Talk: Username

Signature policy[]

I don't know what exactly happened last night, but now we have User:From Andoria with Love. We also have User:Shran who uses "From Andoria with Love" as his custom signature. Either the new user is Shran, in which case the new account should probably have been mentioned somewhere, or it really is a new user, in which case the question becomes if this similarity is pure coincidence or meant to deliberately confuse everyone. Anyway, this has to be settled. I see two possibilities:

No custom signatures: Do not use piped links in your signature. Your signature should always be identical to your user name.
Block user names identical to signatures: If a user chooses a different name as his signature, this name becomes unavailable for new users. Block that user name by registering it yourself. (Optional: It is only allowed to block your real name that way).

Any opinions on this? I personally prefer #1, or #2+option. -- Cid Highwind 09:54, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This new user is not me. If you ask me, it's probably someone who deliberately chose that name to confuse people and tick me off. If need be, however, I will cease using the signature, although I would prefer not to. --Shran 10:33, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I personally prefer option #1. I was obviously the first to use the signature, and the fact that this user created the same exact name seems more than coincidental to me. It was also created after the block of the sock puppet/vandal BajoranBanker, which, to me, is also much more than a coincidence. Then again, I could just be paranoid. Conspiracies everywhere, man! They're out to get me! --Shran 10:41, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

How about this: We still use whatever signiture we want until something like this happens. If we were to register any names we wanted to use, we would have rediculous amount of dummy users. Also, if we were to deny people custom signitures, there would be a lot of people who would not like it. Zsingaya has been using custom colors, T smitts would have to go back from his new red signiture, Alan del Beccio would be just Gvsualan all the time, and you, Shran, you really can't use your signiture anymore, and I'm sure you're none too happy about it. I say that if something like this happens, you should change your sig like Shran had to do, but you can keep it until that happens. -Platypus Man | Talk 11:51, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (as you can see, I also have a custom sig, which I would like to keep)

First, this is, at the moment, only about piped links in custom signatures. I don't really like all those colorful signatures, but that's a separate discussion. Second, I don't think your suggestion is a good option. If our policy becomes "use whatever you like as your signature, but remove it if another guy uses it as his user name", it's only a matter of time until a vandal will use that against this community. If we allow custom signatures, we have to protect them against vandal attacks as well - that's why I don't know if they are generally a good idea (exception: real names, as stated above). -- Cid Highwind 12:03, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious this user name was created to cause confusion and disorder among the community. This is partly hinted at the constant, careless votes for deletion on the Pages for deletion page, regardless of the article (and usually in opposition of my own vote in the same articles, though not always). I have already asked the user to change his name, but I personally believe the change should be forced. --From Andoria with Love 12:49, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, last night I gathered it was a vandal, as "From Andoria with Love" is far too unique to be a coincidence. Aside from having to give him a warning about cussing, and the fact he made fast friends with Captainmike, we can't just go arbitrarily blocking suspected vandals when they haven't truely done anything wrong and when there is really no way to tell if and when a *new* user is our recurring vandal or just a new user, so in most cases I have been giving them the benefit of the doubt. --Alan del Beccio 15:48, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yeah i was fooled by his comment, i thought i was talking to Shran -- late nights :P thbbt -- but anyway, i don't want to give up my signature because it is my name -- after all, User:Mike K. Bartel and User:Alan del Beccio would really be stepping on User:Captainmike and User:Gvsualan's toes wouldn't they -- i'd say that, even if i was forbidden from using a tagline type thing as a sig, my name is still mine, right? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 15:55, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, we need to define which custom names are allowed/not allowed, and we need a policy somewhere regulating the general use of user names. I will add something on the appropriate page regarding that, but are there further opinions about custom names? -- Cid Highwind 16:08, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Yes- "Platypus Man," my sig, may not be my real name, but it is my name nonetheless. I actually recieved a credit card application through the mail under that name. I've always been Platypus222 as a username and Platypus Man as a name; it's just easier that way. I'll change it if I must, but I'd really rather keep my sig the way it is. -Platypus Man | Talk 19:11, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- The way I see it, it's not that big of a deal. It shouldn't, at least, really be Memory Alpha policy. If a new user begins using someone's signature as a User name, then it should be brought up before the new user and it can be settled between the new user and the old user. If it is a vandal, ban him just like any other vandal. If it is a genuine, unknowing, new user, they should either, a. change their user name, or b. get their own signature (that might be confusing), or c. talk it out with the old user and maybe come up with a decision where everyone's happy. I also believe it is against Wikipedia policy, if not Memory Alpha policy, for a user to use a name simply to "impersonate" other users.--Tim Thomason 23:27, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest not using the color red for a signature, because it conflicts with links who do not exist yet. -- Q 15:58, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Rather late to this discussion, but I would like to limit custom sigs to plain text only, no images or html. It's annoying to see three lines of code in the page source every time someone write a tiny comment, and its frustrating looking for a specific part in the source with all that completely useless code in there. Anyway, plain text only custom sigs, that's my opinion. Also, no templates for technical reasons. It's hard on the system if there is a change and a template is used thousands of times. --Bp 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally have to disagree with Bp on the image thing. I think if it is done correctly, it looks good, like the way Jaz and I have done it. In addition, what is this about templates? If we use the ~~~~ format, than any template we try to use just gets inserted as the templates code, not the template (the system automatically inserts "SUBST:" into any sigs done this way). Therefore, even if we change our template, the system will not go around changing old posts. Am I missing something? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the source of this page, your sig is half the size of your whole comment. It's crazy. And look at User:,monkey's sig... it's too much. The template thing can be worked around with a template trick. --Bp 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree monkey's is too much, that and he keeps changing it, and making admins go around and clean up his mistakes. I do disagree with the length of my code. it is less than 1/4th the size of my comment, certainly not the one half you make it out to be. I would be curious to see Jaz's POV on this when he gets back. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't mind the use of images, color, or alternate names in a sig. Gives the user an added bit of originality. And vandals will always be vandals, we'll just keep fighting'm. (Using red is annoying, but I don't see a problem that makes it policy-changing-worthy annoying.) I presume with the Shran thing, that the user showed up on "Recent Changes" with "From Andoria With Love", not "Shran"? This would probably be the give away. - AJ Halliwell 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image use in signatures[]

Are fair use (copyrighted) images allowed outside articles? - Patricknoddy Talk 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In what context would they be used? -- Sulfur 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My signature (I was planning on adding "this one" of Jean-Luc Picard). - Patricknoddy Talk 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a few other contributors do (see: File:Klingon Empire logo.png). Flip side to this is the fact that every page you talk on appears in the image's "links" section. --Alan 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Do you like it? - Patricknoddy Talk 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally recommend against the practice of using the images this way. I've been meaning to getting around to not doing it myself, and requesting a temporary bot flag to remove all the ones I've already done. Problem is I am mildly lazy. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and that is way too big. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's 50px. - Patricknoddy Talk 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, and it is way too big. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

20 or 25px might be better. And Cobra, there is no time like now to start quitting, at least while you are ahead. --Alan 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No I'll stay with 50px. - Patricknoddy Talk 22:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah. And it's rather ungainly and large. And ghastly too. Quit while you're ahead. Please. -- Sulfur 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Quit while I'm ahead? - Patricknoddy Talk 23:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah, that looks hideous, and is doing nothing more than asking for another policy update if enough of the community find it to be annoying. --Alan 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend even smaller than that. Mine is 18px, and I decided on that because it was the absolute largest I could use before it would start effecting neighboring text and line spacing. You want an image that looks nice, not obnoxious to the point of disrupting the page. As it stands, it is nothing more than an eyesore and disruptive at 50px. In fact, don't use it at all. I'm going to go and remove mine right after I hit save. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this look ok? - Patricknoddy Talk 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive Username ?[]

What is policy on this ? I may move in, say as Hostiles Detected, as the User page, talk page would be Open Fire. 205.240.144.198 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Color me confused? You want to create an account and call yourself "Hostiles Detected"? Go for it. That username is about as offensive as "Fluffy Kitten Lover". -Rhinecanthus rectangulus 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be "offensive" in the military sense, but not the etiquette sense. It is not "offending". --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Klingon Hunter", which is someone who may be a Bounty hunter who hunts and kills Klingons, pending on what the clientele intends to do with Klingons ? Since the clientele is known for Black Ops, that may have went on in the TOS era, the era when Kirk was a Admiral before being reduced in rank. 205.240.144.226 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to this discussion? It really doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything other than idle chatter. Simply put, if it doesn't stand up to the guidelines laid out in our username policy it will be dealt with accordingly. El Fin. --Alan 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to find out if a potential Username would be considered "Offensive". I'm new here. 205.240.144.226 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, lets take a quick look here: "Offensive or inflammatory usernames are not permitted on Memory Alpha, and will be banned from further use. This policy is admittedly arbitrary, but is a right reserved by the administrators to ensure harmonious collaboration between members." Meaning: 'if you wouldn't say it to your mother, grandmother, or to a police officer after he just pulled you over for erratic driving, then you probably wouldn't want to use it here.' :) --Alan 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't try calling a police officer "Klingon Hunter" after he pulled me over... ;)

Anyway, rule-of-thumb #2 regarding usernames: Don't try to figure out a username that is as offensive as you can get away with. Choose one that most likely is not offensive, and be done with it.

Other than that, Alan said it all: El Fin. -- Cid Highwind 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hostiles Detected? Dis-gusting. I have to go wash my hands just thinking about it. ugh. -- Hoogamagoo 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there really a need to revive this a day later just for a stupid joke? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not. My deepest, most heartfelt and sincerest apologies. Clearly there are hidden and serious repercussions that are born from such a thoughtless action. I posted with ignorance of these grave consequences. I shall do my best to restrain myself henceforth. You need not bother to tell me to shut up, for I will already be in this muted state. Stupidity, thy cursed name is Hoogamagoo. -- Hoogamagoo 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop Ruining it for me DarkHorizon[]

I'm wondering if this would qualify as an inflammatory username- I don't see much of a purpose for this other than to be inflammatory.--31dot 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is and it does. -- sulfur 03:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you- just thought I'd get another opinion before I did something rash.--31dot 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)