This is an old revision of this page, as edited by H (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 27 December 2006 (→{{user|An account}}: added on word summary in bold(not a vote hehe)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:59, 27 December 2006 by H (talk | contribs) (→{{user|An account}}: added on word summary in bold(not a vote hehe))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may list it here. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.
Names that are offensive, inflammatory, impersonating an existing user, or asserting inappropriate authority will generally be permanently blocked by visiting admins. If a matter turns out to be controversial, a subpage may be created here to discuss it.
Tools : Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist
New listings below this line, at the bottom, please. Add a new listing.
Bitchen (talk · contribs)
This user states "This author also feels use of this word is not swearing or profane and that its resemblance to the expletive noted above, while etymological, is unfortunate." Unfortunate maybe, but username offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder, not the user. I'm afraid that many other people would be offended by this. Note the user has been around since March, but has not made a ton of contributions. My suggestion would be to ask him nicely to change it first, but what to do if he refuses? (as I suspect he might) pschemp | talk 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that is profane. I believe it a reference to the word bitchin which was a valley girl term used in the 1980's synonymous with the word "cool". HighInBC 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- That was my impression too, especially since the user noted its etymological resemblance. It doesn't seem that it will be a problem to me. —ShadowHalo 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, don't think this is too big of a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with allowing this one if the user does not voluntarily change it. --Ginkgo100 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly guys you are missing the point. I know what it refers to (which doesn't matter if someone finds it offensive) and I'm not asking for your personal opinions, but whether it is likely there are people out there who would offended by it. It does contain the word "bitch" rather prominently. Can you take off your "it doesn't offend me" hats and think about other people? pschemp | talk 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Taking my hat off, nope, still looks fine, putting my hat back on. HighInBC 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- "I don't think this is a problem" != "it doesn't offend me"
"I don't think this is a problem" == "I don't believe the editor should be indefinitely banned because of their username, as 'bitch' is a perfectly legitimate word that has meanings well outside the bounds of profanity" EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- For those who are not fluent in boolean logic, != means Not equal and == means Equal. HighInBC 00:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll clarify my comment, which was indeed ambiguous: I do not believe there is a high likelihood of users taking offense at the name. --Ginkgo100 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's, like, totally all right with me. Y'know? Durova 09:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - According to Urban Dictionary, "gink" can be an offense disparaging term as well. I personally don't think any reasonable person would be offended by your username, but can we really ever be too careful? Geoffrey Spear 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, we can be. Should we ban me because someone might confuse "EVula" with vulva? (don't laugh; it has happened) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly guys you are missing the point. I know what it refers to (which doesn't matter if someone finds it offensive) and I'm not asking for your personal opinions, but whether it is likely there are people out there who would offended by it. It does contain the word "bitch" rather prominently. Can you take off your "it doesn't offend me" hats and think about other people? pschemp | talk 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Widely used slang term. We should not ban a name because some hypothetical unusually sensitive person might be offended by it. Edison 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong disallow Vulgar slang term. Never heard of the word "gink" though, but "bitchen" is quite profane. As in "he sizzles his hands through the air with his bitchen guitar playing", it's more like a hyponym of "cool" than it is a synonym since it's a profane version of it. Tuxide 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you see it as a hyponym of "cool" then what part of it is profane? HighInBC 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Think about it. "Abso-fucking-lutely" is a hyponym of "Absolutely". Would it be allowed as a user name? Grutness...wha? 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my argument is that "bitch" is an actual word outside of its profane meaning, whereas "fuck" is, and pretty much has always been, profanity. (though the urge to answer "abso-fucking-lutely" just because was pretty strong) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Compare to results of Poop (talk · contribs), which also has non-profane meanings. Tuxide 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, which is why the user wasn't blocked for having a profane name. Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames: "... Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- ...and what about Bitch (talk · contribs)? Seriously, it cannot be that hard to find one. Tuxide 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hypothetical situation for a non-existent user. I'd be fine with the username, though highly suspect of their edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- ...and what about Bitch (talk · contribs)? Seriously, it cannot be that hard to find one. Tuxide 05:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, which is why the user wasn't blocked for having a profane name. Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames: "... Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be a huge deal, but I have no strong opinion. Just H 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Compare to results of Poop (talk · contribs), which also has non-profane meanings. Tuxide 22:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my argument is that "bitch" is an actual word outside of its profane meaning, whereas "fuck" is, and pretty much has always been, profanity. (though the urge to answer "abso-fucking-lutely" just because was pretty strong) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Think about it. "Abso-fucking-lutely" is a hyponym of "Absolutely". Would it be allowed as a user name? Grutness...wha? 21:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you see it as a hyponym of "cool" then what part of it is profane? HighInBC 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this really that offensive and don't consider it a problem. However, I think the word is bitchin'.Ganfon 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
An account (talk · contribs)
It's not offensive, but I feel that this username is too generic, and too much like the perma-banned User:My account. A more specific account name should be used to specify this editor. TheQuandry 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- The name looks fine, should Allow. Generic is fine as far as I know. It is enough to recognize and distinguish between other editors. The similar name of the banned user is not really a problem as that user is long gone and the distinction is adequate. HighInBC 23:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)