User talk:EulerianTrail

Welcome!

Hi EulerianTrail! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Spotemgottem (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Native American mathematicians has been nominated for renaming

Category:21st-century Native American mathematicians has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 17:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi EulerianTrail! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 19:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica McDonald (August 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't see anything there that would obviously satisfy WP:NPROF, and primary sources cannot establish notability per WP:GNG either. If the former is being asserted, please provide evidence that at least one of the criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC is clearly and objectively met.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jessica McDonald and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EulerianTrail! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jessica McDonald (August 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zzz plant was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Hi, thanks for your submission. In general asssociate professors rarely have accumulated the type of body of work and accolades that results in academic notability. Of the peer-reviewed journal articles (co)-authored by the subject, none appear to be highly-cited, even in a low citation field like math. I don't see any other criteria passes either, such as election to prestigious organizations, named chair, or head editor at a major journal. Speaking at a conference or workshop does not confer inherent academic notability. I think it may just be a bit too soon in this person's academic career. Thank you,

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jessica McDonald and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Zzz plant (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an associate professor. She is a full professor. She does have a highly cited paper and many others with a decent number of citations for in her field; I am not sure what you are conidering to be highly cited. Individually many of the things alone are not too notable, but overall I believe this person is notable and well above an "average professor". According to 1. a.): "The meaning of ""substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure."" Considering that she is at Auburn University (an R1 university) and it decided that her qualifications was sufficent for full professor EulerianTrail (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if the promotion had actually gone through, as the source states the tenure reception is in Sept. 2025 and her faculty profile still states under the Professional Employment section: "Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Auburn University, 2018 - present". Could you link the highly-cited paper you're referring to? There is an Alzheimer's researcher with the same name, so it's possible that I missed something while trying to filter those publications out. This was the most I could find, and 68 is not extremely high (especially since subject is 4th of 6 co-authors). Zzz plant (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the faculty directory Mathematics and Statistics Faculty - Auburn University College of Sciences and Mathematics it lists her as professor which shows that it did "go through". It would be very rare and contraversal for a person to be announced a professor, but then taken away.

In mathematics the order of the names on works is traditionally alphabetical order. She is only 4th because she is 4th in the alphabet.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00493-014-2806-z is very citated in pure math (35 using MathScinet, 68 using your source) most papers in pure math just receives a few citations if any. The most foundational or groundbreaking can get into triple digits. But I would also like to point back to the criteria note a for criteria 1, which explains that the number of citations needed are that which would grant tenure at a major research institution is enough for notability which she has done. EulerianTrail (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source for her upcoming promotion seems to specify that she will be promoted to full professor but not given tenure. Zzz plant (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is because she already has tenure. Once an sssistant professor becomes tenure that person then becomes an associate professor. EulerianTrail (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Native American mathematicians

You should only create ERGS categories for intersections for whoch you can create a reliably sourced topic article for them that is nore that just a list. So you would be advised to first create the article Native American mathematicians than create the category. Not every intersection of a topic with an ERGS (ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality) characteristic is justified. Also keep in mind inclusion in ERGS categories needs to be reliably sourced. Also keep in mind categories should aid navigation, so they generally need at a minimum 5 articles, and there is Aldo the last rung rule. We divide American scientists by ethnicity, because we also divide then by sub-field of physicists, astronomers, chemists, zoologists, botanists, minerologists, etc. We do not divide Syrian geologists by ethnicity because there are not other divisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, EulerianTrail, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already created a few biographies of women and hope there will be many more. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]