# Nombres de usuario reservados: ¿comodín?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/reserved-usernames-wildcard/110987>\
**Category:** Product Support\
**Created:** [7 Marzo, 2019 15:26 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/reserved-usernames-wildcard/110987 "2019-03-07T15:26:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![awesomerobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/awesomerobot/32/142900_2.png) [@awesomerobot](https://meta.discourse.org/u/awesomerobot)\
**Post date:** [7 Marzo, 2019 22:37 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/reserved-usernames-wildcard/110987/6 "2019-03-07T22:37:15Z")

</div>

> [@RGJ](#):
>
> Maybe it’s an idea to look at the Levenshtein distance instead of using a wildcard?

This might be more effort than it’s worth… It would catch `reserved_username1` but it probably wouldn’t catch `official_reserved_username`, right? this is the type of thing that a motivated person would always find a way around.

> [@DrBB](#):
>
> would you use a reg ex test of some kind? Can you do that in the Discourse admin?

We have a regex setting for blocked/censored words, and that seems like a reasonable way to enhance reserved usernames (which only has the wildcard)… but does this problem come up often enough to justify prioritizing that? I don’t think it’s a complaint we’ve had often.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/reserved-usernames-wildcard/110987)._