User talk:Bleggen

Not heeding warning in infobox
The source you provided does not support "remote chance of death." It notes that it is theoretically possible, which is not the same. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. It says "Under Sharia law, individuals who engage in same-sex conduct can be subject to the death penalty. That said, the death penalty is rarely carried out in the UAE and appears to be a punishment reserved for universally severe crimes. Though

there is no record of consensual relations being punished this way, Sharia law exists and is enforced alongside the civil legal framework. In general, any “queer acts” can be punished under these laws, including cross-dressing and public displays of affection." So it can be applied but it has not yet. Basically its like saying it can and has been known to be a legal penalty just not used at this moment. I feel like this is still accurate to what I wrote. I am currently looking for secondary sources to add as well but I feel like this already has enough proof between that and the penal code which is noted in the summary an d can be added in the summary as well.Bleggen (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please get consensus on the article's talk page before trying to change it again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There seems to not be a consensus but jonnypedro1988 has also listed it as being penalized by remote chances of death based on the many sources spread through the article. It sems to be a legal situation similar to Somalia which allows for it to be used but it isn't always punished by death.Bleggen (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to add "death" on the current talk page or in the archives where it has been discussed before. Given that there is a history of sockpuppettry disruption around this issue, further edit warring will result in a block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just got your message now after I edited. Please read all the sources. I feel like the multiple I added cover this issue. Please look and read all the sources. Bleggen (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity, after I reverted the second time I only fixed citations and removed a punishment I duplicated on accident. Bleggen (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Final warning for edit-warring; get a consensus on the talk page
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.