User talk:UhHuhAlrightDaisy

Leave me a message here.

re:Question
Ah, ok. Sorry for the trouble. --Glowsquid (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2013 (EST)

File:PeachDaisy MP9.png
Hello. About your reupload, there was no reason to revert such an image because of a "bigger file size". That revision actually had unofficial changes and color adjustments made to it. If you look at the previous revisions, it was continuously reverted because of those unofficial changes. The second revision from the bottom is the official version: it should be reverted back to that one and no further changes should be made.


 * The resolution is the same on both revisions: the extra file size has little to do with the quality of the image. The only thing which has made that file larger was the redundant color adjustments. Even though her colors may appear to be "more correct", the original palette was the official one, and the fanbase shouldn't adjust that to satisfy what they believe to be more correct. Thanks.

15:36, 14 November 2013 (EST)

Princess Daisy feature nomination
Peincess Dais will be featured december 2!!!, Thanks for you vote Ashley anEoTselkie ( Talk )  12:16, 26 November 2013 (EST)

....
Just say princess daisy was in issues 2, 27 and 28.

2 because it says it had super mario land in it. Say, "Daisy could have appeared in issue 2 since it revolved around Super Mario Land, her home game"

27 at the end and 28 at the beginning since they had mario party 3 in it. Say, "Daisy could have possibly appeared at the end of issue 27 and beginning of issue 28 due to her prominent role in mario party 3, which these two issues revolve around."

Just say she possibly could have been in those just so they shut up about having that as a section.

Also, please note that daisy appears in the STREET PASS MII PLAZA where she has a puzzle swap for mario tennis open which she is in!!

thanks for turning the haters into supporters! i would help but i can't. so do this stuff for me please!!

-Michaeloll on gamefaqs [PM me there to talk. this wiki wont let me edit daisy's page so that's why i request you to make these changes!!]

Yoshi876
Just saying, but stating she has appeared in it won't make my oppose go away otherwise I would've done it. All I want is her role in the comic then my oppose will go.

RE:Daisy's Crown
I just have to finish editing it and then I will upload it to the Wiki. I've been very busy uploading Super Mario 3D World Stamps as well as getting homework done for school. I'll try uploading it right now. There are actually a lot more that are missing from the Wiki, I just haven't had time to upload them all. During Winter Break I'll try to upload the rest. 21:02, 1 December 2013 (EST)


 * Now it's uploaded! 21:36, 1 December 2013 (EST)

Daisy
To start off, the intro was already rather padded. It had a lot of information that would later be repeated in the article, and deleting bits of it streamlines it more while losing absolutely nothing, since everything that's deleted is already found in a more inclusive section. Also, in my opinion, that quote demonstrates very well Daisy's personality.

The way the clothing/appearance section is written now is god-awful. There's no other way of describing it. As described in Good Writing, the sections are very clearly demonstrating flowery writing, stuff that sounds like it belongs in a novel. Now, that's good for a novel, but we're a wiki. We don't write like a novel. We don't need to specify every single little detail about her attire. Also, I don't really see why saying "sky-blue" instead of "sapphire-blue" is "literally stupid".

I did not revert your reverts simply because I think that articles need to be small. That's something that's not only completely uncalled for, but completely false, and the same applies to you saying that I don't care about the article's quality. The reason that I started the denomination in the first place isn't just so that I can cackle evilly while I ruin the article; I pointed out some noticeable flaws in the article, flaws that other users agreed on. I am bringing attention to the article's problems so that they can be fixed. The things that you reverted were among the problems that I listed. They were changed for a reason, and as it stands, it's better changed than not. Also, it's barely been an hour since the nomination even started. I have homework that I need to do, I have other projects on the wiki that I started beforehand, and I have plenty more on my plate, so please don't immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm some lazy jerk.

I understand that you care a lot about the article, but please, there's really no need to be so aggressive towards me, or anyone. You have to realize that these edits were done in good faith, and there was absolutely no malicious intent with them. Everyone's trying their best to work towards improving the article, and bringing it back to the way it was beforehand is not going to improve anything.
 * Just to let you know, Baby Luigi replied to your comment on my talk page. If you two would like to discuss together (preferably not on my talk page), that'd be great.
 * The Daisy article isn't your personal turf. We make edits we see fit, and the article clearly violates a significant policy and you just don't go around yelling, "YOU'RE DESTROYING THE DAISY ARTICLE" when, as Time Turner said, were just trying to help and actually make an article an objective, straight to the facts reliable source without heavy padding on the shape of Daisy's face. Articles should be the smallest they can because, in information, descriptions of subjects in less words but the same meaning is always better than huge padded articles filled with nothing but fluff and flowerly descriptions. We're not supposed to be a biased source, and the amount of detail paid to a certain character (along with the diction used that's mostly inappropriate for this subject matter coughcoughcontemporary-vernacular-I think of a Shakespeare article when I see that, NOT a fictional character in a cartoon land) is staggering compared to other character articles. You said that, "but oh, Peach and Rosalina does it and Rosalina is featured." I can nominate to unfeature Rosalina any time; guidelines and standards change over time and our standard is to be a non-biased, straight-to-the-point and clear as possible without resorting to padding out the article on wasteful descriptions. 14:33, 10 March 2014 (EDT)
 * That was an exaggeration but my point still stands as you clearly said we're "butchering" and "destroying" her article, which is a wrong attitude to have around here, because this site is free to edit with any person any time, technically, especially when standards and policies change. I don't think the unfeature person has anything against the subject content, because he realized the content of the article sucked, while very possibly over-looking other flaws other featured articles have.
 * You still have this "assume bad faith" attitude and it's nonconstructive to the upkeep of the wiki to keep thinking users deliberately want to ruin articles unless obviously otherwise. It's true that you did left some of my edits in, it's certainly an improvement over your initial reaction to what I did to the article. 17:36, 10 March 2014 (EDT)