User talk:Hexvoodoo

Boobpedia
You probably want to post your invitation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. I will do so now --Hexvoodoo 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

AVB
In short, it needs an IRC recent changes feed like like the wmf runs to work. Other than that it should run fine on any LAMP server. -- Tawker 13:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Shoko Goto nominated for deletion
Hi, Hexvoodoo. You might want to weigh in on the recent second nomination for deletion of Shoko Goto here: Articles for deletion/Shoko Goto (second nomination). Regards. Dekkappai 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hikari Hino nominated for deletion
Hi again, Hex. Thanks for the help with Shoko Goto. I hate to be a pest, but it looks like the category is under attack again... Hikari Hino is another model who deserves a place of honor at Boobpedia, so you might want to weigh in here as well: Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino Dekkappai 18:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Two more heads-ups
Hi Hex. Two more deletion nominations you may be concerned with: Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts and Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination). Dekkappai 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hex. Have a happy vacation! See you later. Dekkappai 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Contesting Deletion of List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers
Hi, the article List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers appears to have been deleted despite consensus pointing to keep, thought I'd give you a heads up on it's request for undeletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers

Blocked
Since your major activity here seems to eb spamming your website, I have blocked you. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1=let's clear up two things. 1. i posted the invitation to boobpedia on talk pages only. i never spammed articles. boobpedia is not "my site", just like wikipedia is not someone's site. i just happened to be the one to start the project. there are many registered users and regular contributors. i've been registered at wikipedia for less than two months, and for most of my free time i have been busy setting up boobpedia. so i have not been able to contribute much to wikipedia, however that does not mean that i wouldn't do so in the future. 2. nowhere in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy does it justify your indefinite block of my so-called "spamming". i hereby request an unblocking per the above two reasons. --Hexvoodoo 05:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)|decline=Spamming is a reason for blocking. You were spamming, it does not need to be in the article space, nor does it need to be your website. Nowhere in your unblock request did you say you would stop posting such invitations, so I am denying they unblocked request. -- HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)}}


 * You posted an "invitation to boobpedia" on around forty pages, plus adding links to mainspace articles (some of which articles have now been deleted). After these deletions, you have one main space edit remaining in your history.  Guy (Help!) 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, after discussing with JzG, I seem to have his acquiescence to unblocking you. He took your posts more strongly than I would have, but that's not to say he doesn't have a point; we really are supposed to be using our accounts primarily to benefit this volunteer project, not other volunteer projects. WP:SPAM seems to be the relevant guideline, and while it doesn't necessarily seem to cover talk pages, in order to avoid triggering people's spam sensors, I suggest:
 * Contribute to the main article space more, so that no one can say that more than half your work is pushing Boobpedia.
 * Don't advertise Boobpedia on article talk pages - those are really supposed to be for discussing the article. User pages can be more personal.
 * I don't know whether that will keep people from objecting to any mentions of Boobpedia, but hopefully it will at least slow them down from blocking you as a primarily spam account, and maybe discussing specific objections with you instead to reach a compromise. Good luck. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you AnonEMouse for your sensible response and help. i will contribute more to the main article pages in the future - it was always my plan but i've only been registered here for a short time and as mentioned i had been busy setting up a new wiki site. point taken on contributing more to the articles.


 * HighInBC, i don't intend to post more invitations on article talk pages.


 * LzG, i do understand where you come from regarding the invitations. i wish you would have talked to me before giving out an indifinte block, but i harbor no hard feelings. i run a wiki project myself and i have had to deal with similar situations too. just so you know, boobpedia is not a flyby spam site. even though it is still new, it is a serious undertaking thanks to the contributions of many. you may not agree with the subject matter, but i ask you to please not indiscriminately remove ANY mention of boobpedia. i say this because you not only removed all the invitations on project talk pages (which i now understand), but you also removed several personal invitations on individual user talk pages, removed voluntary links to boobpedia on personal user pages, and deleted the few links to boobpedia articles in several articles. i don't think censoring user talk and user pages is warranted, and the link i put up to http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Serena_Grandi in the Serena Grandi article is a good link. the boobpedia article is well written and contains much information not found in the wikipedia Serena Grandi article. please take a minute to compare them and you'll see why i added that link. in conclusion, i take your point on the invitations on article talk pages, and hopefully you'll see that i am a good wikipedia user and contributor in the long term, and that boobpedia is a serious project serving a function that is complementary to wikipedia. thank you. --Hexvoodoo 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay responding. My intention was never to chase you away from the project, only to stop you doing something problematic.  Since you've owned to it being a mistake, and it's very clear that you are a calm and rational person who just got carried away rather than an Evil Bastard SpammerTM I was more than happy to see you unblocked, and I apologise for lumping you in with the trash (sadly most of the people I find linking sites in large numbers are Evil Bastard Spammers and a lot of them end up on the spam blacklist, such is the admin's average day).  I'm not convinced that boobpedia is actually the kind of site we ought to be linking to, as it has no evident authority and no quality assurance processes, we already have more than enough links to sites which uncritically repeat speculation and sometimes outright nonsense, the world of pr0n seems to eb overloaded with them.  Even the supposedly reliable ones like IADB and AFDB are in truth only the work of largely uncritical fans conditioned to accept the most monstrous idiocies at face value.  I mean, would you trust the critical judgement of the sort of person for whom the average porn film plot is written?  Come on! :o)  Anyway, I'm happy to see that all confusion is cleared up and you're good to go.  Thank you for not harbouring ill feelings, we all make mistakes and this was one of mine.  Happy New Year to you, Guy (Help!) 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i have to admit i never expected an apology, but i am grateful for it :) here is a little history about my experience with wikipedia. i actually became aware of it quite a few years ago, when wikipedia was just starting out. i did what most new visitor did - i tried out the sandbox, edited a typo in a random article, then forgot all about it, never anticipating the phenomenon that it would become. last year i found myself using wikipedia more and more, and it contained information not easily found elsewhere on obscure subjects. i became convinced that collaborative projects like wikipedia were the way to go. i also came across the big-bust entertainers list, and thought the idea could be expanded. i actually believe that wikipedia shouldn't contain nudity and adult images (except biology related topics), as many children use it for research. so i started a seperate wiki project and called it boobpedia. like the young wikipedia that i saw years ago, it would be easy to dismiss the new boobpedia at first glance. but i have seen the hard work put into the project, and i have faith that in time it will develop into a comprehensive, well-edited, and valuable resource, with experienced editors and admins who work hard to keep up the integrity of the information contained. i think we can agree that wikipedia is largely error-free thanks to well-developed processes and experienced editors; i will attempt to make sure the same thing happens to boobpedia.


 * information in pr0n, and even in mainstream entertainment (boobpedia also covers mainstream entertainers), inherently does not possess the precision and accuracy that math and science have. but sometimes we just have to make do with what's available, and just keep a critical eye at all times. i certainly invite you to examine any boobpedia links put up by any user, to ensure they link to good articles that add value to the wikipedia article. thank you JzG for taking the time to write a response, and i hope you have a great 2007 too! --Hexvoodoo 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back, Hexvoodoo! Glad to see this over-reaction has been rectified. Regards. Dekkappai 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Boobpedia
Did You ever try to write an article about Boobpedia here? You sure are the most qualified to do so ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)