Forum:Strongest breasts of Uncyclopedia

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Strongest breasts of Uncyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6425 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Lo, Sophia, thine art perfection.

It has to be Sophia.......but who do we think has the top-10 breasts of Uncyclopedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhaille (talk • contribs)

Do we even have ten female members? —Hinoa talk.kun 20:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --User:Nintendorulez 20:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sophia is a Goddess of boobies. I know it's perverted to jack off, but it's our beloved Sophia. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG its preverted to jack off? How come nobody told me aboot that! --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, please don't let Kakun get wind of this topic. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 21:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are about four female uncyclopedians. 22:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I'd say there are at least 20 just that I know of, probably more like 30. Most of them aren't especially active at any given time, of course... I'd list them all, but that would be inviting harassment, most likely! And quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of them constantly harassing me.  c • > • cunwapquc? 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We could always add 10 female sockpuppets. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I volunteer to sell my body out for transsexual whoring purposes if no one else will. Wouldn't be the first time... --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 00:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got breasts...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmman titties anyone? --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please! Oh, wait, I've already got some -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You can never have too many titties. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Completely Non-Scientific Numerical Analysis

I dunno, there's something about having just two that "seems right" somehow!

Anyway, folks, being the infamous Wikistalker that I (supposedly) am, in addition to being overly analytical at all times, I figured there was nobody more qualified than myself to determine the number of female Uncyclopedians. So I did! Using the Special:Activeusers feature of MediaWiki 1.7 (or whatever version it is), I checked out every user on the site who has actually made an edit here, doesn't have an obviously male-sounding account name, has created a userpage, and self-identifies as female on that userpage. I didn't bother to count the total number of userpages (though maybe I would have if I were a proper statistician), and I included several users who had obviously female account names but didn't overtly self-identify gender, as long as they had created a userpage. So this number is neither scientifically derived, nor strictly accurate, but in my opinion it may be lower than the actual number, since (IMO) it stands to reason that female users are more likely to either misidentify their genders or not identify at all, to avoid harassment and/or general buttheadedness from males.

Having explained my methodology and made the proper disclaimers, the number of female Uncyclopedians is approximately 150. I realize that might seem like a suspiciously round figure, but that's the number, if we include User:Sophia and User:Angela, the first of whom isn't real, and the second of whom works for Wikia and might therefore be excluded solely on that basis. Otherwise, the number is 148. I would further venture to say that this number represents roughly 20 percent of the Uncyclopedian population, a higher percentage than even I would have guessed.

If any administrator wants a copy of this list, please e-mail me for it. Otherwise, I intend to keep it confidential, so as not to encourage the aforementioned harassment and/or buttheadedness. And guys, when you post stuff, please try to remember that you are in mixed company here! And for shit's sake, stop touching yourself!  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya, you wish they looked like that!

"Female Uncyclopedians?"

By that do you mean chicks with bucked teeth, thick glasses, fizzy hair and all that? Most people know that hot chicks exist pretty much only outside the domain of the Internet and they are generally populated in parties and night clubs. C'mon, dude! who in the right mind would wolf-wistle at a female user here? That would be like calling a turd "divine" for crying out loud!

Besides, who in the name of Sophia would need a list of possible female users from, well, "some user"? Even if I was desperate, all I had to do would be like a few clicks on the "advanced search" page. Hey, look! I don't know much about MediaWiki but my way of chick searching was obviously much easier and effective than yours. Just think about all those nerds out there who can program stuff! And, pfft... If there is an admin stupid enough to ask you for your list, he/she should be relieved of his/her duty and banished from Uncyc forever and ever.

Now let me give you nerdy kids here some advices:

1. The best places for wolf-wistling are the streets.
2. I doubt if we really had 148 female users. You know, some of might well have been males posing as females, transvettites, or even "women trapped in men's bodies". Ewww....
3. No, seriously, chicks are better in real life than here.
4. Oh! I totally forgot that you didn't have lives.
5. Get a life, then, every single one of you!

--The Colonel (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Chill out, dude - there is no point getting your panties in a bunch over this kind of stuff.

I should probably just ignore this strange diatribe of yours, Colonel S., but I'm afraid I'm just going to have to ask you to explain yourself. What the hell are you saying here? I would much rather err on the side of caution regarding any form of cyberstalking, even if the likelihood of it is extremely remote, and even if the source information is ultimately out there for all to see. And if you're saying that people who are "that desperate" should simply be dismissed somewhow as losers who just need to "get a life," then I disagree in the strongest possible terms - those people are actually the most dangerous and disruptive of them all. Remember, the point is to prevent harmful incidents, not wait until they happen just so that we can then ridicule and/or ban the guilty parties.

Besides, the search methodology you're suggesting (assuming you were being even semi-serious) is ridiculously simplistic. You absolutely must read each user page for context - there's simply no substitute for that. It's not like the word "female" is restricted to the userpages of accounts that self-identify as female, is it? (Hint: No.)

I hate to say this, Colonel, because I really have nothing against you personally, but yes, this is intended as an affront: The fact that you would use a term like "calling a turd 'divine'" in describing the act of harassing female users here is a fine example of why a list like this should remain confidential. In most cases, calling a woman "ugly" is far more harmful than calling her "HOTTTSEXY" and "gorgeous," even if the latter might be interpreted as "wolf-whistling" — which I'd hasten to add is your term, not mine. There are many, many forms of sexual harrassment that are vastly worse than unwanted appreciation. (And yes, that's the correct spelling!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

DUH!You don't get it, do ya? It was just a lame joke that I made at your expense. Besides, who the right mind would take a silly comment about herself from a random, strange guy on the Internet any more seriously than a featured UnNews article? Your assertion about females is just off the planet.

--The Colonel (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, if you say so... I never seem to get anything around here, apparently. Could you do me a favor, though? Check your IP address, and tell me if the first three numbers are 82, 44, and 21, in that order? If not, then I guess I'll take your word for it.  c • > • cunwapquc? 21:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

82.44.21.? No, and why are you asking me that by the way? -- The Colonel (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, Colonel, consider your word for it taken! No problem! And I was just curious, really - no need for long, tedious explanations... Let's just forget I even suggested such a malevolent and abhorrent thing as that! Have a nice day!  c • > • cunwapquc? 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Eww! That thing above is NASTY (this one)!

Don't try to hide you are a woman, Dawg can still out you

Seriously, that isn't too surprising to me. It's mainly surprising from the wiki/contribution standpoint - women generally contribute at a small fraction of the rate of men online, while the total online population is distinctly more female than male (although many have recently been tapped by the social networking oriented sites such as myspace and livejournal, for a long time those online just surfed and made online purchases, with few contributing). From my days with some forums, though, radical libertarian pro-gun forums tend to have about a 20-25% female percentage (every single one is either in a long-term relationship with another user or is married *(but not always to a user)), while geek ones have ~5-15% (higher is usually due to social aspects and are usually SOs of other users). The most notable one that I still drop by in terms of male:female ratio is one for people that keep orchids, where the vast majority overall are women, but they are split - males tend to write about big projects, like building greenhouses and keeping hundreds or thousands of orchids, while females tend to write about the bloomings and generally socialize. They are found in different concentrations based on the forum purpose itself. Since I'm a male that runs the full gamut, I come into contact with both groups.

In relation to uncyclopedia I know there are at least 7 female regulars on the IRC channel (2 physically confirmed, 2 photographically confirmed, 2 consistently identify, and one that is in denial, but I've outed her).

In the past I've outed females posing as males through their phrasing, usage, and personalities.

So I know we have a pretty reasonable ratio. Not common, but not uncommon. It will become more common as we get bleed over from major sites that appeal to women and their comfort levels grow with admitting their genders. Some are still afraid and many probably always will be due to past events involving males and the widespread notion that males are the majority on the internet (they are only the visible majority due to contributions outside of social networking sites). Right now about half of those that admit they are females outside of those sites are looking for attention from males, who give them that attention they seek.

» Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a minute, I think I'm being counted as one of those "physically confirmed"... For the record: WE DIDN'T GET THAT CLOSE! Goddammit, I've got my reputation as a man hating lesbian to uphold here you know! -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was counting PantsMacKenzie.

I saw you and spoke with you in person, and you were undeniably female. In fact, I don't think you would be able to pass yourself off as a male even if you tried.

Any dispute is silly, since your gender is not in dispute. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indisputably. Guess I can quit with the silly deep voice then -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

what? sannse if female? i've got to put her on unwatch. done! thanks dawg -- mowgli 20:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)