User talk:Samlernerdreamer
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Samlernerdreamer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
[edit]Stop spamming Wikipedia with the same repetitive information and website. If you continue, you will be blocked. Seasider53 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Central Park. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Seasider53 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
June 2025
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 20:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Samlernerdreamer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here: Hello, it is my understanding that I was blocked because the source I added to my entries is something you must pay to access and for my actions on the Central Park page which I understand was quite unprofessional and wrong. Would you please let me know if this is accurate?
The information I have added to 15 New York City parks wikipedias is true, important, relevant and was missing from anywhere on wikipedia. Access to natural rock climbing is a truly unique feature of New York City and it's parks. It is also likely the most accessable rock climbing area in the world. Thanks to New York City's public transit you do not need a car to access any boulders. This opens it up to people of different socioeconomic status and is an excellent outdoor recourse to people in upper Manhattan and the Bronx who likely do not have access to other natural rock climbing. Unfortunately it is very underutilized by New York City climbers and New Yorkers in general. This is largely due to a lack of knowledge about it, which I wanted to change.
I understand that the source I was citing was to an online guidebook that one must pay to access. I was sighting this source because it is the only place that almost all the information I was adding can be found. If this goes against wikipedia guidelines, I would like to put the information back up without that source.
For the Central Park section, I apologize for deleting the sources of the previous paragraph when I made my edits. it was very wrong and not good for the page. I was rushing to correct the paragraph and I should have taken the time to do a good job. I continued editing the Central Park page after getting a warning from someone because the section about climbing almost completely consists of misinformation.
The edits I want to make to the paragraph about climbing on the Central Park page:
Firstly it say "but the quality of the stone is poor, and the climbs present so little challenge that it has been called "one of America's most pathetic boulders". It went from talking about the park as a whole to talking about a single boulder which is not named but from the link I can see it is Rat Rock. Since 1994 when this article was written, the loose flakess of rock have all been removed and I only know of one or two holds breaking in the last decade. The rock of Rat Rock is quite solid. Then it says that the climbs present little challenge. I am guessing they wrote this from the line in their source "problems just a move or two long". The person who wrote this falsely correlated short problem length with easy climb difficulty. This is extremely wrong. Two of the shortest climbs at rat rock that are 4 and 8 moves long are two of the hardest, at V10 and V12 which are expert level. Most people and most climbers could train for their whole life without being able to do these problems and the hardest problem in the whole city, in the Central Park Ramble, is graded V13, only one grade harder. Next it says "Other rocks frequented by climbers, mostly at the south end of the park, include Dog Rock, Duck Rock, Rock N' Roll Rock, and Beaver Rock" In my extensive studies of NYC bouldering history, across every guidebook that has been made, I have never heard any of these names and they are certainly never used today. They are also not listed in the source article so I have no idea where they came from. the source does include "Worthless Boulder" which I would like to add to Rat Rock and Cat Rock as the "most renowned" if I am given another chance. The sources are good and I regret deleting them, it was absolutely not what I should have done, but they are the second two oldest sources out of the 11 pieces of New York City bouldering documentation that I know of (which are included in the "climbing history" section of the guidebook which I used as a source), so they contain very out of date information and attitudes toward New York City bouldering. If I am given another chance I will certainly not delete these sources but I would like to add new information about all of Central Park bouldering (not just Rat Rock) like the number of recorded climbs and boulders in the park, because a lot has changed in the last 26 years.
I ask you to please accept my apology and to unblock me. I want to spread the information about New York City bouldering wether I can site the guidebook as a source or not. Thank you so much for your time.
Decline reason:
Your understanding is incorrect. You are blocked because all you're doing is adding links to one particular website. We call that citation spamming, and it's entirely unwelcome. Please read our guide to appealing blocks before making another unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Samlernerdreamer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Oh, I’m sorry. I now see that I was banned for external link spamming. I repeatedly added a link that promoted a website or product. In the “source soliciting” section of the “Wikipedia:Spam” page it says “It is not possible to simply say "all articles of X type can be expanded using Y source”” But I think this not true in this case. All articles of nyc parks that are also bouldering areas can be expanded using the guidebook as a source because it is the only source containing the relevant information for any of the pages. (Except for with Central Park). Out of the 11 pieces of NYC bouldering media compiled in the guidebook, the only other source that is a possibility is an article about gaining official access to bouldering in parks other than Central Park. But it only mentions 3 out of the 14 other areas and has no other information about climbing in these parks other than that it is allowed. The source that I repeatedly added is the only source in existence to verify the number of boulders and boulder problems in these parks or verify facts about the history of New York City bouldering and bouldering in specific parks. It is also the only source in existence to mention bouldering at all in some of the parks. This encompasses, the three topics that I think could be relevant to a mention of rock climbing in a New York City park Wikipedia: how much there is, how long the history dates back to, and (sometimes) the relative popularity of bouldering in the park today. I do not want to break any rules, but if I am adding a source to this information, I see no other option than the source I had added repeatedly. Again, if it would be best for me to include this information without a source I would readily do that as well. I would sincerely appreciate if you would offer some guidance on how it would be possible to proceed without breaking any rules.
Decline reason:
You explicitly have no intention of changing your approach. Okay, we'll leave the block in place. Yamla (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Samlernerdreamer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok I will use the source about access for the first sentence in each entry that mentions that there is rock climbing in the park and then leave the rest of the information without a source. Does that work?
Decline reason:
Nope. We don't want you doing this. This isn't a negotiation. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.