User talk:TomBoy

Talk

Mario Golf: World Tour
Please stop posting that information on the Mario Golf: World Tour article. Those crowns, as I stated earlier, are most likely Peach's as the jewels on it are Red and Blue as opposed to Daisy's Red and Green jewels. We can also see that on the beach course image (the one with Mario) the same exact crowns are on the tee box there too. It is highly unlikely for them to base two courses off one character. In addition to this, it is currently unconfirmed whether the courses will be based upon certain characters. I respect your opinion, but now, when it is unconfirmed, it is best not to assume anything. If Nintendo does confirm this then it will be fine to add the infromation then. However, if you really do want to share it then I don't see any problems to putting something such as 'A desert-themed course. It is possible that it belongs to Princess Daisy as her crowns are atop the course's cacti'. That seems better than saying that the course IS based upon her. I am not trolling. I am preventing the article from containing unconfirmed and possibly misleading information.

YoshiandWaluigi

I saw the comment you made on my talk page. It is fair enough if you think the crowns resemble the princesses. However, like I stated earlier it is best not to assume that this is the case. It would be better if we leave it as it was previously until further information is released about the game.--YoshiandWaluigi (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Preview Button
Hello. Please use the "Show preview" button right next to the "Save page" one when editing a page, this way you won't make a ton of edits in a row to the same page. If you absolutely must make several consecutive edits to the same page, please mark them as minor. -- 20:32, 6 July 2013 (EDT)

Thank you for adding more Daisy info. please nominate her for featured article waluigi sucks

RE: Blue-Green as Opposed to Green
At the time I was just trying to settle an argument, if you want to put that in feel free to.

Re:Miracle Book
Possibly, if I get the time. 18:48, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

Canvas size
Hello. To inform you, reuploads where you increase the canvas size such as here are pointless, as there is nothing wrong with the tightly cropped images. Adding empty space around an image is very unnecessary, for the file size can become quite large and it's contradictory to those who wish to crop images, and this can easily result in "upload warring". Also, the fact that the more empty space there is around an artwork, the smaller it appears in galleries. Please refrain from doing this again, thanks.


 * I was discouraging it because of the unnecessary space and file size, and there's nothing wrong with tight cropping. On the Mario Spots Mix art, it's the image layer itself on the official PSD document: the other layer is the larger background.

01:12, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

File reupload
Hello TomBoy. If I may ask, why was your reupload here necessary?

09:35, 19 July 2013 (EDT)

tomboy it is time to get daisy featured again. re nominate her and take off trash like waluigi. also fix the voice acting sextion. you said deanna mustard AFTER toadstool tour, but Mario Party 5 is AFTER toadstool tour and that is NOT deanna mustard. thank you.

Shokora / Wario reupload
Please tell me why your re-uploads here and here were necessary. The only difference I can observe about them was the increase in file size.


 * Okay, that's fine then. Thanks for the touch-ups! Visually I didn't see much difference, but I suppose we're looking at fine details here.


 * Oh... I've only just cleared the cache for the images and I can properly see the color difference now. I'm sorry to say this, but the changes were very unnecessary. When I was adjusting the color on the scanned images in Photoshop before uploading them, I already matched the coloring of both the Shokora and Wario artwork as best as I could with the original artworks in the guidebooks. Do you mind if they are reverted?

20:53, 24 August 2013 (EDT)

Bit-size Characters
The images you uploaded are not favorable because 1) the palette is wrong. I have the textures of the model to prove it that the palette is wrong and 2) the bitsize characters are still 3D models per se; they aren't sprites and they use textures. Even though their movement is supposed to imitate a sprite, the model comes in two model files to imitate it.
 * What you do mean they're not consistent? I downloaded them off the Model's resource, so they should be optimized for editing already. And there are no flaws I see, not clear ones anyway. The models are viewed at default setting without any sort of extra lighting or rendering whatsoever to keep it at a neutral state, and their texture mapping is just fine. It's not artwork, it's game data and to present complex game data such as models that use features such as lighting, it needs to be in the default setting.
 * It's true I am not unfeasible when it comes to images, however, since I was the one who acquired them and has the 3D program required to view them, I know such things that you don't. Saying you know what she looks like without knowing how 3D models work is very arrogant and you should know better than say things like "I know everything". 13:36, 30 August 2013 (EDT)
 * Well you shouldn't "correct" the lighting because that's how the game works. Without the extra lighting, the model would look dark. And saying using an extreme example of a neutral setting is the basis of what you think is right? Look the game lighting dictates the color of the model. What I have is a model in neutral setting. No lighting, no shaders, no extra renders, nothing. That's the way it should be like. Just like how sprites shouldn't be in a different palette, neither could you tinker with the models in their neutral setting. The 8-bit models were in fact supposed to be in their flat 3D setting; I even made sure of that, but the black lines are unavoidable since you're viewing what it exactly it is: a 3 dimensional model.
 * In fact, they're not viewed in the front at all. If they were, it would look like a straight line.
 * Your image is wrong anyway, even with your unnecessary "fixes", since the texture files are different palettes.
 * And no, I wasn't insulting you at all, you're the one who first started calling me an "image know-it all". I'm just being very blunt. 14:45, 30 August 2013 (EDT)
 * It's not like I didn't see YoshiKong's talk page, where I didn't see the words "It almost seems like you're just trying to control all the images on this wiki so that 're the uploader of everything" that is directed at me, you know? The reason I'm arguing with the specifics is that you have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about or how 3D models work, and you have no idea what they even look like, so you shouldn't tinker around with things you don't know. My words to you is to cut out the arrogant attitude (especially when you keep claiming that you know that the palettes of your version are correct when they are in fact, not), stop calling my versions of the image the "crappy versions" even though it's the unrendered version of them, and stop arguing with me that you think you know things when in fact you have no clue what you're talking about. The palettes you used aren't "ripped" in the slightest, unless you so happen to have the texture files of the models which are their exact palette.
 * You have a history of making unofficial enhancements to images anyway which further proves my case that you don't know what you're doing. So good day. 15:02, 30 August 2013 (EDT)
 * Your message is obviously directed at me and the recipient doesn't matter: an insult calling me the "image dictator" is still an insult regardless. Also, if you want me to stop being mad, stop provoking me. Stop calling my images "the crappy versions". I never called your revisions "crappy" just "incorrect". And saying that you know how much about it than I do? Ok, what 3D modeling program do you use? Do you know how to set the lighting so it appears brighter? Do you know how to render images? And what makes you think they're not to be "meant" to be viewed like this? They're ing 3D models. Their palette depends on their lighting. If they appear under blue light, they appear blue. If they appear in the shadows, they appear darker. If they are under a strong source of light, they'll have strong colors. They are NOTHING like sprites where they usually have only a few set palettes. 3D models literally have an infinite palette. The only official palette comes from their textures in which you STILL have no idea what I'm talking about. You still ignore my point about textures which contain the colors for the model. 3D modeling is not as simple as clicking and dragging the texture into the model and it turns out exactly what you want it to be.
 * Badly cropped? Poorly ripped? What the hell? NOW you have no idea what you're talking about. 3DS Max uses a monochrome for its background. AND it allows you to take a picture of the model WITH transparency. It's not even badly cropped. Where the hell did you come up with that?
 * By the way, I'm not insulting you. I'm not name-calling you in the slightest. I don't engage in worthless insults that do nothing to help the argument except make it worse. But I dislike your highly arrogant attitude. In fact, I never called ANY of your revisions crap or badly done. I said they're incorrect. 15:20, 30 August 2013 (EDT)

You literally went into the game? You mean you made yourself microscopic and walked inside the disc? Anyway, I don't quite get what you mean by "literally" going into the game and getting the colors. Did you take screenshots from an emulator? Did you extract the textures and applied it to the model without tinkering with the textures? And what do you mean by "color-affected"? The lighting? Sure, I can increase the lighting for you to make the image brighter, but the image is like this because we simply took the model from a model ripping site, put it on a scene, rotated the camera around so it looks as flat as possible, and then we took a snapshot and cropped the image. This is as raw as you can get, and I don't see a problem with that.

I also don't understand what you mean by "the artwork is not consistent with Daisy's in-game appearance". How? Subtle color differences? And how are they literally corrections? They don't seem like corrections; they're enhancements. And how can you correct an image that has been taken from an official source, like Nintendo's site? You have to define what you're saying because I don't quite understand any of what you're saying. I'm not a very bright person. 15:29, 30 August 2013 (EDT)


 * It's not "wrong". My eyes are bad, but I don't see any noticeable differences between the "uncorrected artwork" and the in-game dumps. I do notice that the big rendered artwork is more "shiny" than the other two pics you showed me, but that's okay because it's supposed to be like that. Daisy has nearly the same color eyes as Peach and being bothered that her eyes aren't azure, but sapphire just sounds like that old "insistent terminology" thing. Daisy has nearly the same eye color in the artwork you showed me, so the correction feels, again, more of an enhancement than an actual correction. If the eyes are more pale turquoise than sky-blue (like it's supposed to be), I'd be bothered.


 * The reason we continue saying "official only" is not that we like official more, but it's made by people at Nintendo. They know a good deal about modeling and rendering, way more than us. Also, the bulk of the creation of 3D official art is more likely to steam from a 3D modeling program than from Photoshop. The Striker artwork for Daisy is not supposed to have an ear; I checked in the instruction manual just in case I was wrong. Even if they muck up and make Daisy in a pink outfit instead of orange, you're not allowed to alter the color and then claim it as official art. I just doesn't work like that. 16:18, 30 August 2013 (EDT)


 * You invested a lot, but I don't know the subject matter it pertains to.
 * When I see the artwork again, I see that the ear is actually there, just behind her flower earring. The differences and "inconsistencies" are not obvious; they're subtle. And yes, I do know there are multiple official releases. The second image you showed me seems to be altered to fit in the ad. And yes, we're okay with official enhancements. Now, Nintendo has released "newer" versions of the same artwork, and you can tell the difference with the lighter colors and softer-looking appearance. That, we accept as well.




 * What we don't accept is altering with the original artwork and then releasing it over the original artwork, like changing Baby Mario's red sneakers to blue in this picture:


 * Again what do you mean by "directly taken from her render from the game"? Did you extract the textures? Did you extract the model? I still don't understand what you mean by that. 16:55, 30 August 2013 (EDT)


 * The problem with the dropper tool, however, is that you take one out of hundreds of pixels. I don't accept corrections not because I don't like them, but it has been tinkered. If you like these kinds of things, you can always keep these images for yourself. Things done by individual people aren't bad, per se, but I think the same reason we don't allow enhancements/corrections is the same reason we don't cover good, awesome stuff like texture hacking and popular fan-made games. Nintendo has no involvement in it, so we can't have it (special exceptions apply).


 * Nothing is perfect, and even I'd like to see some official things get altered (Mario's older sprites, some art work of Mario with crazy-looking eyes, altering Mario's Brawl model to have less mad eyebrows, etc.), but I prefer to do it on my own, and I won't reupload over the original. Even if it is subtle, a change is a change, and I'd like to see the original artwork stay as it is. 17:30, 30 August 2013 (EDT)

Re: Response
I didn't say anything about the models so did you mean to contact Baby Luigi instead?

07:36, 30 August 2013 (EDT)

Changing Images
I'm fairly certain you can't "correct" the colors, especially when the artwork was official from Nintendo. Also you can't add an ear for her if it wasn't in the official artwork...

Basically, unless you got it directly from Nintendo or something like an instruction book, you can't upload it.

-- 17:15, 30 August 2013 (EDT)

Reminder
As repeatedly stated before, we do not allow unofficial enhancements of art. Yes, enhancements are good in general, but as the wiki, we cover only the source material, which may be imperfect for your standards. If you wish to dispute this, you may contact an administrator or have your reminder up for an appeal 21:15, 14 September 2013 (EDT)
 * Why can't you just admit that you're wrong for once? I'm being blunt and frank as possible when I gave you a reminder, why can't you do a little research yourself and actually look up the said item on Amazon? You're still wrong here, you don't even know the name of the site where the official stock photo is. The plush is manufactured by a company named San-ei, this is their website where the stock image came from:
 * http://www.san-ei-boeki.co.jp/charactor-mario.html
 * This is the page where I got it from
 * http://www.amazon.com/Sanei-Super-Mario-Princess-Daisy/dp/B009C02OIU/ref=pd_sim_t_5
 * This is obviously the official one, this plush came from here, which is where they really sell it.
 * But really, you're calling your picture official? It's not, by far, you haven't taken it from anywhere official, and from someone who actually owns the plush, the colors ARE too bright. The one I uploaded matches more the one I own than the one you uploaded. 22:32, 15 September 2013 (EDT)
 * By the way, whether you're "done with me" or not is not the case here. Just talk to anyone else here, they'll agree with me. And I will continue bringing this up if you continue with this behavior.