muslim Massacre (video game) on 19 February 2010 by Cunard but 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 05:20, 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 April 2007), Woowooop (14:33, 24 April 2007‎), DarkSaber2k (14:35, 24 April 2007‎), El oh el o em gee (3 edits from 18:03, 4 January 2008 – 18:06, 4 January 2008‎), CultureDrone (18:19, 4 January 2008‎), Attataric (05:29, 6 July 2008‎), Rising*From*Ashes (05:30, 6 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 information, please see the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6#Electric Retard. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muslim Massacre (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)