User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

I made mistake about "Home appliance" article

I'm apologize that I made mistake regarding Home appliance article that was semi-protected. Even though Wikipedia has allowing mistakes. I hope you can apologize me. Thanks. Anyway, I'm just asking, how I can actually reducing the protection that I mention before? Thanks. Rizky Juliandief (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rizky Juliandief: You can't. Even while the protection has been in force one editor has made a string of mainly pointless edits to become autoconfirmed and then posted spam into the article. I see absolutely no reason at all to doubt that removing protection would open the floodgates to the same kind of endless spamming that there was before protection. JBW (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

So, I think this is considered my mistake, right? Rizky Juliandief (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rizky Juliandief: If you mean that thinking that removing a protection template would remove the protection, then yes, it was a mistake, but a trivial one, and I suggest that you forget about it and move on. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you do mean. JBW (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Might an Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes would be help. I hope I can enjoy Wikipedia comfortably. Rizky Juliandief (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@JBW you may not be aware of this in the context of this discussion - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@10mmsocket Is that a sockpuppet that targeting an article that I mentioned? Rizky Juliandief (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Rizky Juliandief: I should probably have said in my first answer to you that only an administrator can remove page protection. There would, in fact, be no point in having page protection if anybody could remove it. JBW (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently registered editor wants to pay someone with more experience to get their edits through?

Hey, JB, check out User talk:UptodateFan when you get a chance.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Partial block request

Whichever range will keep the following IPs from vandalizing Bramayugam:

2409:40F3:19:10B4:8000:0:0:0
2409:40F3:101D:98FB:8000:0:0:0
2409:40F3:1007:2260:8000:0:0:0
2409:40F3:F:95D9:8000:0:0:0

  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked the IP range from that article for 6 months, and also semi-protected the article for 2 months, both because of vandalism from other IP addresses, and because this vandal has stated the intention of evading any IP block by using other IP addresses. Pretty stupid of them to tell us, so that we can take precautions. JBW (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you block me for a week?

Can you block me for an entire week? I need time away from the wiki. CycoMa2 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Henderson (Nomad Capitalist)

Hello there, I tried to speak with you on my own talk page (see below). Can you please explain why feature news coverage that didn't exist before isn't relevant to demonstrating notability for the new version of this page? Like, why are we ignoring a Fortune profile and other reliable sources when the previous page was deleted due to a supposed lack of sourcing exactly like that? I'm really not trying to be difficult, but why are these new sources being ignored when they now establish WP:N? Fortune magazine is a big deal...

"Oh, I am not trying to be unilateral at all. To the contrary, good-faith feedback is always welcome here. However, these recent news stories clearly demonstrate notability, do they not? Isn't the Fortune story (among other news coverage) worth noting, given that a magazine of that stature only covers people who are inherently notable? Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

One more note: The Fortune story didn't exist when a similar page was submitted years ago, so much of the new content is drawn from that. It's a pretty big new development, plus other news stories like this one or this one. Just FYI... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)" Doctorstrange617 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

And thank you for your consideration. Much appreciated. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Doctorstrange617:

You say of "Fortune" magazine "a magazine of that stature only covers people who are inherently notable". Well, that may be true in some sense of the word "notable", but it doesn't even begin to relate to Wikipedia's concept of notability; nowhere in any of the notability guidelines will you find anything suggesting that any one publication automatically guarantees notability of anyone it writes about. The article in that magazine is essentially an interview, containing expressions such as "Henderson tells Fortune". As you probably know, interviews are not regarded as useful for establishing notability. (Rightly or wrongly: I am not the world's greatest fan of the notability guidelines, but what is relevant is how they are applied, not how you or I think they should be applied.) In any case, even if it were not an interview, it merely reports on what Henderson has said about one recent happening; it is not substantial coverage of him.

You ask "why are these new sources being ignored when they now establish WP:N"? I didn't ignore them, and while I can't speak for Onel5969, who nominated the article for deletion, I see no reason to suppose that he ignored them either. As for your statement that the cited sources establish that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines, you gave given no explanation at all as to why you think they do, apart from just asserting that one of the publications cited automatically confers notability on any subject it mentions, which, as I have explained, is not true.

You REFBOMBED the article with references which amounted to not far short of two and three quarters the length of the entire text of the article. I am not going to take you step by step through each one of those explaining why it does nothing to justify overturning the deletion, but if you can give me three good sources which actually do satisfy the necessary standards to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms, and explain why they do, then I will be willing to reconsider the matter. JBW (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, @JBW. It is very insightful, and I appreciate your attention to detail.

To the extent that I know anything about journalism, feature stories often rely on interviews involving the subject because that is how you gain insight into what they do (good or bad), and it doesn't mean that such news coverage does not contain independent reporting, which confers WP:N. This is all independent reporting from Fortune, in the journalist's words rather than the subject's:

After recent U.S. presidential elections, a predictable spike of disgruntled Americans vow they will move to Canada, going so far as googling what it takes to move north or even hiring an immigration attorney to take the initial steps towards securing a visa. Andrew Henderson advises them to reconsider...

Henderson, who runs a popular YouTube channel and is a controversial figure in the Digital Nomad community, has for more than a decade helped high-net worth clients primarily from the U.S. gain dual citizenship or residencies in countries around the world. He advises them on international tax laws, visa-free travel, and more. He works with his own network of experts across the globe to provide the most up-to-date information on golden visa and passport opportunities...

Henderson, who renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2017, has helped clients move to around 33 countries, and he has collected data on around 100. He charges an initial planning fee of $28,000; clients will also pay all of the fees and make the investments necessary to secure the visas or citizenship in a new country. That can cost hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars, depending on the country...

For most of his clients, moving somewhere new and renouncing their U.S. citizenship isn’t the goal; instead, he primarily helps with residency and investor visas. And most of the people who swear they are going to move away from the U.S. because of politics—whether it be the election of Joe Biden or Donald Trump—don’t follow through on it. It takes more than a new president to uproot one’s entire life...

In most cases, Henderson’s clients are instead self-made business people who want a Plan B or better ease of movement. Gaining a passport in a country that is part of the European Union, for example, means visa-free travel to any other member state...

But instead of sticking to well-known entities like France or Switzerland, Henderson encourages people growing tired of the U.S. and committed to the expat life to think outside the box. Where would life actually be different?

And here are four other WP:RS examples, with the independent reporting specified in quotes, that should help clear the notability bar:

• Finews: "One of the most outspoken voices in the investment migration space is Andrew Henderson, founder and CEO of Nomad Capitalist. Having personally renounced his U.S. citizenship, Henderson has dedicated his career to advising entrepreneurs and high-net-worth individuals on expatriation strategies. He is the owner of a YouTube channel dedicated to the issue, which has over one million subscribers"; "his company serves a distinct clientele: primarily entrepreneurs and investors seeking alternative citizenship, tax optimization, and global mobility"; "Henderson’s insights confirm that investment migration isn’t just about moving abroad—it’s about securing flexibility in an increasingly unpredictable world"; "Andrew Henderson, who has worked with hundreds of high-net-worth Americans on expatriation..."

• Kitco News: "Andrew Henderson, founder of Nomad Capitalist, who is the go-to expert on where to find economic freedom with global citizenship and whose founding principle is 'go where you are treated best'"; "for Henderson, there is also an ever-growing risk of private bank accounts getting canceled due to unpopular opinions of account holders"; "Henderson is hosting the annual Nomad Capitalist Live event in Malaysia on September 25-28. This year’s MC will be Kitco’s Lead Anchor and Editor-in-Chief, Michelle Makori. The event teaches investors how to get multiple passports and the benefits of becoming a global citizen, from lowering taxes to ensuring their bank accounts are safe and their wealth protected. This year's high-caliber speakers include Air Asia CEO Tony Fernandes, Nigel Farage, ‘The Bitcoin Standard’ author Saifedean Ammous, Former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves, former Prime Minister of Malta Joseph Muscat, and more..."

• Enterprise World: It doesn't look like an interview is even involved here, just an entire news story about the subject's professional career and whether or not his business is trustworthy (they say yes)

• Colombia One: It doesn't seem like there is an interview here either, just an entire news story about his YouTube channel and personal life in Colombia

• There is also high-profile news coverage from BBC, CNBC, and CNN, among others, but these could be more interview-based.

Let me know what you think! Happy to find more information online, if needed. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Doctorstrange617: I've read what you have written, and I have some thoughts about it, but I would prefer to give myself time to check it out thoroughly before replying. If I haven't got back to you within 24 hours please feel free to prompt me if you like. JBW (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course. Whatever works best for you. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for page deletions + aid in the process

Greetings JBW. I have noticed that you were the admin that removed the speedy deletion templates from two controversial pages. I would like to ask you for aid in nominating Ćaci u školu and Ćaciland Protest Camp articles for deletion. The process of nominating pages for deletion is far more complicated on English Wikipedia than on local Serbian Wikipedia, so forgive me if I did not know the process as there are several pages for different forms of deletion requests. I never had the need to request page deletion on Wikipedia, but these examples take precedence. There are primarily made for discriminatory reasons by pro-protest editors and for further mocking of certain group of people, using unreliable bias sources such as social media and opposition media. The term Ćaci is also an offensive slur used by current Serbian protestors to mark anyone who is against the protests, not just members of current ruling party, to silence anyone with conflicting discussions that oppose their narrative, clear misuse of an encyclopedia site. They characterize anyone who is Ćaci as illiterate, uneducated, uninformed, exploitative, dirty, etc. showing clear discriminatory used of the term itself. The term was also a railing call used for direct physical harassment, mob lynching, and death towards people, as showcased during several protests and rallies. The origin of the term wasn't even objectively stated in the article, using pro-protest sources to claim and speculate who made the graffiti, further spreading misinformation and escalating social conflicts. Ćaciland Protest Camp was deleted in its original Serbian Wikipedia (as Serbian editors are far more familiar with events occurring in the country and where the information comes from) for its lack of relevance (WP:N), non-neutrality (WP:NPOV), unreliable sources (WP:RS) and Serbian version of Ćaci u školu is in the works to be deleted for the same reasons. This policy should also be considered on the English Wikipedia version of these articles, since the articles are just a word-for-word translated form of the original Serbian ones. If you want numerous sources for my claims, I would gladly offer them for in a second reply. Hopefully you are understanding and considerate enough in aiding of the removal of these pages, as they have no encyclopedia worth that was not already stated on the main Student Protests article. The Wikipedia should not be a place for political clashes, spreading misinformation, violence and discrimination. Thank you in advanced for your time and reply. – Nickpunk (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nickpunk: The deletion processes on English Wikipedia can certainly be confusing for a new editor. I remember that the first few times I took articles to deletion discussions I found it horrendously confusing, but eventually I found there's an automated way to do it, which makes it much easier. I will tell you how you can nominate these articles for deletion if you wish to, but before that I will make some comments about your reasons for wanting deletion, and about some other aspects of what you have said here.

• In the reasons you gave for requesting speedy deletion you said "Page was made for discriminatory purposes and continued mockery of an entire group of people". That is a serious accusation against Mmns21, who created the articles. If that is true then it was done in a very subtle way, because it isn't at all obvious to me that the original versions of the articles, as created by Mmns21, were mocking anyone. The article Ćaciland Protest Camp, in the section Origin of the name "Ćaciland", said then, and still says now, "Opponents of the gathering in Pioneer Park used this name to mock the 'Students 2.0' group, calling them 'ćaci' (a derogatory term for students)"; it then goes on to say "On the other hand, participants in the park gathering..." and gives their point of view. That is reporting the fact that the people in question have been mocked; it is not mocking them. There may be something else in one or both of the articles, as created by Mmns21, which did constitute mockery; if so, it isn't immediately obvious. If you have clear evidence that Mmns21 intended the articles as mockery then state clearly what that evidence is; if not, then withdraw your accusation.
• Even if the articles were created with malicious intent, any consideration of whether they should be deleted will hinge on what the articles are like, not on what thoughts the creator of the articles had at the time of creation. If you believe that current content of the articles mocks people and spreads misinformation, as you said in your speedy deletion nominations, then say what aspect of the current content does those two things, so that they may be corrected. Deletion will be appropriate only if there are problems which can't be put right by editing the articles; misinformation and mockery can, and should, be removed.
• It is impossible for me to know, but I wonder whether you may be making the remarkably common mistake of confusing reference to a term with use of that term. Using the word "Ćaci" as a derogatory and mocking term may well be considered unacceptable. However, that does not mean that reporting the fact that the word "Ćaci" is used as a derogatory and mocking term is unacceptable. The fact that a term is used in an offensive way does not mean that we should not report or record the fact that it is used in an offensive way; indeed, you have done exactly that yourself, above, where you said "The term Ćaci is also an offensive slur used by current Serbian protestors". You have said above "The term was also a railing call used for direct physical harassment, mob lynching, and death towards people, as showcased during several protests and rallies"; if so it is legitimate to report the fact that it has been so used. Refusing to mention that something exists because it is unpleasant or bad is not the way that English Wikipedia works.

In view of what I have said, I do not think there is any realistic chance whatever of the articles being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion on the basis of the reasons you have given, so I think that if you take them there it is almost certain that you will just be wasting your own time and that of anyone else who participates in the process. I therefore advise you not to do so. However, if despite that advice, you still wish to do so, here is the easiest way to do it.

• If you have not done so already, enable Twinkle in your preferences. (If you don't already know, assuming you use the appalling default interface, called "Vector (2022)", instead of a decent interface, you get to the preferences page via a drop down list from the little icon of a person's head and shoulders in the top right of the screen. Twinkle is on the "Gadgets" tab.)
• Once Twinkle is enabled, to nominate an article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, go to that article, click on the link near the top of the page that says "xfd", and go on from there. JBW (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hello JBW,

  Thank you very much for your detailed and thoughtful response regarding the deletion request for the articles Ćaci u školu and Ćaciland Protest Camp. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the nuances of English Wikipedia's deletion processes and for your clear-headed analysis of the situation. Your insights are incredibly helpful.

  I completely agree with your assessment. The request for deletion appears to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of core Wikipedia principles, particularly the distinction between using a term and reporting on its use. As you correctly pointed out, "Refusing to mention that something exists because it is unpleasant or bad is not the way that English Wikipedia works." My goal in creating these articles was to document significant and well-covered socio-political phenomena in Serbia, adhering strictly to Wikipedia's policies to produce high-quality content. I took great care to ensure the articles were well-structured and accurate.

  I was very careful in my approach, aiming to use a wide variety of original sources to ensure transparency, a practice I value highly. The user's claims that the articles were made for "discriminatory purposes" or use "unreliable sources" are unfounded. I took great care to ensure the articles comply with all relevant guidelines, a point I also argued on Serbian Wikipedia. Below is a summary of my reasoning, which aligns with your analysis and refutes the claims made in the deletion request:

  Compliance with Wikipedia policies (based on my analysis for the Serbian Wikipedia discussion)

  • Encyclopedic Notability: The phenomena have received significant, sustained coverage in numerous reliable, independent sources, both domestic and international (e.g., Danas, Vreme, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Balkan Insight). They have also been the subject of academic analysis and have entered the public discourse. This clearly meets the General Notability Guideline.
  • Neutral Point of View: The articles do not endorse or engage in mockery. They explicitly state that terms like "ćaci" are used in a derogatory or satirical manner by certain groups and present multiple perspectives. For example, the Ćaciland article explains how opponents used the name to mock the group, but it also presents the viewpoint of the participants, who denied political labels and stated their goal was the right to education. The goal is to document the conflict, not to take a side in it.
  • Verifiability and Reliable Sources: The articles are built on a foundation of high-quality sources, including reports from research organizations (like the Heinrich Böll Foundation and CeSPI) and reputable news media. Social media is only referenced to illustrate the viral nature of the phenomenon, not as a source for primary factual claims, which is a standard encyclopedic practice. The accusation of relying on "opposition media" is a mischaracterization; the articles use a wide spectrum of sources to ensure a balanced view.
  • No Original Research: All claims in the articles are directly attributed to the cited sources. The articles synthesize existing, published information, which is precisely the purpose of an encyclopedia.
  • Justification for separate articles: Both "Ćaci u školu" and "Ćaciland" are distinct phenomena with enough depth, media coverage, and social impact to warrant their own articles. The graffiti itself became a historical and cultural touchpoint, while the protest camp was a significant event with its own timeline, participants, and consequences. Merging them into a single protest article would lose this important nuance and detail.

  Regarding the deletion of the "Ćaciland" article on Serbian Wikipedia, I believe that decision was a result of interested editors disregarding the fact that the article met all policy requirements. An independent project like English Wikipedia should not be bound by a local decision that was, in my view, procedurally flawed.

  For additional context, and to show that my approach has been consistent, here are the translated versions of my two main arguments from the deletion discussion on Serbian Wikipedia. I believe they illustrate that the article was created in good faith and in full compliance with encyclopedic standards:

  My response to the 'Complexity of this article!?' section

  "Dear all, I wish to express my position on this matter. I am not biased towards any side. I happened to notice that the previous article was deleted and informed the administration about it. I do not usually get involved in local discussions, as I believe the community of editors will eventually find a solution to the problems on Serbian Wikipedia.

  When the article was first deleted, I got the impression that the rules were not fully respected; the article could have been corrected and edited, so I proposed a version that, in my opinion, complies with all regulations. As the creation of the article was blocked, more relevant works on this topic were published in the meantime. This helped me create a relevant article. I was very careful to adhere to all Wikipedia rules. I believe this article should exist, and if any changes have been made that are not in line with the rules, those changes can be reverted.

  • Encyclopedic Value of Detailed Analysis: The complexity and detail of the article are not a flaw but, on the contrary, contribute to its encyclopedic value. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of a phenomenon with significant social and political impact.
  • Scientific Approach as an Advantage: Expert linguistic interpretations and theoretical frameworks are not a weakness of the article but its strength, as they elevate the quality of the analysis beyond everyday media reports.
  • Timeliness and Documentary Value: Although it concerns a current event, the article has documentary value because it records a significant socio-political phenomenon in real-time.
  • Neutrality and Balance: The article is written in accordance with the principle of a neutral point of view because it presents different interpretations of the phenomenon.
  • Comparative Value: The argument that the article is 'part of a propaganda idea' because it exists in multiple languages can be refuted by the fact that multilingualism is an advantage of Wikipedia as a global project.

  Conclusion

  Instead of shortening or deleting the article, a better solution would be to potentially improve its structure for easier navigation, add a summary at the beginning for readers who only want basic information, and continue documenting the development of the phenomenon while maintaining a neutral perspective."

  Statement on compliance with Wikipedia rules for the article version of May 10, 2025

  • Encyclopedic Notability: The article meets the criteria for encyclopedic notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. There is significant media and academic coverage, and the term has entered public discourse.
  • Neutrality (NPOV): The article largely respects the principle of a neutral point of view by presenting different perspectives and citing both critical and affirmative views.
  • Verifiable Sources (WP:RS): The article uses diverse and relevant sources, including academic papers, public opinion research, and media reports.
  • Original Research (WP:OR): The article does not present original research; all key claims are supported by references and analyses are taken from cited works.
  • Offensive Content: The article does not promote offensive content. It presents the controversial term in a neutral, descriptive manner and includes critical analysis of its use.
  • Justification for a Separate Article: There is a justified basis for a separate article because the phenomenon has sufficient media and academic coverage, significant social and political impact, and is documented in multiple independent sources.

  Conclusion

  The article "Ćaciland" meets Wikipedia's criteria for encyclopedic notability, neutrality, verifiable sources, and does not constitute original research. Although the topic is politically sensitive, the article is written in a way that presents different perspectives and avoids one-sidedness.

  Thank you again for your guidance and for upholding Wikipedia's principles. This whole process has been a learning experience, and I've aimed to refactor my approach to align with best practices. Your response has been very reassuring.

  Best regards, Mmns21 (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

"Ko je 'Ćaci' i kakve veze ima sa studentskim protestima u Srbiji". BBC News na srpskom. 2025-01-23. Retrieved 2025-06-13.

"Ćaci u školu". Wikipedia. 2025-06-04. Retrieved 2025-06-13.

"Unusual inscription appears at Jovan Jovanović Zmaj Gymnasium: 'Ćaci u školu'" (in Serbian). Danas. January 23, 2025. Retrieved May 1, 2025.

"Ćaci i kultura: Novi fenomen u srpskom društvu" (in Serbian). Vreme. January 30, 2025. Retrieved May 1, 2025.

"Could Serbia's student protests bring down the government?". Deutsche Welle. 2025-03-14. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"From blockades to ballots: Serbian students confront government". France 24. 2025-05-09. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"Student Protesters Demand Snap Elections to Counter Corruption in Serbia". Balkan Insight. 2025-05-06. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

""Vijesti" in Belgrade: Students ask "students who want to study" to leave Pioneer Park". vijesti.me. Vijesti. 2025-03-14. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"Tihi heroji beogradskih prosvjeda: Kako su studentski redari satima držali pod kontrolom tisuće ljudi". Tportal. 2025-03-16. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"Will Serbia's Protest Movement Lead to a Democratic Beginning?". Heinrich Böll Foundation. 2025-03-13. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"Student Protests in Serbia" (PDF). CeSPI. 2025-04-01. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"It served its purpose: "Ćaciland" is gone, garbage remains". Vreme. 2025-03-17. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"The Mystery of the White Tents: Xaciland Expands". Vreme. 2025-04-15. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"What happens when students unite for justice: The pulse of Serbian protests". University of Padua - Human Rights Centre. 2025-02-27. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

"Serbia prepares for a historic protest on Saturday, fears rise about government-provoked violence". European Western Balkans. 2025-03-14. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

Mmns21 (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

User:ElectronicRub900

Hi. Is User:ElectronicRub900 also User:PAustin4thApril1980? Same edits to articles Judith Barsi and similar articles of murdered children (Murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett). Both have edited Lucy Van Pelt. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)