User talk:Snackycakes

External Link Cleanup

If you've come here because I've removed a link you've added to Wikipedia, first off - I apologize. I have sites I run myself and would always love to get additional traffic. That said, Wikipedia has some established guidelines regarding external links: see Wikipedia:External_links. Snackycakes 07:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases you appear to have been over-zealous. What Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided actually says is:

"Do not link to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself."

In other words, if a blog article adds extra information relevant to the article an exception can be made. You deleted a link to a blog article which was approved by an admin. I guess it's up to the admin in question to restore it, but when I returned to find the external link to use in a research paper I had to locate it via the history page. -- 81.174.211.160 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. It's hard to judge, though, how appropriate they are when you fail to mention which article or link it is that concerns you.

In terms of the phrase you've quoted: I read it to understand that blogs, social networking sites, and discussion forums should normally be avoided as external links unless the entry itself is about, makes reference to, or concerns blogs, social networking sites, and/or discussion forums. Snackycakes 20:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting spam linkers?

I'm monitoring the feng shui article and it seems to get repeatedly targeted by the same group of websites in the external link section. The worst offender seems to be smilingbamboo.com, which gets added all the time (from different anonymous IPs) despite its being basically the Sears Catalog of feng shui resources. How does one go about making a case to have this site black listed?

Go here and list it. --pgk 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Snackycakes 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what a shame you're gone

Not that I blame you... but our pseudonyms would've made us a formidable duo. sNkrSnee | t.p. 01:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sNkrSnee. How fortuitous that you should find me, tho, and comment on my page. (How DID you find me?) I just visited your user page and it seems like we have a lot in common. Maybe someday someone will confuse one of us for the other's sock puppet. For now, tho, I hope you don't mind but I'm going to blatantly plagiarize your statement from your user page - I couldn't have summed up my own feelings any more succinctly. It's been a very long time since I have felt 'proud to be a part of the Wikipedia community.' Snackycakes (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snackycakes!! This is great! I'm so sorry I can't remember what led me across your trail, but I do know that I was immediately envious of your username. If I remember I'll come back and tell you. In the past 10 days I've been mistaken for a filthy troll and a filthier bigot, so passing as your feetcovers would be most welcome. I'm completely flattered that you quote me like that (and with attribution!), and it's nice to know I'm not all alone. Thanks! You're actually the 2nd person I'm aware of to cite me [[1]], and I only found that person's comment by complete fluke too. It's like singing protest songs in the shower, and then realizing people were actually listening to you, and even humming along.

I hope you'll say hi again sometime, assuming I don't get banned first. It's shameless, but I have to ask, did you read my poem? :P ~~sNkrCakes~~ .. er, ~~sNackySnee~~, ..ack sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Family Research Council

Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion. _WM^O 05:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]