User talk:Lunarsys

Account Block
Hello. You may have noticed that you have been blocked from wiki editing for 1 week. This is due to the fact that you have kept mass editing pages against advice from several moderators and undone edits made by admins. Please take some time to cool down, and feel free to discuss the handling of daemonism terms with staff before making wideswept edits like this. Failure to discuss such big changes with staff and editing against advice of several staff members will result in further action. LogarithmicLot (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We were advised by the user Forestwalk that we could put back the edits with the correct information, so we began to do so after discussing it with them. Also we were not told by several moderators and admins about our edits, it was just one admin from what we could see (Chowdersys), not several members of staff. We certainly talked to several users but only one admin from what we could see specifically said that. Is Forestwalk not an admin or a mod? Lunarsys (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If Forestwalk is an admin then sorry but we have received conflicting info from staff about what we could do (please see the discussion on the daemonling talk page for reference). And if they aren't then apologies as we misunderstood and thought that they were. Also can we ask if any of the admins and staff are daemians themselves? Because as it stands a good third of the information on Pluralpedia about daemonism is legitimately incorrect or out of date. Lunarsys (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of the out of date information you mention was added by us. We intentionally document terms which have fallen out of use. If you are not the coiners or acquainted with them or do not know their wishes, I don't see why you need to remove some of them from the pages we have made. SOBQJMV (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One page with an out of use term on it actually already stated it had fallen out of use, which we think is great practice. Some of the edits we made included following that model and adding the same notation to other pages to which it would be applicable. In other cases, some of the out of date information or information was/is incorrect (not referring here specifically to whether it's in date or not). Not sure if those were among the ones added by y'all or not but just to highlight that some of the other edits we made were amending incorrect info, or extending definitions where things now are used to refer to more than one thing! For example. We didn't actually remove any out of date terms, only added a note saying they were out of use. Lunarsys (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding context like that is great! One edit that confused me and inspired me to leave a comment was the removal of a subterm and source on Comfort Form - why was that? SOBQJMV (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At least three admins were involved in those conversations. In general, only staff get involved with how the wiki is handled, and you should not take any non-staff members advice as permission. In this case yes, Forestwalk are part of the staff team.
 * We are happy to have you provide additional information, which is what Forestwalk advised you to do. You proceeded to change pages to remove them from categories and removed references. This is what you were told not to do.
 * Also please give us a bit of time to respond, staff are discussing this as a team to avoid further misunderstandings. LogarithmicLot (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We seem to have misunderstood, as what we thought we were told not to do was not include the commentary on whether or not the concept is plural and/or systemrelated or not. In any event when you have some time could staff, ideally someone or some people who actively practice the concept and identifies as a daemian or daemians, please at some time in the future correct the incorrect and out of date information on Pluralpedia about daemonism. Incorrect information can lead to further misunderstandings. Tysm! Lunarsys (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Staff will definitely look into this and look for possible conflicts between the daemonism and plurality communities. It will likely take a bit since this is a volunteer-based project and we need to track down the community members that are versed in the topic.
 * If there are other issues you see in relation to large groups of terms, please bring it up to staff first in the future, and we will do our best to figure things out. LogarithmicLot (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If staff would like us to compile a list of suggested corrections/changes to the cluster of daemonism pages just let us know, we could do that and then staff and other community members could consider and review them. If not we definitely recommend finding community members who identify as daemians to consult on the topic! Lunarsys (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What I see is that you have been saying that if you are plural you can't a dæmon (I don't know the grammar here) and as a system you thus are exempt.
 * So that also means that you've been insisting on these edits while not having personal experience nor sources (as far as I've seen) and then insisting that we need someone with personal experience to come back you up because the wiki mods have been saying "hey bro. Actually talk to us before practically vandalizing our wiki?"
 * -Not a wiki mod
 * DuccDuckGoose (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, you seem to have missed where we said that if people including staff consider that it should be here then it should be and that we would not add back this commentary. You also seem to have missed where we said that a person can be plural and a daemian, or a system and a daemian, or all three. We also think you may have misunderstood the original comment as well, as saying that daemonism isn't a plural or system concept in itself is not the same as saying that plural people or systems cannot be daemians or vice versa, or that it's exclusive to being one or the other. We never said that and so we don't know what you mean by "as a system you are thus exempt". Nothing we've written anywhere suggests systems like us are exempt from being daemians! We have personal experience of being a daemian, as we are one, and we have referred to a source (you may have missed that). (editing as you've edited your comment) To be clear, we have never stated anywhere on the wiki that if you are plural you can't have a daemon, or that systems are exempt from having daemons/being daemians; you've misread something. Above LogarithmicLot mentioned that I should not take any non-staff members advice on this topic and so as you are not staff we won't be engaging with you any further. Thx! Lunarsys (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ''This user is a wiki admin and server lead.
 * Hi, for now I suggest that all involved cease conversation about this topic for the time being, so that the staff team may agree on a decision and action instead of continuing to be an unorganized mess. BlackRose (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, for now I suggest that all involved cease conversation about this topic for the time being, so that the staff team may agree on a decision and action instead of continuing to be an unorganized mess. BlackRose (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked from editing
Hi, could you pls explain where we ignored admins,,? We went back to correct incorrect information and update out of date information about dæmonism without the commentary about whether or not dæmonism is plural/system related or not, like we discussed with the user named Forestwalk (User:Forestwalk - Pluralpedia). Some of the information about dæmonism on Pluralpedia is legitimately incorrect or out of date. It should be corrected and updated where relevant. -- Lunarsys Lunarsys (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * We were advised by the user Forestwalk that we could put back the edits with the correct information, so we began to do so after discussing it with them. Also we were not told by several moderators and admins about our edits, it was just one admin from what we could see (Chowdersys), not several members of staff. We certainly talked to several users but only one admin from what we could see specifically said that. Is Forestwalk not an admin? Lunarsys (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)