Wikipedia talk:User account policy/Archive 3

message: Application of this policy is becoming even more problematic. From a discussion on my talk page, it seems that users with non-latin characters are having their user talk pages deleted even after being forced to change name because they are designated as "temporary Wikipedians" purely on the basis of not having the right sort of characters in their original name. This seems completely unjusitfiable to me. Angela. 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A redirect would seem the right thing to do here. Note that displaying latin characters in the signature is not enough, as one person suggested, because the edit history of pages displays the username, and that needs to be readable by all. See also Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Usernames_containing_non-Latin_characters. Carcharoth 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, what is this temporary wikipedian category and who keeps applying it to pages? That really isn't neccessary. pschemp | talk 05:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is mainly for deleting the user pages of blocked vandal accounts after a certain period of time, but is also used for IP user pages that have unnecessary things created on them and maybe for other things too. It is part of Template:Indefblocked and a few other templates. The clearest case where this is useful is for defamatory user names that show up in Web searches, but is also relevant for simply not having extraneous results show up for normal Web searches, not "airing our dirty laundry", and cleaning up. (e.g. a search for -- Wikipedia firefox --, a probably common search considering the number of people using Google, used to come up with several ridiculous internal user page results related to User:FireFox and vandal-produced obscenities). —Centrx→talk • 06:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It gets worse

message: Is there a policy on banning users from having a username after a name of a place? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally accepted that we don't allow usernames that are the exact names of countries, ie, User:Sweden because no one can presume to be editing for an entire country. So far, other placename are not problematic unless the user asserts that they are editing on behalf of that place. An example of what you are talking about would be helpful though. pschemp | talk 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Madhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. There was a user:TAIWAN who was blocked once before. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User name on places 

message: Regarding the improper use of trademarked sports team names, I would like to remove the following parenthetical language: "whether it's whole or just the team". What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that the user name "Eagles" is just as unacceptable as the name "Philadelphia Eagles"? I would hope not. Obviously, we should prohibit the use of trademarked names, but this particular language is ambiguous and unnecessary. -- Satori Son 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change to language of [[WP:U#Inappropriate usernames|"Trademarked names"]] 

message: Is it clear enough that the dos & donts apply to both registered usernames and names used in signatures? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so.  The section WP:U#Signatures states "In general, the same rules apply for signatures as for usernames." Maybe we should remove the "In general..." qualifier; I can't think of any exception to the guideline for signatures. -- Satori Son 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could safely tighten that up. Either remove "in general" or try "unless specified otherwise,..." <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also added the following line to the "Signatures" paragraph - "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Imho this section seems a lot tighter now <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of your changes here.  Personally, I would like the "signature to resemble to some degree the username" to be mandatory, but I realize there is not yet an established consensus for such a guideline, so your wording is apt. -- Satori Son 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  names 

message: There's an established editor User:Pmurray bigpond.com to whom I suggested a namechange, but it failed because User:Paul.Murray was already occupied (an indef blocked vandal account with one edit). User:Paul Murray is still free though. Trying to avoid later trouble - this would be okay with the "can be confused with other contributors" rule? (I refuse to recognize Paul.Murray as "contributor".) Femto 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. As I noted on the talk page of WP:CHU, all he needs to do is place a request there and we will change it for him. Essjay (Talk) 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have carried out the user's request today.  Redux 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering since when did the new restriction causing this go into place? Uninsureddriver 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paul Murray" vs. "Paul.Murray" 

message: I think we need to explain things a little more. The facts are:
* for the moment, non latin accounts are blocked on sight.
* in the very future, SUL will merge all accounts from the same person into one single account.
What bastique and others, including me, ask is:
* blocking accounts in a different alphabet should not be the default behavior anywhere, neither on the english-language wikipedia nor on the japanese or russian ones.
* If people use their account to add interwikis sometimes, there should be no problem with them keeping their non latin username.
* If people are active on the project, we assume they know the language at least a little. Thus, we can ask them to use an alias (see Special:Preferences > signature) readable by the people on this project.
Thanks for your comments. guillom 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with this.  The one addition I would make is that people who are going to be editing actively should register a dummy account and create a redirecting userpage at the latin-character name used in their signature, thus resolving the issue of how to find their userpage through the search box. --RobthTalk 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Conditional support. Only flagged interwiki slaves users should be considered for this.  — Nearly Headless Nick 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Guillom and Robth.  DVD+ R/W 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, agree with Guillom and Robth. (PS: when blocking a non latin script account, please don't block the IP, as happened to me ;-) ) Kipmaster 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I think both sides have valid arguments. A non-latin username will indeed cause problems to people without the necessary files and Non-latin characters will look like '?' on computer without the necessary files.
However en.wikipedia cannot afford to ban non-latin characters if it is seeking a multi-cultural and lingual community. It is perfectly legitimate for an Arabic speaking person to have a username he/she can read. Users are not required to know English to contribute here. People can work on stuff like interwiki links without knowing any English. 
On commons for instance people are not required to speak English but are recommended to do so. In deletion debates most of the discussion is voluntarily in English even though participants of such debates can discuss the matter in their native language. 
I can have a Japaneses username and alter my signature so that it displays the romanised.
This rule isn't compatible with single user login
--Cat out 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just use those symbols in your signatures, if you want to have some fun. You can't have the cake and eat it too!  — Nearly Headless Nick 18:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cool Cat]]'s approach

message: Since we're already messing with it, history, recent changes, and all that, to add the (+123) stuff, make it so that a user number is displayed in the bracket. This makes it no worse than dealing with us anonymous fools. E.g.:
 * (diff) (hist). Wikipedia talk:Username‎; 17:37 . (+186) .  дурак (#1283712|Talk|contribs) (→Non-latin characters and Unified Login)
192.75.48.150 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Unusual, but innovative. In a case of impersonation, however; we would not be expecting administrators to remember each other's numbers, would we? Maybe change it to something unique like instead of the number we have something in English (like their En.wiki usernames/transliteration of their usernames in English), implemented universally. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this approach would work out the best.  If someone's computer can not understand the username, they can always see the id number to block.  Naconkantari 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of problem illustrates why, IMHO, this is not a good idea: . Patstuarttalk|edits 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that illustrate the problem?  Bastiq▼e demandez 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the English text the person used, there was no way to distinguish between vandalism and legitimate edits, just as there is no way to distinguish whether the name means "FUCK JIMBO" or whether it is just a common name in Chinese? —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no shortage of Wikipedians that do read Chinese (especially watching articles like Beijing, I'm sure) and no particular rush to address such issues, anyway.  If the troll really does use a language very few people can read, then he hasn't actually accomplished much.  There is a difference between respecting people's right to use their own name, and saying that the encyclopedia itself is written in English.  Dragons flight 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the purpose of allowing these characters would be to welcome speakers of other languages, I should think they would not be welcomed very well by seeing unchecked inflammatory epithets written in the language. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can also write « que jimbo aille se faire foutre chez les grecs » with latin characters, but you don't understand it either :) guillom 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this idea too, it adds a way to distinguish people without adding anything restrictive (+combine with guillom's proposal above). And I guess it's very easy to implement. Kipmaster 09:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some anonymous fool's approach

message: As brion has indicated, single unified login is going to happen. There is no changing that, and no amount of arguing, whining or crying is going to change it. So, we are going to be confronted with the creation of thousands of accounts with foreign usernames. So, there are some options:
# Keep the existing policy. This means that users coming from, let's say, ruwiki, have their account created automatically, and then have it blocked and forced to create a new latinized global account. So much for "single, unified", huh? It is evident already on foundation-l that actions like those would cause a severe strain on interwiki relations.
# Ditch the current policy.
# Adjust it slightly, as Guilliom suggests.
Either way, saying, "I don't want to deal with this problem" is not an option. We have to deal with it before the feature is turned on, as accounts will be created automatically at that point. Hence, I've tagged the policy section as disputed. Titoxd(?!?) 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, automatic transliteration programs won't work with all languages, especially with trying to determine the context of certain characters. For example, determining which pronunciation to choose for certain Chinese characters, determining the difference between Hanyu and Romanji, dealing with heterograms, etc.. If we were to use such a program, it would require many many man-hours of work to put together enough context for it to function "most of the time." אמר Steve Caruso <B>(desk/AMA)</B> 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Titoxd, we are not whining or crying. We are in discussion. No one can impose anything without consensus on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually developers and the board can impose things.  Single User Login is one such thing which will effectively import very many foriegn language users on this and every other project (many tens of thousands, if I had to guess), and make it so that when a user visits another wiki they automatically use the same account as on their home wiki.  This has advantages for user tracking, ease of editting multiple wikis, and preference management.  It also allows things like cross-wiki notification of talk page messages.  Single User Login will happen.  The question is how will en respond to the new accounts.  Will we simply block every Japanese wikipedian whose name is written in kanji (and thus breaking any of the advantages of single user login), or will we find a more measured approach (such as asking for transliteration in sigs rather than requiring it in usernames).  Dragons flight 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Some of the discussion on the foundation mailing list can only be described as that. Brion Vibber, the Foundation's CTO, has indicated that is going to go ahead, in its current form, and that many details of it are not negotiable, including the fact that an account will have the same alias everywhere. No transliterations, no way to use alternate accounts, no nothing. This means that admins from the Japanese Wikipedia will have a local account created for them automatically, as soon as they enter the English Wikipedia while logged into their global accounts. There is actually no way to stop that from occuring. As Dragons flight indicates, the only thing that we can do is to decide how to treat our new visitors. Do we block them? I wouldn't. On the mailing list, A few users admins have already indicated their desire for the Japanese Wikipedia to block latin-script usernames if the English Wikipedia policy continues, and I am not confident that they meant that in jest. Please try to see the broader interwiki ramifications that continuing a policy that will become technically obsolete will bring. Titoxd(?!?) 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So their reason for blocking would be revenge, without which they would allow latin usernames? —Centrx→talk • 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If some unlikely suggestions are adopted, yes. Cooler heads will probably prevail, though. Titoxd(?!?) 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They do presently allow latin usernames.  Dragons flight 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more further info 

message: I have just been reading a bunch of policy stuff, and have a question. This whole "once SUL is implemented, the non-Latin name blocks have to stop" doesn't seem to fit with history. Whatever happened to individual wikipedias determining their own policies? Jimbo Wales, the founder of WP, said that each wikipedia would have its own policies, etc. So why are a few people from other language wikipedias trying to change en.wiki policy to suit them? Maybe I am being harsh, but isn't blocking names that many editors can't make heads or tails of our own prerogative? Help a newbie out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably part of the idea is to help the process of flowing content outwards from en (and the other big editions, such as de) to other editions. Ultimately, if you see a lot of ????? and &^$(*$&^ people editing stuff, you have to do the obvious thing and look at the edit, not the person (which is a good general principle anyway). If you think the edit is dodgy, leave a message on their user page. They may not understand you, but if they do, they will probably do their best to reply. If you know their language, you can try and reply. If the edit is obviously wrong, revert it with an edit summary explaining why. Report vandalism to those who have the correct fonts installed and can tell the difference between ???? and ????, and they can investigate further and take it from there. There will probably also be lots of help for those wanting to get all the correct fonts installed. If you can't read the language, there will hopefully be a more readable universal attribute, like an ID number, so you can tell if two edits are by the same person. Carcharoth 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from a newbie 

message: Why not include the id number in signatures (or anywhere else usernames are used)?  This would prevent any sort of impersonation on talk pages. -- Jmax- 08:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always fake a number. 227287 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID num. in Signatures? 

message: Let's see: main reason for blocking offensive usernames are negative feelings of legitimate users they cause. How many users will feel uncomfortable when they see User:Jews did WTC? Many. And when they see its Russian equivalent User:Евреи взорвали ВТЦ? Not so many. When a Russian-speaking user will notice such username s/he'll report it to AIV with a brief explanation and malicious user will be blocked. If a user with offensive uswername remains unnoticed, his purpose is not accomplished. If he's noticed, he'll be blocked. If he starts making disruptive edits, he'll be blocked no matter of username. So, do non-latin usernaes still need to be blocked at sight? I don't think so. MaxSem 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about the technical issues surrounding lay people who edit Wikipedia, without the knowledge of non-Latin scripts, not a hate campaign against non-Latin scripts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about common sense? 

message: I am against having non-Latin scripts in the English wikipedia. Robth has the best solution of having doppelganger en accounts. His idea is simple and effective. This is what I have to add.
* Don't block the non-Latin account on sight.
* If the offending account makes content changes to the en wiki, then request him to create a doppelganger account, with a redirects from his old user and talk pages to his new ones.
* In the probability that he doesn't, then consider a block.
;Why I seek a block: 
* Even though I may have the script, I have no clue as to what the character is even if I look it up in the Windows Character map. Take this اج for example. How does one effectively know which script it is from? Is is Farsi, or is it Arabic? (It's Farsi btw, taken from the Taj Mahal). Next thing: Which character? Look at the number of characters supported in Arabic. To the untrained eye, almost all appear similar.
* Next, when dealing with many scripts, there exists the problem with conjuncts. Look at this letter: क्ष It's a character in Devanagiri. It's a conjunct, which means that the character will only be displayed after typing in certain sequence of characters. Do most people know about this? No.
* No one has mentioned the problems associated with working with right to left languages. Try mixed character editing in the Hewbrew or Arabic to see what I mean.
* Some fonts will always be problematic. am:, got: and si: have been slightly problematic in the display of fonts. 
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not address the issue of incompatibility with SUL.  If people must use a second account on certain Wikimedia wikis they will not have a unified login, user contributions, nor talk page notice.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we could ask the devs to link two accounts together. I'm sure it would be child's play as compared to the SUL code. Then submit a request on the lines CHU, and problem solved! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is actually implemented, I will stop objecting.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Brion has indicated previously that he will *NOT* allow linked accounts as part of SUL, at least in this iteration. Titoxd(?!?) 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nichalp's opinion 

message: I suggest that we continue to block usernames containing non-Latin characters on sight. This is the English encyclopedia, not the Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or Siberian equivalent. Why should we allow usernames that make collaboration and actions with that user hard, if not impossible? As for an above argument that users could have an account name they could understand, don't we have to understand it too? Just because a user does not know English and is adding interwiki links to other Wikipedias, that does not mean they can't have an English username. Feedback? Yuser31415 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I've been saying, rehashed in a few words. Amen. Patstuarttalk·edits 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yuser31415's opinion 

message: The best idea I've seen so far is this: there needs to be, attached to each account, a universally recognised attribute that can be recognised by any user from any language in the world, and which displays in all fonts and operating systems. This would avoid the problems of being unable to distinguish between different peopole in edit histories (the "????" vs "????" issue) and would enable people to refer to an account by this attribute (eg. editor 7643924 instead of editor ????). See this post on the wikien-l mailing list. I don't post to or subscribe to that list, but can someone please pass this on. I will also post this to Brion Vibber's user page.
As for what the universally-recongnisable attribute should be, I would tentatively suggest the Latin numeric script (ie. we all get a unique ID number). Is that universally-enough recognised and displayed worldwide in different languages and systems?
More generally, in the above discussions, people seem to confuse two separate issues: that of people being able to read the script (a problem of not knowing the alphabet or language), and that of people's computers being unable to display the script. A universal attribute that is not a username possibly solves all this. Carcharoth 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more relevant mailing list posts on this issue:  and . Carcharoth 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :svn:trunk/extensions/CentralAuth/central-auth.sql has the relevant database specification. It will include a global database ID number, so it could be exposed, if developers authorize. Titoxd(?!?) 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universally recognised attribute 

message: At the moment, the same person can run different accounts on a Wikipedia edition (with various caveats) and not have to say that they are running these different accounts (see WP:SOCK), though the actual practice of sockpuppetry is discouraged because of the potential for abuse, and it is recommended that the accounts be openly declared. If someone sets up different accounts at different Wikipedias in the forthcoming age of SUL, will the same considerations apply, and will separate accounts on different Wikipedia editions run by the same person be considered sockpuppets in the same way that accounts on a particular Wikipedia edition are? Carcharoth 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different accounts and sockpuppetry 

message: This is probably a really minor point, but I changed "sexual preference" -> "sexual orientation" under the inappropriate usernames section.  "Orientation" is in more common usage and is less objectionable to some folks.  If you disagree with the change, revert me or discuss it here.  Peace, delldot | talk 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reasonable change. -- Satori Son 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sexual preference -> sexual orientation

message: How long is "inappropriate"? Just H 23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Extremely Long User Names"

message: I don't intend to add heat to the fire. But, if it ends up that we do continue to allow users to create usernames and have them automatically created via SUL, why not have a default setting which renders any non-latin characters as a PNG image? Wikipedians (not anons) who want to change this setting can do so in their preferences, just like they can change the format of math rendering. There could be a top-right notice on every page that uses the PNG rendering, saying something like, "Why can't I copy this text?"...or not, but some notice that would direct anons and Wikipedians alike to a new manual of style page. Of course, the PNG renderer would have to be a new extension or addition, but I can't imagine that it would be too difficult.
Then we could keep the suggestion that Wikipedians with non-latin usernames transliterate their names in their sigs and create a redirect to their user page. --Iamunknown 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG rendering of non-latin usernames 

message: I've raised this at WP:VPP, and I think it wouuld be a good idea to bring here.  The criteria for blocking a username should be numbered/marked like those for speedy deletion, and blocks for username policy violation should be required to include a reference to the specific part of the criteria that prohibits them.  Being forced to pick a specific criteria from the list will also cut down on illegitimate blocks, which are a major problem and could easily drive off good contributors who happened to make a silly choice of name. Deletion of pages on a whim is generally frowned upon, but some username blocks right now seem rather arbitrary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number the criteria for quick reference 

message: From the policy: Names that promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime).
I can understand violence, but the illegal part seems very strange to me. Given the international view of Wikipedia, this results in a lot of laws. Which countries laws are we following? If we follow all of them then this is a very restrictive rule indeed. I seems in practice this is interpreted as Illegal in North America.
I put forth the idea that the idea that illegal actions in a name not be specifically restricted. Alcohol is illegal in several countries, beef in another. Should a name that refers to free elections be blocked because free elections are illegal in some country? Laws are just too varying and often created through less than altruistic motives. Any thoughts? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assume it meant illegal in Florida, like everything else where we refer to illegal actions. --tjstrf talk 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Illegal in Florida? Wikipedia does respect US laws over others in matters of copyright due to the necessity of the servers being there. This restriction on usernames is not for the legal protection of Wikipedia, but simply our own policy. Thus, in this case, we should not limit ourselves to the legal interpretation of one country. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your "starting point" suggestion also covers legal forms of real-world violence, such as those practiced by the police, the military, and other state apparatus.  It's also vague enough to cover many widely practiced (and widely accepted) forms of violence against non-human animals, such as butchery.  Do you propose to ban usernames which indicate or imply that the user supports or is a member of a country's police or armed forces?  How about usernames which indicate or imply that the user supports or practices vivisection?  meat processing?  animal husbandry? —Psychonaut 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Names that promote or refer to violent real-world actions is plenty fine. As for any ambiguity, it can be solved via WP:RFCN like all the rest of the ambiguity in this policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I have been bold and changed it, if you disagree revert and discuss. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal 

message: I reverted an undiscussed change from "potentially inflammatory username" to "inflammatory username" by , there is no need for users to adopt a "potentially inflammatory" username, indeed a username is not inflammatory until it offends someone, but we do not and should not allow a user to call themselves User:N*****c**t and wait until someone objects. Self-expression is fine, but there is no reason to give yourself a potentially inflammatory name to identify yourself while building an encyclopedia, and we should be firm in asserting this. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 08:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the name User:Nonfascist?  Simply stating in your username that you are not a fascist is somehow inflammatory and should be disallowed? Shall we also disallow User:Nonracist to avoid hurting the feelings of all the racists who visit Wikipedia? —Psychonaut 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such questions are handled at WP:RFCN. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You do realize that every word in the English language is "potentially inflammatory"? "Jewhater" is inflammatory. "Nonfascist" is potentially inflammatory. We should ban the former, not the later. Kaldari 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially inflammatory vs. inflammatory