User talk:Nannadeem

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Nannadeem!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Ummm.. Hi.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You really should read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Respected Bob, I could not understand, what wrong I did? Nannadeem (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In this section you will find that: "As a site, RationalWiki does have a strong skeptically-oriented point of view; and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with."
Given this, it unlikely that your Essay:Materialism in comparison with Islamic Creationism will find much favour in article space. A few quotes:
  • In Islam there is no distinction between secular education and religious education.
  • It may be said that Islam is the path of “knowledge.
  • Therefore, it is rationally obvious that there is no conflict between religion and science in Islamic Creationism.
I'm afraid that there is no real possibility of you're getting this into main space. You've obviously spent a lot of time writing this stuff - but trust me - it's time wasted if you think it's going to get into an article here. I seem to recall that you tried to copy one of your articles from Muslim wiki here once and it is possible that your contributions would be more welcome there.
I'm afraid that I have no real desire to get involved in a debate over this so this will probably be my last comment on the matter.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


If I have read the nominations page correctly, any user, including yourself, may nominate any eligible user(s) to stand for election to the board of trustees. Best regards, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Thanks. Accordingly I nominated -Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." Nannadeem (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to you[edit]

... is contained on Essay talk:Islamic Creationism & Empirical Knowledge. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)



Since her failure to be elected has denied you chocolate. - Leuders (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
    • Thanks for nice choco.....late. Would that it be in flavour of apple/mango or flower. Am a Vegeterian and unable to find out soft molasses from his hard and stony skull. However, gift is accepted with pleasure.Nannadeem (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We shall remain bound by the brotherhood of tragically denied chocolate claimants. Leuders (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course we have brotherism. Tragic should be a source of strategy. Nannadeem (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


Although I voted to delete your article as it is now, I feel I should point out that the main reason it's getting opposition, I think, is because you've had trouble expressing the point of the article clearly. I recommend moving it to your userspace, working on clarifying the prose, and then republishing a superior version. I think you'd find a much better reception then. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your advice, I respect your comments. you are source of my learning, therefore you are my virtual teacher. However, your terminology “ Islamophobia” is a subject for my research after a new big bang.Nannadeem (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If you have not kept a copy of the Sistani Nobel article, any RationalWiki sysop will be able to restore it to a location in your user space, such as User:Nannadeem/Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, where it might be worked into a shape more fitting the RationalWiki mission. I agree with Wehpudicabok that the prose needs clarifying. In this case, in my opinion, that means trimming excess background information, and keeping the message short, simple, and with a tight focus. Don't worry about your English writing skill— it is grammatically fine. In any language, it is useful to practise writing as if your audience does not have time to read what you write, and may only skim over it in haste. Best regards, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Respected User: Sprocket J Cogswell, please do whatever you may. A mother wishes a bright prospective for her kids, so me like that. Nannadeem (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, that link is now blue. I have put <nowiki> tags around the categories at the end, so it will not be included in those categories until/unless it comes back in main space. regards, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)