Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (28)

A HUGE part of my work on Wikipedia is monitoring pages that are highly trafficked by children and teens. So YES, when you tell people reporting problems here that their observations are "infinitesimal" you're being dismissive of THEIR WORK. I admit child star pages get a disproportionately high number of vandals (which is why I started watching them), but anyone who views the dashboard can see it's not just child stars - it's clearly a sweeping cross section of bio and "celebrity culture" articles in general (yes, for the purposes of this discussion Barack Obama is one of many who falls into the category of "celebrity"). It's obvious to anyone who understands how to read numbers that each bio article that shows up on the dashboard represents THOUSANDS of others getting the same TYPE of fan/hate votes - they simply aren't getting rated as OFTEN so they will never show up there. That's where I came in - After giving the tool a couple of months to see how it worked, I came here to report that it's NOT "infinitesimal" (after seeing you had repeatedly attempted to dismiss/discredit other editors coming here, using this exact same line, like some broken record). It's happening on dozens of pages I'm watching - and it's common sense to infer that each page I'm watching represents hundreds of pages that I'm NOT watching. If you think celebrity bio pages, film pages and awards pages don't make up at least HALF of the daily traffic on Wikipedia then you're seriously delusional. The tool doesn't work and nobody here is going to suddenly change their minds and start drinking the kool-aid just because you tell them to ignore what they're seeing FIRST HAND.