User talk:McDoobAU93

"Tangled"/"Rapunzel" Title talk

I found the info on the Magic Forum pages at photosmagiques.com, and several countries (Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and Belgium) will use "Rapunzel" instead of "Tangled" as the film title. I'll post a reference later as Opera does not allow such. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:35 PM US EDT July 14 2010

WikiProject Disney Role Call

Hi, WikiProject Disney has been rather inactive recently. I saw that you are a member of the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member, leave a response on the Project's talk page. Hopefully we can get the project up and running again. Thanks!--GroovySandwich 00:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Adopt a user

Hi i would like to learn more about wiki. I want to be a admin but something about a snowball would close mine.

Thanks

Bobherry talk -- Hi!! 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bobherry talk -- Hi!!

21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello McDoobAU93! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Kraken (roller coaster)

Thanks for the note. That came late in a session and I never got back to the keyboard to finish. Had to insert to make effort to make another user who reverted back to unsourced claims, weak language, reverted legitimate links that work was necessary. They seem to have got the message now so I can proceed minus the template later on. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Universal 360 closing

According to a recent post on Screamscape, the cinespheres for Universal 360: A Cinesphere Spectacular have been removed from the USF lagoon, and that another show is currently in the works to replace it. I was wondering if any reliable sources can be found to confirm the closure and, if so, it should be noted in the Universal 360 article as well as the List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions article.--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the Cinespheres were removed rather frequently, since the show doesn't run that often (summers and during the Christmas holidays). If there were an article embedded in that post on Screamscape (Lance usually posts where he found the info), that could work. But right now, I'd say we're speculating on both the show closing and Universal developing a replacement, although both are gonna happen at some point. --McDoobAU93 18:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

I saw you've noticed an IP-user repeatedly adding Virtual Console information n various places where such info is both false and unsourced. I have reverted his edit 4 times or more over the past week or so at Mario Party 3 and I am unsure of how to proceed further, I'm kinda new and don't want an edit-war nor 3RR ban if he starts editing more often.... plus he doesn't respond (nor probably checks) talk pages. Thanks in advance for any assistance, I'm still learning. :) (Reply here or on MP3's talk, I'm watching anyways.) Salvidrim (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I wanted to answer your more specific procedural questions here. OK, you're right in being cautious about edit-warring. However, in dealing with truly disruptive edits (such as what you've shown here), admins looking into the case will probably side with you, although you still may be admonished about it. It would be more along the lines of "when X happens, do Y instead of Z" than "you shouldn't do X, and if you do again you'll be blocked/banned", but it's still something you'd probably not want to hear. So how do you deal with this?

Well, sometimes the best way to handle it is to simply revert and warn the offending IP. That's usually enough for good-intentioned editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. If the same IP gets to the point where they've been warned enough and still do it (i.e., you've issued a Level 4 warning and they do it again), then it's time to report the IP to the admins at WP:AIV. IP-hopping editors (both the unintentional types, such as this one, and those engaged in sock-puppetry) do get a bit tricky, so if things get to a point where one of the IPs gets blocked and yet another editor in the same IP range starts it up again, more drastic measures may be needed, including range-blocks; again, that's a decision for the admins. In the unlikely event this happens, let me know and I'll help shepherd you through the process.

By the way, if you want to learn more about warning templates, go here. Also, when you get more experienced, look at WP:TWINKLE, a powerful set of tools to automate maintenance tasks, such as posting user warnings and notifying admins of problems.

Now, WP:3RR comes into play if you revert three times in a 24-hour period. If the IP is getting persistent, don't revert a 3rd time and instead try to get an admin or more experienced user involved. This should also be when you consider page protection. Post a request there, following the instructions on the page (again, an experienced user can help if you get stuck) and an admin will take a look at it for you and let you know if protecting the article is indeed warranted. Don't panic about fixing things immediately. Let the system work, and you'll generally get the necessary results, then you can fix it up later.

Feel free to contact me again if you have any problems and I'll help out. Take care, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 04:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarifications, I'll start using the warning templates when reverting! In this case, I think {uw-error} is the best. Should I go up one level with each revert? If and when it comes to that point (or when I'd breach 3RR) I'll let you know so you can assist me on the admin report. Salvidrim (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the edit history at Mario Party 3 and found all the edits coming from that same IP range. They've hit a number of articles, and while there are one or two where things might have been right, the rest weren't and have been reverted. I've flagged each one I could locate with a Level 1 warning. No more warnings should be issued until he returns and tries again, then the next level up should be issued. I've only issued one warning per IP, even if the IP had a number of uncited edits. Let's give the warnings a chance to sink in (or give the editor a chance to log in with that IP again, and thus see the warnings), and let's hope they get the message. If they don't, we'll do what's necessary to try and reason with them and protect the project. --McDoobAU93 15:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, since I'm assuming good faith and that he's probably not seeing the talk pages at all, I might try putting an invisible comment where it happens. Is that a good idea? Thanks again for all your help. Salvidrim (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Aww shucks, I was actually typing up the warning but you sniped me. :( Salvidrim (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Told ya Twinkle was fast. ;) --McDoobAU93 02:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to look into that. I'm still getting used to some intricacies of the basic Wiki. ;) Salvidrim (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely look at it, but don't start using it till you get more comfortable with how things work. I didn't start for a while after I started editing. --McDoobAU93 02:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've issued a Lv4 warning at User talk:166.147.120.29... Salvidrim (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He's been a busy little beaver, based on his user contributions. I'm going to start cleaning up, but if he posts something in this vein anytime now, after you've given the level 4 warning (his changes before that we'll just fix), we'll take care of it. Also, when undoing work, be sure to check the article history. While you removed his adding VC info to the infobox, you missed a sentence in the lead paragraph saying the same thing. Don't worry, I fixed it, and your skills will get better in time, as well. :) --McDoobAU93 16:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea I'm still not sure how to revert two edits to a previous one (other than making a new edit to remove the stuff). If it comes to reporting or something, I'd like you to do it while I observe and probably ask questions... and seen from how he is I doubt it'll go anywhere but there. Salvidrim (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the rollback permission. It lets you undo all of a user's consecutive edits in one mouse click, basically. Again, this is a tool that's best used after you've had some experience, and it's only granted by an admin's approval of your request for the privilege. I'll be glad to keep you posted if/when I have to report this editor ... and frankly, after he added that the game show Nickelodeon GUTS was coming to Virtual Console, that was probably the last straw. The next malicious edit and he's getting reported. I'll keep you posted. --McDoobAU93 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pwahahaha, I tried to assume he was a wishful thinker and genuinely believed the games were coming to VC and not just a big troll, but I admit that last one definitely shattered any little hope I had that it was (kinda) good faith. Salvidrim (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OKay,so I just went and reverted today's batch of "I add VC release info to anything", and issued final warnings on both 166.147.120.20 and 166.147.120.19. I think the next thing to do is all kinds of clear. Salvidrim (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That puts three IPs at level 4 (.19, .20 and .29). They're all doing the same things, and I'm keeping track of them so that when the time comes, I can see about how we can take care of all these IPs at once, although I still want to try and see if we can get through to this person. --McDoobAU93 01:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring Tenmei

I want to thank you again for your mentoring.

I appreciated your efforts; and my participation the project was affected by your investments of time and thought. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger Davies commented about here about "recognizing the very considerable efforts that went into mentorship" ....

In my opinion, each of us did everything we were asked to do. Those who volunteered to be mentors deserve repeated thanks and acknowledgement, nothing less. --Tenmei (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One last note: Roger Davies now assesses mentorship in terms of whatever he means by the phrase "subsequent failure".

Shall I allow this phrase to pass unchallenged. No mentors failed, nor was mentorship a failure.

Whatever Roger Davies meant is only another example of moving the goalposts. Yes, ArbCom failed us all again.... And yes, if someone will explain it to me, I can try to understand how and why I failed again -- but not you. Please believe that you did all that anyone could have hoped for or expected. --Tenmei (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:

• 144 Featured Articles
• 48 Featured Lists
• 6 Featured Topics

• 36 A-Class Articles
• 507 Good Articles
• 10 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Final Fantasy postmortem
• Featured editor: Jinnai

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Social Responsibility

I understand that the language may have been at first a little biased on the side of favouring Disney. But I've since edited for that, but why are you not letting me put up the work that they have done in this field on a year by year basis with a bulleted list?-- (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to answer your question. First of all, I'm a bit concerned about this entire subject, since it's relatively new and thus hasn't established any sort of long-term notability. However, the broader subject, conservation, is indeed notable and has been part of the Company's culture for some time. So in that regard, the subject should stay for now.

That said, why is there a need to list more than one or two examples of their work? I'd be okay with one or two case examples, but no more, and certainly no need for a bulleted list. Why? Two reasons. First, any more examples and we're giving excess coverage to the subject. Second, Wikipedia is not meant to include every bit of information on a given subject.

I hope that answers your question, but if you need more information, please ask and I'll do what I can. --McDoobAU93 12:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but if not a year by year list, can at least put up a bulleted list about major achievements throughout the existence of the program? Or should I make another article highlighting the work done under the heading of 'Walt Disney: Corporate Social Responsibility', or some alternative of the title?--Jinchurikidan (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you still really haven't answered my questions. Why should the article contain more than one or two examples? What, in your opinion, is the perceived benefit of having that information there? How do you believe the article is irreparably harmed by the comprehensive list not being there? As to a separate article, that's right out ... read this section for why that is. --McDoobAU93 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the content fork it is permissible to make new articles if the Source article has already been expanded to a sufficient degree. In this case, the source article has been thoroughly expanded. And I'm not giving undue importance to it by just putting up a a bulleted list of work done. Since I'm not going in to further explanation of the work done, there should be no objection to put up these points as a basic summary of what has occurred. Thus, it still follows the guideline that it is compact and gives due attention to the topic i.e. Corporate Social Responsibility of Disney, without taking up major space in the source article.--Jinchurikidan (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is an objection. We've moved into what's called WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert and Discuss. You've been bold to propose something, someone who has issues with the addition has reverted it, and now it's time to discuss the subject on the article's talk page. If consensus is there to add all this extra data instead of merely citing one or two examples, I won't fight it. But please take the discussion there instead of here. You are invited to make your case there explaining why all of these examples must be included and what harm is created by their not being there. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock reporting

Hi McDoob. I wanted to let you know that you were right to go to ANI with your suspicions about the return of BambiFan. Heck the instructions at the long term abuse page telling us to do that are in red. I thought that I would let you know that you can also add suspected sock tags to help with the SPI investigation.

• {{sockpuppet|Bambifan101}} is used for editors who have a username
• {{ipsock|Bambifan101}} is used for IPs

Usually these are added to the "user page" rather than the "user talk page" though I have seen some editors do either. If you already knew about these my apologies for taking up your time. Many thanks for your vigilance in protecting WikiP from this and other problem editors. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't taken up any time at all. I'm always on the lookout for new tools to combat this joker. I used to turn to PMDrive and to Collectonian/Anma, but since they're not here, I guess that makes us the next generation of BF101 hunters. :) --McDoobAU93 05:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I too miss the help that both of those admins provided. I forgot to mention that if any of the editors that we tag turns out to be a sock an admin will add confirmed to the tag like this {{sockpuppet|Bambifan101|confirmed}} so you will see this kind of thing from time to time. Happy editing and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 05:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that you are busy cleaning up the mess that could have been prevented if those with the mop and bucket had just trusted us. But, I wanted to leave ya a little funny that came to me while we were chasing his nonsense. "Woof woof" which translates as thanks for being a fellow hound in chasing down that pesky fox. Ugh, bad pun I know. I also get to say thanks as your use of this tag {{db-banned|1=Bambifan101}} taught me one that I had not seen before. Now back to our regularly scheduled editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dag nab it I knew I forgot something. This rigamarole makes me think that at his next appearance we might try AIV first as long as we give them a link to the long term report. I can't guarantee anything as my experience there is unless he is editing at the moment they might blow us off to but I just thought I would mention it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to do an AfD

I think? Anyways, I believe Nintendo DS launch should be merged into Nintendo DS. There was an AfD that resulted in Keep back in 2007, so I won't just go ahead and merge it, but I'd like to know exactly what I can do. If you don't have the time to assist and guide me just let me know, I'll ask someone else. :) (reply here) Salvidrim (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; real life can get in the way sometimes. I've proposed a merge of the launch article into the main article and tagged everything appropriately (I think). This should get things started. --McDoobAU93 15:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, RL comes first. Thanks. :) Salvidrim (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

"Non-notable publicity stunt" sounds like a POV opinion to me. My edit gave both sides of a story which was reported in the national media. Checking the article history shows that you often revert war IP edits that you don't approve of, which you admit to doing from a POV in your edit summaries. Could you please tell me where I can get permission to edit your article? 67.52.144.60 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but any rational reader will understand that the United States Constitution was never intended to apply to animals. PETA is simply wasting the time of the court, and they know it. They got what they wanted, some ink/press/bandwidth, and that's all they were after. Feel free to add this to PETA's article if you want, however. For what it's worth, I have no problem with legitimate criticism of SeaWorld, since it does belong in the article ... this isn't legitimate. --McDoobAU93 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re internet polls

Is metacritic an internet polling site? Not sure why an internet poll is not a valid source about a video game after all surely the public vote for what they like and that is what ratings are, are we supposed to be judging above what ordinary people vote for? I thought the idea of wiki was that sources had to be 'verifiable'...ie that they could be verified by another wiki editor. As you say the addition was made in good faith, Angry birds is the most popular game for iphone, this site simply confirms the popular vote, maybe it would be better as a ref? I welcome your view on internet polls Pamela Gardiner (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic is a review aggregator and not an Internet poll. From their About page: "Metacritic's proprietary Metascore distills the opinions of the most respected critics writing online and in print to a single number." Please note the phrase "respected critics". This means that the reviews presented are from notable critics whose job it is to review media.

An Internet poll is simply a way to let people click a link and register their opinion. Many such sites have no limit to the number of times one can vote for something, thus encouraging users to vote early and vote often. It's remarkably easy to game the system, through canvassing on social networking sites or tweets, etc. For example, it would be possible to produce a favorite movies poll that declares Plan 9 from Outer Space to be the greatest American movie of all time, above and beyond such true classics as Casablanca and Citizen Kane, simply by encouraging friends on Facebook and Twitter to vote for Plan 9 because it'd be cool to do so.

Verifiability is just one component of a good source for a Wikipedia article. The other is reliability, and an Internet poll certainly isn't very reliable, simply because of the number of ways the results can be twisted, either for or against what's being polled. I hope this answers your question, but I am open to additional comments/concerns as well.

--McDoobAU93 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you help and clarification on this, I didnt realise metacritic was an aggregate score, but think you misunderstand the site I referred to. If you look at 'How it works you will see that it is not in that sense an internet poll as you have described, because it is a site where the lists are compiled by expert editors and where the vote is protected. People cannot vote more than once, registration is required.Pamela Gardiner (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. The whole point of assume good faith is to explain that while what you were adding was intended to support the article, there was a reason it couldn't be used, hence these explanations. I did look at the page you provided, but unfortunately it still has a component where users can still vote and determine how things are listed. Even if registration is required, there would be nothing stopping me from creating one account using a Gmail address, one with a Yahoo! address, one with a Hotmail address, etc. Further, the notability of this site hasn't been established; the website itself says it's in beta form, whereas Metacritic has been around for years (relatively speaking). Here's another point: Metacritic does indeed allow users to voice their own opinions. However, the only component Wikipedia articles use is the aggregate critics' score, not the user scores, and Metacritic's site itself posts the scores separately. --McDoobAU93 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right, the site does appear to be in beta testing! Not sure about your reasoning re public vote though, after all for all its faults in a democracy we are governed by it. Have you ever heard of The All Time Top 1000 Albums.. that was also based on the public vote, but is nonetheless widely regarded as definitive. Point taken re notability. Thanks for your help. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, Pamela. And while "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", Wikipedia is not a democracy. That said, the book you cite would indeed potentially be a reliable source for music articles as it's published, which is a good (but not the only) criteria for a reliable source to have. Admittedly, the whole reliability and verifiability issue can be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but the guidelines to both haven't changed much over the years. Again, you're quite welcome, and I hope you continue contributing to the project! :) --McDoobAU93 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the article. I was going off news in forums, so I just searched for a news article about it afterwards for the source. Thanks for the help. --Josh (Mephiles602) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party 3 IP-vandal

It looks like he's back... 166.147.114.2 , within the same range as the previously banned ones (User talk:166.147.112.7#Cross-IP-range vandalism, has added VC-release info to Mario Party 3... Salvidrim (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Eustress has already indef-blocked it. She's quick! --McDoobAU93 05:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I also left her a message at the same time. :p Salvidrim (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job taking care of it so fast! That's what I get for having a life, not being here to see it ;) ... May need to see about getting you trained in spotting Bambifan101 socks. That monster's been the bane of way too many editors of Disney-themed articles. --McDoobAU93 05:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a read. Salvidrim (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ad [1]

Cool. Thanks, mate :). Sir Lothar (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome ... I'd seen enough of the revert war, so I did some digging and found the best reliable source that all but said the DS Lite remains in production. I figured that "continue to be offered on the U.S. market" would be sufficient proof for anyone. --McDoobAU93 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Sword in the Stone

All other Disney articles have the year in it. CuriousWikian590 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please look again ... some films do, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), because there is also an article for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1955 film). Most do not, because of one of three reasons: first, the film is the only use of that name, therefore no disambiguation is needed (see The Rescuers Down Under); second, there is another work, but the Disney film is much more well-known (see The Fox and the Hound and The Fox and the Hound (novel)); or, the other work is the more well-known of the two (see The Sword in the Stone (film) and The Sword in the Stone, the latter of which links to the book upon which the former is based). The only reason the year would be needed in the article name would be if there is another article on another film whose title is The Sword in the Stone. As of right now, no such article exists. If an older film is found (and an article is produced for same) or a new film is announced for production, then the article would need to be moved to a name including the year it was produced.

So, saying "all other" articles have it isn't correct. On the contrary, the name now fits the convention of all other Wikipedia film articles, not just Disney articles. Please read this section on how film articles should be named, and feel free to contact me again if you have any other questions or concerns. --McDoobAU93 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know any other Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella films and they say the year in it. CuriousWikian590 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Sleeping Beauty (2011 film) and Cinderella (1899 film), Cinderella (1914 film) and Cinderella (1994 film), among others. --McDoobAU93 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please take a look at Cinderella (disambiguation)#Film and television and Sleeping Beauty (disambiguation)#Film where you will see numerous films with the names that you mention. Since you have only been editing under your current username for just over a month you should be aware that there are a lot of ins and outs to page moves. They have effect on links and articles that you may not be aware of. I would suggest that you focus on other areas of editing while you learn how things work and if you have any pages that you think should be moved that you put in a request here Wikipedia:Requested moves and let more experienced editors check on the merits of your ideas. Hi Mcdoob you can see that I was typing this while you were making your reply. I thought that I would add it anyway in hopes that I have enhanced your reply. Have a great Turkey Day tomorrow. MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

CuriousWikian, Marnette brings up a good point (and usually does). Half the fun of Wikipedia is learning about things we didn't know existed. For instance, I didn't know there was an 1899 film version of Cinderella until I looked it up. When you added the year to the name of Sword in the Stone, I took a look and couldn't find any other film version, hence no need for the year in the article name. With more Wiki experience, you'll get to be an old hand at spotting appropriate and excessive page naming.

No worries, Marnette. That was a good expansion of thought. Your input is always welcome on my talk page. And a good "gobble, gobble" to you too :) --McDoobAU93 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikia

Do you go too the Wikia?~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

VC vandal is back

Under IP 66.153.221.194, has added VC release info to Mario Party 3 and other TV-based videogames. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike has already blocked the IP for 31 hours. I'm wondering if this is the same vandal on vacation and thus using another dynamic IP. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I had notified MuZemike also, he protected Mario Party 3 for 3 months too, just thought I'd let you know. And from the pattern, I strongly believe there is no doubt it is the same IP. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 19:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur ... targeting the same articles. Now, that said, there actually appears to be some possibility that The Simpsons Arcade Game may indeed be on the way to the various online services. The source cited even says it's speculating based on what's been submitted to Australia's variant of the ESRB. But, that info wasn't added by our friend here. --McDoobAU93 20:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I know nothing of that. But along with his other targets about South Park and Beavis & Butthead, it seems to fall in the same vein of american TV cartoons. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 20:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)