User talk:Sottolacqua

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Fortune Hunter

Please stop reverting this article. The version you are removing as better sentence structure, is more consistent with the format of the other retired pricing game articles, and is less vague about what 1/2 Off is. Calling me a "bully" for attempting to keep that version uploaded is not going to accomplish anything productive. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sottolacqua reply: Your style of writing is not the only acceptable style. Even though you claim the prior version is more consistent, you left in several of my edits.

[edit] Wheel of Fortune

An anon user who came in after your most recent edits committed several iterations of sneaky vandalism in the article. Unfortunately, I had to take out your (and my) subsequent work to undo it all. However, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my using the phrase "thus, for example" to elaborate on how buying a vowel works. Please have more respect for other people's work, and don't just change or revert something because you would have written it differently if it had been your idea in the first place. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Thus, for example" sounds incredibly awkward and is unnecessary in describing how the process works. An example is not always needed...just describe what happens. sottolacqua 1:21, 5 December 2007

[edit] The Joker's Wild

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Jnelson09 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sottolacqua

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Jnelson09 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Here's why

You removed an entire section from The Joker's Wild without giving a reason. --Jnelson09 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting. That section contains colloquialisms used by a host and bears no resemblance to any other similarly-structured article detailing a specific game show. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friday box office

It wasn't speculative, because at the time it was quite accurate. When another film comes along that beats it, you just adjust the placement. If it gets to the point that it would be irrelevant (i.e. if the film, in adjust US dollars would place like 20th alongside other 2008 films) then you just remove it entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. How many films, when released, are constantly monitored to adjust how much money they make each weekend? Every single one. If you would like to reword the information, that's cool, but it's completely relevant to the article and the section. It's not trivial in the least. It would be trivial if the placement of the film was so far down the list that it wouldn't make a difference one way or the other, but placing first or second, based on the current figures is rather relevant given that the film is almost 30 years old. I would assume that by the time the summer blockbusters is over, it will probably be about 15, but that will depend on how well the summer goes. If it's like last year, it could be lower, in which case we can just remove the information if it's too low to note.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
First, you wouldn't have to make weekly updates to begin with. Look at the films out there now. Other than Horton, which already passed the 100 million mark, nothing is even close to the 100 million mark right now. You wouldn't even need to pay attention to that for another month, at least. Then, it would be easy because the real summer blockbusters (the comic book movies) will probably make that in their first 7 days, or so, in which case it's easy to adjust. Then, you can always revamp the sentence. Look at 2007, and where the highest grossing horror movie is listed. If you go pure horror, that would be SAW IV, at something about 60+ million. that's almost half of what the adjust dollars for Friday would be. That's perspective. The point you are missing is that it's adding perspective to this "adjusted" dollar, otherwise it's just another number. Showing how the movie would have compared with the movies of today, with their much larger budgets, is perspective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Individual film level, that's cool too. But, for the series as a whole, it's already being done. It can be reworked to compare it to just horror films of "today". But the decision becomes, how far back through the years should one consider it to be "Today", for the comparison to be relevant? Back to 2003, when FvJ came out, or more recent and keep it to only within the past couple of years? The further back you go the more likely you'll need to re-calculate the number, as the inflation for 2003 is (obviously) different than that of 2008.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay

Is there any reason for changing all the references to gameplay to game play? Gameplay seems to be a legitimate spelling when describing the play elements of a game, and I think one word makes the concept clearer when read. A Wikipedia search brings up almost 10,000 articles which use 'gameplay', and google brings up over 52 million hits for the one-word version (as opposed to only 17 million hits for "game play" as two words.) Seems more appropriate to be one word. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Either format is acceptable since each produce search results. Use/revert what you'd like. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)