Talk:Holland Tunnel Rotary

New articles cannot be redirected to user pages
An editor has redirected this page incorrectly to User page.Djflem (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's comopletely incorrect. I sent the article you moved to this title from your userspace back to your userspace, because it was a fork and a substantial duplication of St. John's Park. I then redirected this title to St. John's Park, which is where the consensus of a discussion on that page thinks it should be, and what the article should be about. Please get your facts straight, this is the second time (see Talk:Holland Tunnel that your has substantially misstated objective facts. BMK (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to re-direct
Do not revert the article without a discussion to do so, per WP:BRD Djflem (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, doesn't work that way, duplicate articles aren't allowed, yours was a duplicate. I dont' need consensus to move it back. You're making this stuff up as you go along, aren't you?  You really don't understand how things work around here, you just parrot back what someone else has told you. BMK (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Holland Tunnel article substantially different from published version of St John's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._John%27s_Park&action=edit&oldid=641083033 article Djflem (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not interested in your cute commentaries, so drop it.Djflem (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1 - your "Holland Tunnel Rotary" article is still substantially the same as the St. John's Park article, so it's still a fork, still a duplicate, still not wanted in article space. That's inevitable, because they are about the same place -- only yours is written to focus on a trivial, unimportant, uninteresting, boring, non-notable assemblage of highway exits, while the St. John's Park article focuses on an historic tract of land. As for my "cute commentaries", well, I don't think they're "cute" as much as totally frustrated at an editor who doesn't apparently understand the most basic of Wikipedia's policies, or the way that things get done around here. So far, you've incorrectly invoked WP:V, WP:BRD, and a bunch of others, while displaying WP:IDHT, WP:OWN, WP:TE and WP:Disruption and showing no understanding of WP:N, WP:FORK and WP:DICK. Since you display a lack of understanding, let me repeat that your article Holland Tunnel Rotary isn't going to see the light of day, since it's simply St. John's Park rejiggered to focus on a non-notable subject. BMK (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your cute commentaries continue to come off as the verbose rantings of the typical obnoxious know-it-all POV pusher convinced of their own self-importance and original research/synthesis who, unable to back up claims with verifiable references, reverts to gaming the system and personal attacks. Give it break.Djflem (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not a good idea to accuse me of personal attacks right after you've called me an "obnoxious know-it-all POV pusher convinced of their own self-importance", don't you think? BMK (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)