User talk:UhHuhAlrightDaisy

UhHuhAlrightDaisy's Archives: Latest - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

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.

Shokora (talk · edits) 15:36, 14 November 2013 (EST)

Princess Daisy feature nomination

Peincess Dais will be featured december 2!!!, Thanks for you vote Ashley anEoTselkie (Talk) File:Ashley WarioWare Touched.png 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. Yoshi876 (talk)

RE:Daisy's Crown

File:StreetpassDaisy'sCrown.png

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. Agentdave7 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (EST)

Now it's uploaded! Agentdave7 (talk) 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 MarioWiki: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. Hello, I'm Time Turner.