Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names/Moonlit nightmare

[view] 
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the discussion's talk page).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

Username is a violation of the username policy. It's unnecessarily confusing, too. Saturation2 Talk to me, or you can at my edits. Sign here if you love me. 01:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow. No plausible objection to this name. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow - Is it supposed to be objected to by Moonies? TortureIsWrong 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Could the nominator specify how this username violates WP:U? I don't see any violation. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted to the nominator's talkpage asking for a clarification, because I still don't see it either. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note, this user has not been notified of this discussion. As is instructed at WP:RFCN, users should be notified by the nominator that they are bringing a discussion here. This can be done with a personal message or by using . --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In general that is true. But this nomination is, on its face, so baseless that if this is closed as allow in the very near future, it might be better not to bother the user at all. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That is why I didn't leave a notification myself (the template is general enough that it can be left by anyone, not just the nominator). It should be mentioned for the nominator, however, that it is good practice to notify users prior to requesting comments on their usernames. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Allow - seriously, come on, no violation. The Behnam 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow. I fail to see any objections.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow. The nominator has also had some problems with obviously incorrect RFPP reports (1 month full protection for sporadic vandalism), so maybe someone could try to guide him? -Amarkov moo! 03:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.