User talk:Kikodawgzzz - Revision history

Kikodawgzzz at 01:08, 6 December 2013

2013-12-06T01:08:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 6 December 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	: Given that she (Ellie Jaycock- [edit]) doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)		: Given that she (Ellie Jaycock- [edit]) doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)
	::Did you genuinely have to delete my entire comment? Absolutely nothing within the comment is hidden content, and her boobs are amazing and very very sexy-- but more importantly, I spent three-quarters of my explanation affirming just how hypocritical her supposed lack of fondness towards her boobs is, when at the same time in every single picture, she's not just smiling and happy, but also actively putting her hands on her boobs, blatantly showing them off. Someone who is unhappy about her boobs won't do that, the same way a guy who is unhappy about his small dick wouldn't go out of his way to photograph himself smiling and holding his naked boner. Seriously, Ellie's supposed dissatisfaction with her boobs mirrors the blatant hypocrisy of Dors Feline, who on the one hand did all kinds of porn featuring her breasts, and then suddenly reverted to civilian life and went on and on about how much she had always 'hated' her chest. In short, Ellie self-evidently acts as though she is unhappy about her breasts while in reality she's fine with them, or at least is fine enough with them to exploit them, which again, if she was really unhappy with them, she wouldn't dare do. Finally, once again, PLEASE stop deleting comments and writing that have _publicly findable_ resources in them. I am NOT violating confidentiality or being inappropriate by featuring such things. I am not leaking anything. And I don't appreciate being treated as though I am doing that. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 19:48, 5 December 2013 (EST)		::Did you genuinely have to delete my entire comment? Absolutely nothing within the comment is hidden content, and her boobs are amazing and very very sexy-- but more importantly, I spent three-quarters of my explanation affirming just how hypocritical her supposed lack of fondness towards her boobs is, when at the same time in every single picture, she's not just smiling and happy, but also actively putting her hands on her boobs, blatantly showing them off. Someone who is unhappy about her boobs won't do that, the same way a guy who is unhappy about his small dick wouldn't go out of his way to photograph himself smiling and holding his naked boner. Seriously, Ellie's supposed dissatisfaction with her boobs mirrors the blatant hypocrisy of Dors Feline, who on the one hand did all kinds of porn featuring her breasts, and then suddenly reverted to civilian life and went on and on about how much she had always 'hated' her chest. In short, Ellie self-evidently acts as though she is unhappy about her breasts while in reality she's fine with them, or at least is fine enough with them to exploit them, which again, if she was really unhappy with them, she wouldn't dare do. Finally, once again, PLEASE stop deleting comments and writing that have _publicly findable_ resources in them. I am NOT violating confidentiality or being inappropriate by featuring such things. I am not leaking anything. And I don't appreciate being treated as though I am doing that. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 19:48, 5 December 2013 (EST)
			::::Haaaa... Wow, I'm stupid. I've played the fool-- both 'Ellie Jaycock' and her alias 'Annie Keenan' are completely fake, and amazingly, they seem to have even fooled the Huffington Post (which amazes me) because she's been 'featured' twice in two different articles there. She is indeed a 'huge-busted girl who complains about her boobs while exploiting them' in the same way Dors Feline actually did, but the difference here is that the girl, at least with those boobs, is a complete fake, which naturally is bad news for big-boobs fans like us. Oh well! [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 20:08, 5 December 2013 (EST)

Kikodawgzzz at 00:48, 6 December 2013

2013-12-06T00:48:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 6 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:

	[comment deleted] [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)		[comment deleted] [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)
	: Given that she doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)		: Given that she (Ellie Jaycock- [edit]) doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)
			::Did you genuinely have to delete my entire comment? Absolutely nothing within the comment is hidden content, and her boobs are amazing and very very sexy-- but more importantly, I spent three-quarters of my explanation affirming just how hypocritical her supposed lack of fondness towards her boobs is, when at the same time in every single picture, she's not just smiling and happy, but also actively putting her hands on her boobs, blatantly showing them off. Someone who is unhappy about her boobs won't do that, the same way a guy who is unhappy about his small dick wouldn't go out of his way to photograph himself smiling and holding his naked boner. Seriously, Ellie's supposed dissatisfaction with her boobs mirrors the blatant hypocrisy of Dors Feline, who on the one hand did all kinds of porn featuring her breasts, and then suddenly reverted to civilian life and went on and on about how much she had always 'hated' her chest. In short, Ellie self-evidently acts as though she is unhappy about her breasts while in reality she's fine with them, or at least is fine enough with them to exploit them, which again, if she was really unhappy with them, she wouldn't dare do. Finally, once again, PLEASE stop deleting comments and writing that have _publicly findable_ resources in them. I am NOT violating confidentiality or being inappropriate by featuring such things. I am not leaking anything. And I don't appreciate being treated as though I am doing that. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 19:48, 5 December 2013 (EST)

The Honorable at 22:52, 5 December 2013

2013-12-05T22:52:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 5 December 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
	:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

			[comment deleted] [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)
			: Given that she doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)

The Honorable: Undo revision 371858 by Kikodawgzzz (talk)

2013-12-05T22:49:55Z

Undo revision 371858 by Kikodawgzzz (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 5 December 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
	:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

	::::[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I have now discovered [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ellie+jaycock&safe=off&client=firefox-beta&hs=r7M&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xOugUp3iO8Su7AbjwIHQBA&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771#channel=fflb&q=ellie%20jaycock%202013&revid=325272622&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&safe=off&tbm=isch Ellie Jaycock], who is apparently British and has 32K boobs but looks even bigger than that (and seems especially popular with Venezuelans and other hispanophone countries). I do not know whether Ellie officially outdoes Rachel Aldana as the world's biggest slim-and-stacked publicly-known female, but just from looking at her pictures, I see no reason not to presume she could easily trounce Rachel for the title. She's even bigger than the early Ashley Sage Ellison and as you know, that's saying something. Ellie also appears to be both slimmer and bigger than Dors Feline when Dors was a K cup, and that's saying something too. Ellie has been in the Huffington Post and other articles where, similar to Dors Feline, she 'complains' about how her boobs are 'ruining her life' while at exactly the same time, very plainly-hypocritically, she's holding and modelling her enormous chest in every single photo and smiling in every single photo -- not unlike Dors also did with her own boobs when they were still K-cup. So she's very obviously not suffering or sad much at all, at least not about her boobs (who in their right mind complains about their boobs while provocatively holding them and smiling?). Anyway, I'm shocked that Ellie doesn't have her own Boobpedia article by now, and although I would make one (she's certainly publicly-well-known enough and she's firmly of-age everywhere except the United States, which of course doesn't have a monopoly on the age of legally-sanctioned sexual maturity), I'd rather people who know best how to make articles on here (which I do not), do it instead of me. Btw, there's no way at all of telling whether Ellie will eventually take a topless shot, but for the sake of the sanity of all boob-lovers everywhere both heterosexual-male and lesbian female, I hope to God that she does, lest she make the same mistake Soleil Moon Frye did and get her breasts reduced before ever figuring out she can make money from others' sexual arousal. lol. What say you? [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)

Kikodawgzzz at 21:29, 5 December 2013

2013-12-05T21:29:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 5 December 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
	:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

			::::[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I have now discovered [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ellie+jaycock&safe=off&client=firefox-beta&hs=r7M&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xOugUp3iO8Su7AbjwIHQBA&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771#channel=fflb&q=ellie%20jaycock%202013&revid=325272622&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&safe=off&tbm=isch Ellie Jaycock], who is apparently British and has 32K boobs but looks even bigger than that (and seems especially popular with Venezuelans and other hispanophone countries). I do not know whether Ellie officially outdoes Rachel Aldana as the world's biggest slim-and-stacked publicly-known female, but just from looking at her pictures, I see no reason not to presume she could easily trounce Rachel for the title. She's even bigger than the early Ashley Sage Ellison and as you know, that's saying something. Ellie also appears to be both slimmer and bigger than Dors Feline when Dors was a K cup, and that's saying something too. Ellie has been in the Huffington Post and other articles where, similar to Dors Feline, she 'complains' about how her boobs are 'ruining her life' while at exactly the same time, very plainly-hypocritically, she's holding and modelling her enormous chest in every single photo and smiling in every single photo -- not unlike Dors also did with her own boobs when they were still K-cup. So she's very obviously not suffering or sad much at all, at least not about her boobs (who in their right mind complains about their boobs while provocatively holding them and smiling?). Anyway, I'm shocked that Ellie doesn't have her own Boobpedia article by now, and although I would make one (she's certainly publicly-well-known enough and she's firmly of-age everywhere except the United States, which of course doesn't have a monopoly on the age of legally-sanctioned sexual maturity), I'd rather people who know best how to make articles on here (which I do not), do it instead of me. Btw, there's no way at all of telling whether Ellie will eventually take a topless shot, but for the sake of the sanity of all boob-lovers everywhere both heterosexual-male and lesbian female, I hope to God that she does, lest she make the same mistake Soleil Moon Frye did and get her breasts reduced before ever figuring out she can make money from others' sexual arousal. lol. What say you? [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)

The Honorable at 21:46, 3 October 2013

2013-10-03T21:46:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 3 October 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Also, don't use articles for speculation about or investigation of other people. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)		Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Also, don't use articles for speculation about or investigation of other people. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
			:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

Kikodawgzzz at 15:47, 3 October 2013

2013-10-03T15:47:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 3 October 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:

	Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Also, don't use articles for speculation about or investigation of other people. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)		Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Also, don't use articles for speculation about or investigation of other people. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)
			:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

The Honorable at 11:37, 26 September 2013

2013-09-26T11:37:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:37, 26 September 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:
	[[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 07:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)		[[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 07:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

	Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)		Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Also, don't use articles for speculation about or investigation of other people. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)

The Honorable at 11:34, 26 September 2013

2013-09-26T11:34:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:34, 26 September 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I like boobs.		I like boobs.
	[[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 07:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)		[[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 07:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

			Please don't add personal information like real names to articles unless they are widely publicly known. Thanks. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 07:34, 26 September 2013 (EDT)

Kikodawgzzz: Created page with "I like boobs. ~~~~"

2011-07-01T11:29:01Z

Created page with "I like boobs. ~~~~"

New page

I like boobs.
[[User:Kikodawgzzz|Kikodawgzzz]] 07:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 6 December 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	: Given that she (Ellie Jaycock- [edit]) doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)		: Given that she (Ellie Jaycock- [edit]) doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)
	::Did you genuinely have to delete my entire comment? Absolutely nothing within the comment is hidden content, and her boobs are amazing and very very sexy-- but more importantly, I spent three-quarters of my explanation affirming just how hypocritical her supposed lack of fondness towards her boobs is, when at the same time in every single picture, she's not just smiling and happy, but also actively putting her hands on her boobs, blatantly showing them off. Someone who is unhappy about her boobs won't do that, the same way a guy who is unhappy about his small dick wouldn't go out of his way to photograph himself smiling and holding his naked boner. Seriously, Ellie's supposed dissatisfaction with her boobs mirrors the blatant hypocrisy of Dors Feline, who on the one hand did all kinds of porn featuring her breasts, and then suddenly reverted to civilian life and went on and on about how much she had always 'hated' her chest. In short, Ellie self-evidently acts as though she is unhappy about her breasts while in reality she's fine with them, or at least is fine enough with them to exploit them, which again, if she was really unhappy with them, she wouldn't dare do. Finally, once again, PLEASE stop deleting comments and writing that have _publicly findable_ resources in them. I am NOT violating confidentiality or being inappropriate by featuring such things. I am not leaking anything. And I don't appreciate being treated as though I am doing that. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 19:48, 5 December 2013 (EST)		::Did you genuinely have to delete my entire comment? Absolutely nothing within the comment is hidden content, and her boobs are amazing and very very sexy-- but more importantly, I spent three-quarters of my explanation affirming just how hypocritical her supposed lack of fondness towards her boobs is, when at the same time in every single picture, she's not just smiling and happy, but also actively putting her hands on her boobs, blatantly showing them off. Someone who is unhappy about her boobs won't do that, the same way a guy who is unhappy about his small dick wouldn't go out of his way to photograph himself smiling and holding his naked boner. Seriously, Ellie's supposed dissatisfaction with her boobs mirrors the blatant hypocrisy of Dors Feline, who on the one hand did all kinds of porn featuring her breasts, and then suddenly reverted to civilian life and went on and on about how much she had always 'hated' her chest. In short, Ellie self-evidently acts as though she is unhappy about her breasts while in reality she's fine with them, or at least is fine enough with them to exploit them, which again, if she was really unhappy with them, she wouldn't dare do. Finally, once again, PLEASE stop deleting comments and writing that have _publicly findable_ resources in them. I am NOT violating confidentiality or being inappropriate by featuring such things. I am not leaking anything. And I don't appreciate being treated as though I am doing that. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 19:48, 5 December 2013 (EST)
			::::Haaaa... Wow, I'm stupid. I've played the fool-- both 'Ellie Jaycock' and her alias 'Annie Keenan' are completely fake, and amazingly, they seem to have even fooled the Huffington Post (which amazes me) because she's been 'featured' twice in two different articles there. She is indeed a 'huge-busted girl who complains about her boobs while exploiting them' in the same way Dors Feline actually did, but the difference here is that the girl, at least with those boobs, is a complete fake, which naturally is bad news for big-boobs fans like us. Oh well! [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 20:08, 5 December 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 6 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:

	[comment deleted] [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)		[comment deleted] [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)
	: Given that she doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)		: Given that she (Ellie Jaycock- [edit]) doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)
			::Did you genuinely have to delete my entire comment? Absolutely nothing within the comment is hidden content, and her boobs are amazing and very very sexy-- but more importantly, I spent three-quarters of my explanation affirming just how hypocritical her supposed lack of fondness towards her boobs is, when at the same time in every single picture, she's not just smiling and happy, but also actively putting her hands on her boobs, blatantly showing them off. Someone who is unhappy about her boobs won't do that, the same way a guy who is unhappy about his small dick wouldn't go out of his way to photograph himself smiling and holding his naked boner. Seriously, Ellie's supposed dissatisfaction with her boobs mirrors the blatant hypocrisy of Dors Feline, who on the one hand did all kinds of porn featuring her breasts, and then suddenly reverted to civilian life and went on and on about how much she had always 'hated' her chest. In short, Ellie self-evidently acts as though she is unhappy about her breasts while in reality she's fine with them, or at least is fine enough with them to exploit them, which again, if she was really unhappy with them, she wouldn't dare do. Finally, once again, PLEASE stop deleting comments and writing that have _publicly findable_ resources in them. I am NOT violating confidentiality or being inappropriate by featuring such things. I am not leaking anything. And I don't appreciate being treated as though I am doing that. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 19:48, 5 December 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 5 December 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
	:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

			[comment deleted] [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)
			: Given that she doesn't seem fond of her breasts and wants to get them reduced, making an article wouldn't be helpful. [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:52, 5 December 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 5 December 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
	:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

	::::[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I have now discovered [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ellie+jaycock&safe=off&client=firefox-beta&hs=r7M&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xOugUp3iO8Su7AbjwIHQBA&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771#channel=fflb&q=ellie%20jaycock%202013&revid=325272622&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&safe=off&tbm=isch Ellie Jaycock], who is apparently British and has 32K boobs but looks even bigger than that (and seems especially popular with Venezuelans and other hispanophone countries). I do not know whether Ellie officially outdoes Rachel Aldana as the world's biggest slim-and-stacked publicly-known female, but just from looking at her pictures, I see no reason not to presume she could easily trounce Rachel for the title. She's even bigger than the early Ashley Sage Ellison and as you know, that's saying something. Ellie also appears to be both slimmer and bigger than Dors Feline when Dors was a K cup, and that's saying something too. Ellie has been in the Huffington Post and other articles where, similar to Dors Feline, she 'complains' about how her boobs are 'ruining her life' while at exactly the same time, very plainly-hypocritically, she's holding and modelling her enormous chest in every single photo and smiling in every single photo -- not unlike Dors also did with her own boobs when they were still K-cup. So she's very obviously not suffering or sad much at all, at least not about her boobs (who in their right mind complains about their boobs while provocatively holding them and smiling?). Anyway, I'm shocked that Ellie doesn't have her own Boobpedia article by now, and although I would make one (she's certainly publicly-well-known enough and she's firmly of-age everywhere except the United States, which of course doesn't have a monopoly on the age of legally-sanctioned sexual maturity), I'd rather people who know best how to make articles on here (which I do not), do it instead of me. Btw, there's no way at all of telling whether Ellie will eventually take a topless shot, but for the sake of the sanity of all boob-lovers everywhere both heterosexual-male and lesbian female, I hope to God that she does, lest she make the same mistake Soleil Moon Frye did and get her breasts reduced before ever figuring out she can make money from others' sexual arousal. lol. What say you? [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 5 December 2013
Line 5:		Line 5:
	:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I respect that you are trying to protect people, but the stark reality is that these facts are publicly known amongst anyone on the internet who has bothered to look (I'll confess I'm an internet junkie, but that doesn't make this any less true in this case). The biggest problem I have with you as an admin is that you unilaterally remove edits like mine without discussion. Admins are admins, but they are also users and like other wiki users, admins have an inherent responsibility to discuss any changes, including any reverts. In fact, rather than reverting, your policy is to completely delete an edit you don't like. That's not how a wiki is supposed to operate. Also, you don't have a Terms of Service wherein you state that edits like mine are not permissible. You would need a clearly-defined set of rules for this wiki, including the rule that edits like mine are not permissible, in order to be justified in continuing to unilaterally delete them. And that set of rules would have to be endorsed by all admins across the entire wiki. It's a dictatorship otherwise. [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 11:47, 3 October 2013 (EDT)
	:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)		:: After a bit of investigation, I've reinstated your edits, though I don't think that autograph site proves that Samantha Paige is her "real" name. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I'd rather err on the side of protecting privacy. (After all, there are reasons why we're not using our real names here. :) ) [[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]] 17:46, 3 October 2013 (EDT)

			::::[[User:The Honorable\|The Honorable]], I have now discovered [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ellie+jaycock&safe=off&client=firefox-beta&hs=r7M&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xOugUp3iO8Su7AbjwIHQBA&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=771#channel=fflb&q=ellie%20jaycock%202013&revid=325272622&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&safe=off&tbm=isch Ellie Jaycock], who is apparently British and has 32K boobs but looks even bigger than that (and seems especially popular with Venezuelans and other hispanophone countries). I do not know whether Ellie officially outdoes Rachel Aldana as the world's biggest slim-and-stacked publicly-known female, but just from looking at her pictures, I see no reason not to presume she could easily trounce Rachel for the title. She's even bigger than the early Ashley Sage Ellison and as you know, that's saying something. Ellie also appears to be both slimmer and bigger than Dors Feline when Dors was a K cup, and that's saying something too. Ellie has been in the Huffington Post and other articles where, similar to Dors Feline, she 'complains' about how her boobs are 'ruining her life' while at exactly the same time, very plainly-hypocritically, she's holding and modelling her enormous chest in every single photo and smiling in every single photo -- not unlike Dors also did with her own boobs when they were still K-cup. So she's very obviously not suffering or sad much at all, at least not about her boobs (who in their right mind complains about their boobs while provocatively holding them and smiling?). Anyway, I'm shocked that Ellie doesn't have her own Boobpedia article by now, and although I would make one (she's certainly publicly-well-known enough and she's firmly of-age everywhere except the United States, which of course doesn't have a monopoly on the age of legally-sanctioned sexual maturity), I'd rather people who know best how to make articles on here (which I do not), do it instead of me. Btw, there's no way at all of telling whether Ellie will eventually take a topless shot, but for the sake of the sanity of all boob-lovers everywhere both heterosexual-male and lesbian female, I hope to God that she does, lest she make the same mistake Soleil Moon Frye did and get her breasts reduced before ever figuring out she can make money from others' sexual arousal. lol. What say you? [[User:Kikodawgzzz\|Kikodawgzzz]] 16:29, 5 December 2013 (EST)