User talk:AHC300

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Legality of bestiality in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Some1 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I edited and added is up to date information on legality of bestiality, including Wisconsin felony penalty increase or Maryland changes. https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB81/2020 https://legiscan.com/WI/bill/SB139/2019 https://web.archive.org/web/20161228150534/http://www.csom.org/pubs/50%20state%20survey%20adult%20registries.pdf AHC300 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit here stating that bestiality is "Illegal statewide, excluding the counties of Erie, Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood" and "Legal in the counties of Erie, Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood" using this document as a reference, but none of that is supported by the reference at all. Please stop misrepresenting sources and adding WP:OR to this article or any other article for that matter; this is not the first time you've done so and you've done it multiple times. Some1 (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://patch.com/ohio/cleveland/court-s-ruling-made-bestiality-legal-8-ohio-counties-one-legislator-wants-fix https://legiscan.com/OH/text/HB350/id/2054887 "Section 4.The amendments to sections 959.15, 959.21, and959.99 of the Revised Code by thisact are intended to re-enactthe amendments to those sections made by Sub. S.B. 331 of the131st General Assembly that were severed by the Sixth DistrictCourt of Appeals of Ohio in Toledo v.Ohio, 2018-Ohio-4534; 2018Ohio App. LEXIS 4854 (6th Dist.) due to the determination thatthose provisionsviolated the one subject rule established underArticle II, Section 15(D) of the Ohio Constitution." AHC300 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latitude0116. Thank you. Pudeo (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defending against sockpuppet investigations

I have been an active and respected member of the wikipedia community for years now. I have voted in every wikipedia poll and active with other users. Everything I post on wikipeida is sourced and verified information. I am not "disruptive", nor am I "misuse of two or more accounts by the one individual". My edits are critical for expanding wikipedia and I have spent countless free hours of my time creating and editing articles. These accusations are completely absurd. AHC300 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively studied the history of this and your other accounts, and it is clear beyond any doubt that you have been using this account to evade blocks on a number of other accounts. Contrary to what you seem to imply in your message above, the fact that you have managed to get away with it for several years does not make it somehow all right to continue to evade blocks, nor does the high opinion you have of the value of your own editing. Therefore this account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

AHC300 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}