User talk:Lunamann

Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	It's been fun having your comments at WP:RFD. Hope you stick around! Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...But drat, now I gotta ask this since I just looked at your first few edits which happened about two weeks ago: Have you edited a Wiki/Wikia/Fandom before Wikipedia? You caught on real fast. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] I definitely plan to stick around, lol! That said, nope, unless you count brief stints in trying to get into writing for the SCP Wiki... I never managed to get anything actually done there, though, lol. Guess I'm just a fast learner? x3 Thank you so much for the barnstar! Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just came here to give you a shiny thing, only to realize Steel1943 was way quicker! I probably missed when you first started editing during the few months I took off from closing at RfD, but I wanted to second Steel's appreciation; thanks for bringing your ideas and lighthearted demeanor! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you change a stance/comment in a discussion after other editors have commented in the discussion, such as you did here, it needs to be done in a way that meets WP:REDACT, such as an edit in this manner.

The reason for this is it makes it clear when you had the intitial stance and when you changed your initial stance, given that all comments are supposed to have live timestamps which cannot be placed if a comment is edited.

Otherwise, editors have to look at the edit history of the page to see when the change was made (which most editors should not and will not do), such as what I did to make the aforementioned edit that was more in line with WP:REDACT. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth and a bit unrelated, this edit broke the 2024 March 5 page and broke Twinkle, which was the fault of the editor who performed the edit. (I noticed this after I used Twinkle to nominate Pappoos.) To fix this, I had to perform this series of edits to fix the page so that Twinkle could work on the page again. Steel1943 (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Right, sorry! All of this does make sense to me, I'll try to keep it in mind for the future. (Mostly got confused 'cause I never saw the notification, oddly enough, lol. Just never showed up in my notifs. Which is frickin' weird??)While I have you here btw, is what I did over in the discussion for Fruit cups okay? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I made a minor fix earlier (gotta get all the hidden text generated by the substitution of } removed [I also added }, but it's not necessary]), just made another fix (apparently, the date= parameter should be in "YYYY Month DD" format [I also linked Fruit salad, but it's not necessary]), and did a minor tweak to the close (period outside of } since the result should only be the result word(s) to allow the result to appear on the main WP:RFD page correctly, } should be substituted), but it looked good otherwise. (Seriously, all of the changes I made are very minor, and I'm just a bit pedantic since I've been monitoring RFD for over a decade.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Phew, okay. Thank you so much! ...I'll be honest, I've been a little eaten up by anxiety over 'Did I just do a bad' ever since I closed that page. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] You know, I just realized you probably have never used Twinkle, a tool used for various tasks, including adding new nominations to WP:XFD forums such as RfD. I guess you've been using a tool/script to add to discussions called "Convenient Discussions", which I guess also can get broken if a page is not formatted correctly. Not sure, but wow yeah, I know the confusion about using a tool and then the tool not working as expected ... especially since I eventually discovered what makes the Twinkle tool break and work correctly on RFD pages. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Yup. Started using it because... well, the default Reply box also seems to be glitchy when I use it, and simply directly editing the page kept resulting in me forgetting to sign the post. Voorts suggested Convenient Discussions here, and I've been using it since. Here is where it might be found? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The moon is an excellent basis for a username. Yue🌙 02:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: Why, thank you! And likewise, hah! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While in this case your edit was correct, it is rarely appropriate to edit others' comments on a talk page, and never to change the meaning (if if the intended meaning seems obvious). In situations like that, it is almost infinitely better to make a post asking for clarification, (e.g. "Did you mean "no affinity"?). Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: ...Yeah, I'm sorry on that one. My bad. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to thank you for the barnstar. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lunamann!

To follow up on our discussion about WP:PANDORA at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#3.1415926535…: While I don't agree at all that WP:PANDORA is an outright bad argument, I do appreciate your effort to address what are some obvious problems with it.

If you decide to go ahead with my suggestion to bring this up at RfC, I hereby offer to help you draft that. Just ping me here, and I'll see what I can do. Renerpho (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... a little late for that lol, given I already made it lol. Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#RfC on WP:PANDORA rewrite/removal 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about doing it a bit back and after seeing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#3.1415926535..., was thinking about starting it already. Thank you for putting in the work so I didn't have to go through hell, back, hell, and back again. mwwv converse∫edits 19:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I relisted the RfD as a combined one for all 4 redirects (somehow my brain missed that there might also be the opposites of the biological male redirects, also none of them were properly tagged as non-neutral, so added tags to the redirects): Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27#Biological woman/man So just a courtesy note if you would like to re-state/re-word your comment at the new listing. Raladic (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just saw your adjusted new reply on the rfd, just a friendly note that instead of unbolding, you should WP:STRIKE your original text by wrapping it with <s>OLDTEXT</s> :) Raladic (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] No problem, just figured I'd mention it in case you hadn't encountered it before :) Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, can you explain why the tumblr link you cited at RFD is so hilarious? I listened to it and found it unremarkable, so I must be missing something. Nyttend (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The original joke is that Toby Fox was manipulating You Got A Friend In Me to sound creepy; he'd done a few other edits of that song to various other effects at the time.The in-joke people ran with was that this was supposed to be some sort of hint as to what was going to happen in Chapter 3 of Deltarune; theories abounded of some sort of huge Toy Story reference with a talking-cowboy-doll Shadow Crystal Darkner secret boss.Of course, then Chapter 3 actually did come out and it was... Not That. The in-joke kinda died off at that point. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] (I'd also like to note that Chapter 4's secret Mike boss lampooned several not-correct fan theories, INCLUDING Friend Inside Me; that's why the second Mike-- the Zapper one-- is, randomly, a cowboy. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lunamann. I looked at the source text of your user page out of curiosity, and I noticed that } has |param1=Lunamann in it. If your intention is to show your username on the website, the userbox isn't currently doing that. If you want to fix this, just replace it with |Lunamann (like this: }), and it should display as you wanted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I'd forgotten I'd originally intended that. Thanks for the heads up! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] You're welcome! Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm about to head to bed, but before I do I wanted to share some thoughts with you regarding the discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#Otherwise-implausible_redirects_originally_intended_as_editor_assistance_(i.e._possessive_redirects)

As I alluded to before, I have long been thinking about proposing a process to deal with redirect groups like the possessives. So I was very happy to see that discussion, which is basically how I think the process for dealing with these redirects should start! I'd like to formalize these thoughts into an essay some time, after the discussion resolves.

I am worried I'm overstepping, though. As much as someone can own a discussion thread outside of userspace, it's a discussion that you started, not me. So I'd like to confer with you about what to do next. I think once we have some more participation, we could put it to a more formal !vote on what to do between a few options? The options could be something like:

A: Do nothing B: Draft and propose a new entry at WP:RFDO to delete these redirects C: Draft and propose a new CSD D: Draft and propose a new entry at WP:RFDO to keep these redirects

Let me know if you have any thoughts of any sort. Have a lovely evening! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 06:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I myself think that C has been determined to be a very bad idea, given the CSD is a bad idea?I do think that A, B, and D should be given as options, though. But not tonight; I am kinda drained and need bed lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Same lol I am also quite drained. Good night! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 06:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It looks like the new discussion over at WT:MOS is probably going to close soon, and I've had some more thoughts about what to do afterwards. Once that discussion closes, I think you or I could continue a new discussion at WT:RE. I noticed in WP:RFDO, it does explicitly warn against using entries there as arguments for future consensus, so I actually think that might not be the best way to do that sort of thing. Maybe at WT:RE, there could be a little bit more discussion before holding a formal !vote, just to collect suggestions on what to do with the redirects? I wouldn't want to steal your thunder, but I've been fairly uninvolved opinion-wise, and there is that one editor who is (IMO baselessly) accusing you of forum-shopping. If you'd like, perhaps I could start that next discussion instead? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 19:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Let me know if I can help. You may not need it, and I'm obviously quite INVOLVED with a well-documented position on the issue, but I like to think I can still craft a neutrally worded question or provide useful feedback on a discussion question before it goes live. If we even need another discussion. Also, with respect to WP:RFDO, I think documenting the common outcome of these discussions may be beneficial. (But I'd hold off for now.) I know the essay says not to cite it, but I do see some sections cited helpfully especially where precedent has formed and stabilized over a period of time and isn't well documented elsewhere (e.g., WP:REMOJI). I have found it helpful as someone who is active at RFD now but was not around when some of these issues were most discussed. I know I'm butting in, but thank you to both of you (courtesy ping @MEN KISSING) for helping shepherd this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Aw, thanks! If I come up with something, I'll be sure to run it by you first, then. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 20:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Happy to help! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Whenever that thread at WT:MOS closes (it feels like it could get closed per WP:SNOW any moment now with how many !votes there are for option 2 haha) I think I'd like to post this at WT:RE. @Myceteae: let me know your thoughts: (start) Hello all, This discussion is a continuation of the following threads:

• Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#New_CSD:_Redirect's (Withdrawn)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#Otherwise-implausible_redirects_originally_intended_as_editor_assistance_(i.e._possessive_redirects) (Procedurally closed per WP:MULTI)
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Possessive_Redirects_vs_Blended/Agglutinated_Links (Closed as (TBD))

As well as a long string of nominations at RfD. All these threads concern possessive redirects: redirects which end in 's, such as Foobar's → Foobar. A random spot-check estimate of a query of 4961 redirects ending in 's suggests that there exist ~500 redirects which are not obviously helpful (such as Grateful Dead's → Grateful Dead, as opposed to ones like Aldi's → Aldi). I would like to hear some proposals for whether these redirects should be kept or deleted, and what (if anything) needs to be done in the interest of keeping or deleting these redirects. After some time, we can put these proposals to a formal !vote. Some ideas that were brought up in previous discussions include creation of a new CSD or creation of a new entry at WP:RFDO. Proposals don't need to be thought out completely, but I would prefer to hear proposals a little more specific than "Propose a new CSD" or "Stop bringing them to RfD". If the winning suggestion is a new CSD, we may have to make one final stop over at WT:CSD. Hopefully that will be the end of this journey to figure out what to do about all of these redirect's. (end) I hope I'm not being too verbose, and I hope I'm not dragging out the process too much by making it a two stage thing. I'd be sure to ping all of the relevant contributors (obviously I won't do that here). MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 00:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I mean it sounds good to me lol. Thank you for doing all this btw 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Aw, no worries! It's actually been pretty fun and satisfying doing all of this, if you could believe it. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It’s now closed as ‘Option 2’. I might trim the last bit. It is a little verbose but not otherwise problematic. If I think of better wording I’ll provide it but I’m fine with moving forward as-is. Thanks for working on this! It is satisfying to be working towards a solution. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Funny thing, the discussion closed the same minute my morning alarm went off and I woke up, haha! Thanks for the feedback, I think I'll move forward with this, and will trim the last bit. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 16:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I know the essay says not to cite itThat's very much news to me given how often it GETS cited. I especially see WP:XY, WP:RTYPO, and occasionally WP:MIXEDSCRIPT (but only 'cause that one only rarely comes up) get cited. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Well, it doesn’t exactly say “don’t cite this” but sort of cautions against relying on it. But as you say, it often does get cited and pointing to established practice is imminently reasonable. Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your efforts in getting the discussion regarding the redirect's going, and for your valuable participation in the extended discussion. Great work! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're not quite done yet, but I think you've definitely earned it. And as a bonus compliment for you: I love the 'sona you have on your userpage!

Have a lovely evening! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you!
Heck, now I have to rejigger my userbox panel again to fit this in x3
But nah, thank you so much <3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]