This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Block evasion
Please stop. By evading the existing three-month block of your account, as you have done using 72.11.218.137 and 85.18.242.26, you demonstrate that you have no intention to respect the Commons community and that you intend to continue to disrupt its work and harass its participants. Please use the duration of this block more constructively, such as by reading Commons:Licensing and our other policies and guidelines.
If you continue to evade the block, I will change the limited duration of the block to indefinite, as I can see no reason why we should expect your behaviour to change, even after three months of enforced time off. —LX (talk, contribs)13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
* Who "facked", you? The next personal attack on Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff?[2] You will not make anything to him but will suffer from your actions! What kind of your's personal financial interest in 'Wiki'? Why you breaking the rights of authors? Are you the anti-semits or russophobes too? That you so strongly are afraid blocking objectionable to you of courageous freethinking and truthful users, instead of slaves? Here are present not only as you - are available more cleverly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.11.219.220 (talk • contribs) at 16:45, 18 Oct 2007 (UTC)
You will order and lay down the conditions to the dogs and slaves, but not to users (including to the ingenius user Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff). Watch, yes? Watch, how dogs-police dogs? Ghost 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
—The preceding fake signed comment was added by 72.11.219.220 (talk • contribs)
Correctness of the user Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff has once again proved to be true! There[3] one more acknowledgement of unscrupulous using of work of users for reception of personal financial benefit. Such disgrace to leave it is impossible! RadioTVshowman 18 October 2007 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by72.11.219.52 (talk • contribs)
I don't know that there is a standard practice, but three of us didn't think that it was useful to retain the content of that page.[4] In this instance, the user treated Commons as a personal web host, was disinterested in its goals and policies, and was abusive. The page content is still available via the edit history. Since this user has a history of copyright violations, it seems prudent to remove the userpage content. Walter Siegmund(talk)20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)