Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (65)

As I was the user who was able to post (wasn't blocked) the preceding 30 September & 3 October replies and I don't have an account, the WhatamIdoing false claim "Your account is no longer blocked" is another blatant lie. And my bait to that user "Best wishes formulating another rationalizing reply" was successful, in that WhatamIdoing now has posted a laughable veiled threat to have my posts investigated by Checkuser with the misworded veil that the check would be for the reason "look into it your concern." BTW, to which of your math or integrity problems are you referring regarding my "concern"? Yes, I would like a Wikipedia authority to look into your math and integrity problems.

Also, the WhatamIdoing fabrication created when he claimed that his post "majority of the English Wikipedia's biographies are NOT about celebrities" is an "example" that someone else "seem"s to misunderstand is another falsehood--you'd need content that someone (who you fabricated is misunderstanding) wrote in order to exemplify the misunderstanding. It appears WhatamIdoing has trouble understanding what he writes, but posts it anyway. The old 'post first, analyze later' philosophy!

Nevertheless, you haven't provided the metrics for your two terms "simple distribution" and "fairly simple distribution", so the terms are not mathematically understandable. And since those metrics are needed to assess your faulty statistical analysis, your failing to provide them is another "integrity problem". Bottom line, your false "you could do the same" claim isn't possible for the same assessment without your "simple distribution" metrics (and the specific day, which you inaccurately assumed is representative of the general case).

WhatamIdoing, "you've got a math problem" (your words). "You're assuming that" (your words)--in "the top 1000 pages"-- that "all of the most-viewed biographies"="celebrities" in the top 1000. This simply isn't true. Worse, it fails to consider all the celebrities not in the top 1000 for that small sample of an unspecified "one day".

Quit relying on misdirection and evasion, and state the "real data from the server...okay?" (your words): the page view total for the total pages you claim you identified for "celebrities" in the top 1000 -- which will help establish whether your conjecture--"(probably much less than) 20% of the total traffic" is for celebrities--is bunkum. But of course you will instead fabricate more false straw men (or perhaps threats) to try to misdirect readers.

Wow - I didn't think debunking the worst Article Feedback Tool defender (worst at defending) would be this much fun!