Mark Liberman of Language Log brings up a confusion that's always irked me a little bit, this question of bloggers' names, pseudonyms, and site names. He takes note of the fact that some blogs have names that double as personal identifiers (apostropher, Archpundit) while others are something else entirely (Half the Sins of Mankind, Beautiful Horizons), and suggests that in the latter cases, the format "PG at Half the Sins of Mankind" be accepted as standard and furthermore referred to as blognomen. This fits with my own occasional practice (minus the blognomen part), and it would solve the problem of people referring to me (as opposed to this site) as "locussolus", which is clearly (?) a location rather than a pseudonym.
(By the way, I don't think I know anyone who more frequently (and with more authority!) suggests usage standards and new words than Mark Liberman of Language Log. I'm not sure what conclusion is to be drawn from this, but it does have some interesting consequences -- eg proposing blognomen as the name for a certain format of reference while taking blognomenclature as the name for the study of said format and alternatives would seem to predispose the "student"...)
MORE: One bit of practical disorder Mark didn't clear up: should it be "Mark Liberman of Language Log" or "Mark Liberman of Language Log"? The latter makes more sense to me in this case, but maybe others feel differently?