Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea, but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red. We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania. We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider? Can you suggest a DYK style hook? If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page.
Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.
As far as I can tell, no one supported the status quo in the RM discussion, yet that is the outcome. No one directly said they were opposed. I suggest that some different result or simply further extending the discussion period would have been more appropriate. One guideline section to consider is WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:STATUSQUO is the status quo for a reason; it's what remains when there isn't consensus for change. The commentary was enough for me to see there was a lack of convincing consensus. There has been only one comment in the past ~7 weeks, it had already been shared with relevant wikiprojects prior to that, so I don't see how more time would have helped here either. I also don't see NOTCURRENT applying, that's only if there is consensus to no longer continue with the current title, which was not the case whatsover. CNC (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, with RM closer it left me the option of submitting at RMTR, or move to the proposed (incorrect) target. Next time I'll click the RMTR option and revert, in order to avoid watchlist clutter. Unfortunately there was no option to move manually. Potentially worth mention this on the talkpage of said tool, as hadn't had this issue before but was quite frustrating. CNC (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RM close at 2025 Boulder fire attack
Hello, would you be open to undoing your close and allowing another editor to take a look? I think this close might’ve benefited from verifying the unsourced claims made by participants (for example, “there was no firebombing”).
A selection of headlines given by googling “boulder firebombing”:
That's quite a source list, I commend you for the research. My close was however based on the discussion in the RM. Had you provided those sources during the discussion in hand, I have no doubt the outcome could well have been quite different. You are welcome to take this to WP:Move review if you believe the close was inappropriate, given I believe it was fair and balance. I'd otherwise recommend opening a discussion on the talkpage in order to build consensus with those sources provided. CNC (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page mover granted
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 01:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
debrief
Thanks for taking the time to add an entry of your recent close to RSP! Your intuition about the section tag is indeed how SGML tags usually go; I find it incredibly wayward that labeled section transclusion elects to use such jarring syntax. I don't think anything else does something like that.
Great, thank you! That's the part I couldn't figure out and didn't find that link you just provided, so posted at DEPS talkpage for assistance instead. Have reverted that topic now that you have done the technicals, thanks again. CNC (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)
Tip of the month:
A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements, but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.
Hello I saw you removed my edit about Musk and Archeofuturism, I just wanted to make clear why I added it and why it should be included too:
Musk commented on the repost of the user DeepThinker, in which the user embraced the idea of Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism, the original post came from the European New Right publisher Arktos Media (Arktos Journal on X). Musk agreed with DeepThinker's words on the post of the Arktos Journal about Archeofururism. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other cases of Musk views X is also used as source, I mean I understand that X isn't a reliable source, but the comment came from Musk's own account. 77.183.34.126 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only when quoting for context, because of secondary sources discussing the tweet and making it due. Not every Musk reply on X is notable, most aren't, and those included arent random either. You need to argue on the talk page why its due, not here. CNC (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CommunityNotesContributor. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! CoconutOctopustalk12:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on anything else, but you probably want to know-
Thanks for notifying me. My recent comment wasn't influenced by that however, I didn't see it until after I had replied. Appreciate the subject header you chose though. Very demure, very mindful :) CNC (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outrageously false Wikipedia Musk biography data, especially strikes his "EDUCATION", the only one I reviewed
Hi, I'm writing this as you seem to be only one of the few who are interested / motivated to correct Musk's wikipedia biography data. I spent about 2 days reading court cases about Elon Musk, including his depositions, evidence, and complaints dating to 1990s and find his "Education" part article outrageously false, fabricated and up for removal. It's a shame for Wikipedia to have this on one of the most-read articles on the Wikipedia, that has 99% of the world populations, simply trusts.
Elon Musk has no degree in Physics, only bs in economics. All sources cited rely on Vance's book, which is BASED on what MUSK said to her. I've searched all data on the internet, including court deposition, where Musk was caught lying on deposition in 2007, here are (just some, simplified for you) sources, – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91
The notion "wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books" cites article by the British Guardian, which is based on their interview with Musk himself (as Guardian replied to me in an recent email I can show).
The notion that "Musk held two internships" relies on Vance's book, self-interviewed. No one from Pinnacle Research Institute specifically had ever stepped up and confirmed it in ANY form. The company had a big presence in 90s.
The notion of "his acceptance to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford" is wrong, as there's no one who's ever confirmed Elon's acceptance, nor anyone who remembers him and there's no possible to verify it without Elon Musk's (confirmation). Information on it is substantially revealed in the lawsuits against him, where he was forced to reveal information (some of the lawsuits mentioned in the link above). Furthermore, there was no such department as "material science" at Stanford in 90s; at the time he claims acceptance, he didn't have graduation diploma from Wharton (which he, as confirmed in court depositions, had NOT received until 1997), Stanford would had never accepted ANY student against its own protocols (someone without a diploma). Stanford acceptance doesn't exist. Neither anyone from the faculty remembers reviewing his application.
The notion "applying for a job at Netscape" is based on Musk's own self-given interviews to CNBC (which it was happy to provide him with due to the views and publicity).
The rest two sentences are based on what "Musk has said". Everything is a blunt lie and it's heart-breaking to read it publicly.
I couldn't not proceed further because, apparently, everything is fabricated and I just wanted to start with a little note (this note with you), as you are the only who can do a change on Wikipedia and has power to do it.
Reading court cases and his depositions and the lies that he fed court is utterly painful (nevertheless it still recommended as all of his court cases against him must be read by anyone to see how much of a swindler he is).
Since I cannot edit, neither semi-edit, I reach out to you as the only remedy either to reach out to Wikipedia / or edit / lead discussion with Wikipedia yourself.
Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.
