User talk:Darklightsd

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sanae Takaichi have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Sanae Takaichi was changed by Darklightsd (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.886948 on 2026-02-09T19:43:17+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bois-de-Boulogne station. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please don't "fix" grammar if you don't master it. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aisha. Sugar Tax (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

a question, when someone deleted sources of the scholars of revisionists because they were from modern revisionists ON THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT MODERN REVISIONISTS? is not vandalism? and how is ibn hajar commentary vandalism? he literally commented on her jealously Darklightsd (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at Aisha. This means that you have been repeatedly making the same edits, despite knowing that other editors disagree. For example, you disagree with Leila Ahmed argues, "Aisha must have felt reasonably equal to and unawed by this prophet of God, for his announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed other men drew from her the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!'"^[1] And have deleted it at least three times:

• 18:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• 08:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
• 09:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I provided a more earlier source from a scholar who commented on her jealousy, how is mine vandalism? Darklightsd (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Please take the time to actually read wp:rs and wp:npov. “Scholar” for our purposes refers to someone producing academic, secular, secondary writing on a subject. Medieval religious authorities, modern theologians etc. aren’t by themselves reliable sources and require contextualization and professional evaluation, which you CANNOT provide by yourself as this would be wp:or—hence you should respect the hierarchy of sources. On all religious topics Wikipedia is a secular project, ie Wikipedians adhere to a neutral point of view which precludes a theological approach, as theology (as well as its sub-fields like apologetics) require unproven premises which by their nature conflict with Wikipedia’s neutral nature. If you want to improve the Aisha article, try and rid yourself of your personal biases and religious convictions for a minute and look into reliable, scientific publications on the subject. If in those you should discover a perspective or approach currently underrepresented in the article you can try and integrate it, but you mustn’t let your personal biases dictate what you want the article to say and look for citations (however inappropriate they may have been in your case) to support your already held conviction. Additionally, it may be helpful to ask for help when proofreading your contributions if (as seems evident from your writing) English is neither your first language, nor one you are very apt at speaking (I say this not to be mean but to try and make your time on Wikipedia a little less frustrating as I assume you genuinely try to make these edits in good faith but seem to struggle to understand why there seems to be little appreciation for your contributions here) Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

i have not spoken with biasness and my sole purpose of the edits was to provide insightful readings, i do not understand how a misinformation (that which the verse is about postponing and nothing on which she quoted in the hadith say aisha remarked regarding permission of marriage), secondly, not true at all, exergies of a well known scholar who has reported his reasons and is insightful and more grounding than a existing material is still valued, regardless of what you precive, ahmed is also a scholar of religion and a muslim, why do you not say the same about her? just because someone is a muslim scholar does not give you the right to override them, in this case ibn hajar is more grounded and is a known commentor.

i can say the same about you, have you ever thought why people say the same about you and say just because someone is 'american islamist' doesn't mean you can remove the sources when they are grounded in knowledge, it is rather your personal feelings in my own opinion, also you know whats funny? all the scholars in the islamic pages or religious pages almost always take their sources FROM islamic literature, if your problem is with primary source then ibn hajar is not a primary source Darklightsd (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You worked backwards from your personal beliefs and simply looked for sources to validate them, this is the wrong approach when it comes to scientific writing on Wikipedia (and also a blatant violation of wp:npov). Ahmad’s personal religious beliefs are of no relevance to her academic work, as she is a secular scholar of Islamic studies, ie she does not presuppose her metaphysical considerations are true when writing an academic text (this is the core difference between someone writing in the fields of Islamic studies and Islamic theology). Again, Wikipedia is a secular project—other projects like WikiShia will evaluate theological sources differently by nature of not being secular—but as far as Wikipedia is concerned there is a clear hierarchy of sources and religious exegesis by its very nature is always going to be a primary source even if it builds on other primary sources. As you seem to struggle with the very basics of academic writing it might be more helpful if you familiarize yourself with more academic writing in general before you try to produce some of your own, as thus far you still don’t seem to grasp basic concepts like the difference between scientific publications and non-scientific publications or the basic concepts of editorial neutrality when summarizing. Regarding your attempt at schooling me here: if you really need an explanation of why a American-born terrorist and propagandist for the Islamic State with no academic qualifications would be considered an inappropriate source on Wikipedia, I truly don’t think there are any words I could utter in this life to help you understand what is appropriate and inappropriate to cite on Wikipedia. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

1:how the heck is ibn hajar not reliable? according to wikipedia rules reliable sources does not need to be neutral.

2:i provided reliable info, from a reliable scholar, to correct a literal misinformation, and don't go 'oh its just your personal beli' well ibn hajar did not relate this regarding marriage, and what is stated is clearly not in the hadith, so someone can't make a mistake just because they are an scholar? what if another scholar does not agree with them? ibn hajar is a very reliable source that all kind of people quote, in fact, there are matters from many other islamic scholars in that page, why don't you fix them? again according to wikipedia rules reliable sources does not need to be neutral.

3:it seems rather you're projecting your biasness on me, im not trying to point fingers but as an iranian who is probably against the regime of iran (i hate them and don't agree with them) and is currently on a precious position with a could-be argued islamophobic opposition in some regards, i suspect it is clouding your judgement Darklightsd (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

1 + 2: A medieval source requires reliable modern, academic and secular contextualization to be cited on Wikipedia—no matter how reliable you deem it personally or how incorrect you deem the views from modern scholars in conflict with such a source.

3: Unbelievable train-wreck of ad hominem attacks and jumps to conclusions based on me having a Persian-language Indian poem on my user-page aside—ad hominem attacks (like ones based on [imagined] ethnic attributes of the person you’re talking to) and political statements like “I hate them” are highly inappropriate even on talk pages. Telling you to cite modern, academic, secondary reliable sources or saying one can’t cite ISIS-propaganda on Wikipedia is in no way an expression of islamophobic sentiments. I’m above such inappropriate accusatory rhetoric and expressions of petty ethnic resentment, but it is highly inadvisable to publish such statements (in general, not just on Wikipedia). Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

1:even if they are misinfo? i want you to prove to me, that the hadith refered to marriage and not postponing 33: 51? ok then if i use Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Muhammad al-Ghazali, Yusuf al-Qaradawi etc who have also referenced ibn hajar some of them you be satisfied?

2:you were the one using ad hominem not me Darklightsd (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

what about jonathan brown? Darklightsd (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

A well-cited academic work whose viewpoint is attributed in the article and which doesn’t represent some great epistemological break with the rest of the field is not “misinformation” just because it disagrees with a medieval exegete. Mohammed Hussein Heikal is a lawyer, not an academic authority on Islamic studies, Mohammed al-Ghazali is a modernist theologian his writings are primary sources for the beliefs of modernist Muslim thinkers not secondary works of Islamic studies, same for Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Brown is a secular scholar of Islamic studies, you can cite him in an appropriate format but not remove academic viewpoints you disagree with from the article. Ie “according to Jonathan Brown…” Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

i cited qaradawi but also jonathan brown to strengthen this as he was in agreement Darklightsd (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

done, also i wanted to apologize for my reactionary remark regarding your biasness Darklightsd (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

what qaradawi wrote was regarding that hadith was that it was normal in his household, jonathan brown also said that it was in jealousy Darklightsd (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

what by normal i mean the jealousy Darklightsd (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

also remember they don't have to be neutral necessarily if reliable Darklightsd (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

according to wikipedia rules reliable sources does not need to be neutral, ibn hajar is reliable source and is used around the literature Darklightsd (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Darklightsd, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to 2026 Japanese general election seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Wives of Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

ok i will add sources Darklightsd (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

In this edit to the article on Aisha, you cited the following book:

• Ali, Kecia (2017). Sexual ethics and Islam: feminist reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and jurisprudence (Expanded & rev. ed., reprint ed.). London: Oneworld Publ. ISBN 978-1-78074-381-3.

The citation needs to say which pages you are referring to. For example, if you were referencing pages 7, 13 and 41-42, you would add |pp=7,13,41-42 to the template. If you were citing a Kindle version of the book, finding out which page something is on can only be approximate, so add something like (Kindle edition); that way people don't get too frustrated if the answer is on pages 40 and 43 instead of 41 and 42.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

ok, i will check it out Darklightsd (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

ok so i used the source from another wiki article concerning same thing, i think you should ask the one who cited it Darklightsd (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Muhammad. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

when did i vandalize? i also cited sources Darklightsd (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The concept of citations is that they support the statement they are cited for. In your second edit to the article on Criticism of Muhammad, you added your new statement with its citation between the existing statement and the citation that supported it. That was unhelpful and so I have reverted it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

didn't i cited the tafsir of the surah? Darklightsd (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

ok i will fix it Darklightsd (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

must have been a typo Darklightsd (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the above problem with this edit. Please could you do a few corrections: (1) surah kafirun and quraish are proper names and should be capitalised, and (2) there should be a full stop at the end of the sentence, i.e. before the citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

But your next edit added some words in green to the following sentence:

After the Qurayẓah were found to be complicit with the enemy during the Battle of the Trench, the Muslim general Sa'd ibn Mu'adh ordered the men to be put to death and the women and children to be enslaved as is stated in the torah.

The cited source did not support the addition of those words. So please remove them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC) No you cannot use the Book of Deuteronomy as a source for what happened at the Battle of the Trench. This is because the Book of Deuteronomy does not mention the Battle of the Trench. If you want to add an observation that the behaviour described is much the same, you need a source that makes that observation. Making that observation yourself is not allowed (see WP:OR).

It was also extremely unhelpful to add it in the middle of descriptive text that was supported by a source. If you can find a source to support your observation, then the observation would need to be added at the end of the paragraph. And it would need to be clear that it was comparing two different events. The Book of Deuteronomy does not say anything about the Battle of the Trench.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

no i posted the source as the base of the ruling in torah according to the hadith as judgement in torah not of the battle of trench. if you read the next paragraph you will see it also quote the source Darklightsd (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Criticism of Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. The Book of Deuteronomy does not say anything about the Battle of the Trench; but nevertheless you added your personal analysis of the Battle of the Trench to the article on Criticism of Muhammad citing Deuteronomy as a source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

have you read the next paragraph ? It is literally based on that and historical account, Completely unbiased Darklightsd (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

im saying the ruling not the event Darklightsd (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

i was just trying to provide the best info, sorry for the trouble Darklightsd (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you thought of using chronological order for talk page posts?

Also please do not post exactly the same text twice in the same discussion as you did in your posts of (1) 21:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC) and (2) 07:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ok sorry, im kinda replying to the citations requests thats why they are kinda disorganized, i will not repost same text, but do look at the citation and the link please Darklightsd (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion 1 If you are quoting a source on a talk page, it would be more effective if you put the details next to the source. Here are two ways of doing this:

• Put the source at the start. e.g. https://muslimmatters.org/2013/02/08/ismail-kamdar-life-of-aishah-bint-abi-bakr/ says:
• Put the source at the end of the quotation. e.g. (Source: https://muslimmatters.org/2013/02/08/ismail-kamdar-life-of-aishah-bint-abi-bakr/ )

Also try to trim the quotation to the relevant bits. You can use ... (an ellipsis) to show the gaps.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion 2 The {{tq| }} template can be useful. You can use it to repeat someone's comment and post your reply next to it. For example: im kinda replying to the citations requests thats why they are kinda disorganized See suggestion 2.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much! i will see how it is, should i leave someone else the job of editing or do it myself? Darklightsd (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

You have not gained agreement to what you wanted at Aisha. The best thing to do is to leave it a few weeks and see what other editors decide to do.

It is clear that you want mention of Aisha being a jealous person. If good sources could be found for this, I am sure this could be added. But adding it would not justify deleting what the existing well-sourced text said about her feeling reasonably equal to The Prophet.

The process you are using to find sources appears to be grepping by means of ChatGP. Reading books by secular scholars (such as academics and authors like Glubb) would be a better use of your time. A problem with grepping is that it tends to tell you what you want to hear - AI is particularly bad in that respect - it makes you very vulnerable to content mills - and when other editors realise what is going on, they doubt the validity of the sources found. Several different editors have tried to tell you this in different ways.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

1: how is the last citation not good? i actually searched for the next one myself and did not used chat gpt, i also looked around to find out about the publisher, a scholar, my problem with ahmed report was that it contradicted tafsirs of other scholars (modern and classical) and the hadith she used itself said it is about 33 51, which is a verse about postponing, i do not call her unreliable, just want to provide clear information to the users. Darklightsd (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

how is the last citation not good? I will answer that at Talk:Aisha.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ok Darklightsd (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)