Wikipedia talk:Another baseless nomination

Why this page
Talk:Stinkdigital, Talk:Molycorp and many, many other cases. New ones will appear here. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No consensus on this
To my surprise, this principle has been questioned by. 

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this too rude
The wisdom of linking to this essay has been questioned by. 

But the whole point of this short essay is such links.

The nomination in question gives as the whole rationale The company has reorganized after bankruptcy as Neo Performance Materials and it continues its operations under that name. It is exactly the sort of baseless nomination that this essay targets.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I just expressed my opinion in your talk page hoping (but not expecting) to get a short apology. I also made clear that notwithstanding my additional explanation I added at your talk page, I fully agree your comment (but not with your link to this essay). However, you brought discussion here without adding my original comment. If you would like to discuss it here, it would be nice if you had copied also my full comment.


 * Well, what is rude with linking your essay. E.g. Being polite obviously doesn't work with you, does it? And you made this conclusion based on what? Because you think that I messed up in requesting article's move? So, all my ten years in wiki shows that being polite with me does not work and the only way to deal with me is by making rude and baseless comments? Really?  Please, please, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE TITLE POLICY. It's a waste of your time as well as ours if you continue to propose or comment on changes to article titles without doing so.  And how do you know that I have not read WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIAL, WP:NCCORP etc? You really think so? Our time on Earth is a finite resource. We want to use it wisely. Can only fully agree. Therefore, please don't waste anynody's time with rude comments, it is not humourous. Making your comments polite way works better, believe me. Beagel (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I did give an apology on my talk page. Before reading this!


 * Yes, I did form the opinion that you had not read the policy, and I'm afraid that the evidence now indicates to me that you still haven't read it and don't intend to.


 * Prove me wrong. How does your rationale The company has reorganized after bankruptcy as Neo Performance Materials and it continues its operations under that name relate to the article title policy, which you claim to have read repeatedly?


 * But you're right, being rude doesn't seem to work either. Any suggestions as to what might? Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)