User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2017/06

Your Teahouse response
It has been suggested that some people think they are supposed to create a username that is related to the article they are working on. This is still a reason to change to the name, but it's not as bad as simply impersonating the person. I took a second look here and you said "perhaps imply", so that's not the same as accusing. — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to point out the potential problem, not make any sort of accusation. So we're good, you and me, right? If you had not seen the Augustine Grant article before it was deleted, the situation may be unclear. In that article, it was stated that "Augustine Grant" was a stage name for a Ray Jacobs whose name could logically be abbreviated as "R Jacobs". That's also what it looks like at this edit at Good Lord, an edit has gone unchallenged. It doesn't look like this username did any more work.


 * And, yes, it's fairly common for people to create a username that is the same or obviously related to the article they intend to create. It's a practice that can't be stopped, since new editors who come to Wikipedia primarily to create an article will not necessarily have been presented with any information about how the process works or what WP practices are. "Can't be stopped" without seriously violating the "encyclopedia that can edit" principle, I mean.


 * So I'm curious; why has this issue arisen more than a month later?  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're good. And I was having trouble with my Internet back in February, and looking at the Teahouse archives is still going kind of slowly.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)