User talk:Harry Angstrom

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

Welcome!

Hello, Harry Angstrom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Will Beback talk 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cox and Dicks

All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. WP:V An assertion that an event occured on an unknown date and was covered by a TV station is not verifiable. I've added a {fact} tag to request a citation, but if one can't be found I'll delete it again. Numerous incidents have been reported in newspapers so there's no need to keep an unverifable one. Will Beback talk 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few weeks now. If no source can be found I'll delete it. Will Beback talk 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet of community banned User:Herschelkrustofsky

Behavioral analysis indicates that you are yet another sockpuppet of Herschelkrustofsky. This account is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harry Angstrom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All I can say is that I have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.

Decline reason:

No legitimate reason given for an unblock. TN X Man 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harry Angstrom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know anyone and have never heard of anyone named Herschelkrustofsky. This is right out of Franz Kafka, that I am being told that I have not presented a legitimate defense when I don't know what I am being accused of.

Decline reason:

Per Will Beback, confirmed as a sock by CU. Smashville^talk 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Confirmed by CU. Will Beback talk 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]