User talk:XOR'easter/Research under a cloud

Quote
I hadn't recognised my own words as one of the quotations - and, as you said, the authors changed the meaning of my words by omitting the leading "Delete: Sadly, fails WP:NPROF.", as well as the explanatory coda of " - just being published is not enough." Thanks for all your work on this, an interesting read. I hope you manage to get it published, or at least get a serious response from the editors of the journal. Pam D  07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting AfD, as the main, vociferous, defender of the article believed at the time that "There is an editor using bot software to remove females scientists from pages." (it was nominated for deletion by the most active NPP reviewer). Pam  D  07:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Search engine test
I may be wrong, but I believe the first paragraph of §The "Search Engine Test" may be unclear to those unfamiliar to Wikipedia. It's technically true that WP:Search engine test merely explains that search engines can be useful but their results must be treated with caution, but whoever reads this might interpret it to mean that it's a roughly useful metric, as opposed to one that's really only used to find sources that would meet GNG, and almost never used as an indicator of notability in itself. I'd wager most links to that page are meant to dismiss the use of search engine hits by another editor, rather than to justify their use. Thoughts? DFlhb (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point, DFlhb. I've rewritten that part somewhat and included a quotation exemplifying the use you describe. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Solid change. — DFlhb (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Linked
I linked this on my social media: https://mathstodon.xyz/@11011110/110334174400159711 (although I suspect that posting it on the Signpost has significantly greater reach). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)