User talk:June Parker

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

March 2022

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, False accusation of rape, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Binksternet:, please go to the talk page in False accusation of rape because I am already discussing this with another user. And we both concluded the first sentence is not accurate to the sources provided. June Parker (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, June Parker, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Denny article

see WP:CITELEAD. In the article it's in the Attack section, last sentence of first paragraph. Discussions should be held in the article's talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why tell me to have a discussion in the talk page when you weren't willing to do that in the first place?

Elsewhere in the article, the first paragraph of the Aftermath section, says the victim rejected the idea the attack was an anti-white hate crime, as did some sources which called into question whether the attack was an anti-white attack or just a case of a vulnerable man being attacked. But if you want to insist all forms of anti-police brutality, anti-imperialism, and interracial crime is inheritly anti-white I can't help you. June Parker (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Melissa King assault case that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Don’t do this please. Even if you’re right, this can get you into trouble. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Well the issue is that they are not only hostile, but not right either. Sources don't need to specifically mention Haole day for it to be included in a See also section, it's because it's a similar concept that makes it relevant to what is discussed on the Melissa King article regardless of how verified it is. June Parker seems to be to be on a crusade to remove claims of racism directed at white people and whitewash controversial South African groups and politicians, seems like a single purpose account to me given that the only other couple or so edits are about video games. Removing relevant categories from articles is also strange. It's also interesting how they show up on the article at the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least. Either way June Parker I'd appreciate if you would assume good faith next time instead of getting flustered straight away. TylerBurden (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I wasn't implying they were right, just saying you can't use being right as an excuse for bad behaviour. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for letting them know that's not how we operate here. Altough like I mentioned I feel like there might be reason to believe they should already know that. Just wanted to give my reasoning and observations. TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: @TylerBurden: Hello, I assure you I am no one’s sock puppet and I don’t appreciate either of you demanding I assume good faith when you refuse to do the same.

The reason I am removing categories to do with white racism from pages that do not have any sources that suggest or prove that the act of attack was done specifically to target white people, there are plenty I have left because after reading the sources it was clear to me it was white racism, but a large majority of articles with that category appear to have been pasted sloppily without any sources to back the claim up or consideration for the contents of the article, or using decrepit and opinion based sources that don’t meet Wikipedia's standards.

If it helps you I also made upwards of 100+ edits clearing out citations to the website TV Tropes as, again, it doesn’t meet Wikipedias standards for sources and should only be used if another source references it. But years before that I’ve made consistent edits on Comic Book characters and video games (Including a failed attempt to add a bit of information in the Among Us development section as well as adding an image of Ultimatum in Miles Morales. Feel free to do any deep scrub on me that you need to prove what I’m saying since apparently I’m untrustworthy. June Parker (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

How have we not assumed good faith? Do you equate reverting your edits, and warning you for uncivil comments to assuming bad faith? Because I can guarantee neither was. You on the other hand calling me a ″liar″ in a hostile edit summary is not assuming good faith. If you are not a sock, or related to Desertambition, great. It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing. I'm not accusing you of being a sock for sure, I'm just saying I did find it a bit suspiscious but that's literally it. I've not opened an investigation against you and I don't find that to be necessary right now. Hopefully we're both trying to do the right thing here, so we can probably work things out, but please try to follow Wikipedia policy because not doing so will only get you in trouble. TylerBurden (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I equate assuming I'm a sock puppet and threatening me on that basis, while simultaniously deriding me for my behavior (Whether you are right or wrong on the latter) as bad faith.

I understand you're angry about me calling you a liar in an edit summary but I am objectivly correct, as you yourself said. None of the sources in that page add weight to the idea that the victim was attacked solely for being white, by angry black girls who hate white girls. The sources say she was attacked due to a personal vendetta and that there was an effort to mispresent the attack as a race issue. The catagory dubbing it a racially motivated attack would imply that it is fact, not an opinion as the sources say it is.

And you are now, backhandidly, still insisting I'm a sock puppet with "It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing.". This is a bad faith accusation, I won't claim that I havent done anything similar but it's weird that you want to demand respect that you refuse to give. June Parker (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the sockpuppet suspicion, I can admit I was probably being overly suspicious there. I don't understand how me explaining why that suspicion came about is bad faith and backhandidly insisting. It is pretty evident you are convinced I'm just out to get you, and I can understand why my suspicion frustrated you. However I'm not, but if you bite you'll have to accept the consequenses because edit summaries like that do no one any good. I have never said you are objectively correct at all, no idea where you are getting some of the stuff you are saying from, but it's not from me. TylerBurden (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You didn't "Explain" your suspician, you feinted an apology and accused me again. I think it's clear the reason you're so hung up about me being a sock and harrasing me on my own talk page is because, in your world, no one could possibly be smart enough to see the amount of bad faith labeling of "Black supremacist" attacks and "Anti-white crusades" some mouth breather spread on Wikipedia except for Desertambition, who I can see now you have an irrational grudge against.

I may as well accuse you of being Doug's sock because of your supiciously hand-wavey conversation you had on my talk page. Again, please follow your own advice and cease with your sly hostility, since you are obviously passionate about the white genocide myth. June Parker (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

More personal attacks, and false accusations. It's evident that this is impossible to discuss with you in a civil manner, and I honestly think your behaviour is intolerable. TylerBurden (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See my response in the section below, which you decided to intrude upon btw. June Parker (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for explaining myself when someone is insuniating me to be doing something that I am not doing. TylerBurden (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hey June Parker,

Just wanted to offer some friendly advice and say to be very careful when talking about racism on Wikipedia because it's clear some users want you blocked. It is true that some editors are here in bad faith and make edits that are against sources/clearly pushing a POV. Sometimes you're wrong or they're just arguing in good faith trying to follow the sources. However, there are many times where it's clear an article is poorly written, pushing an agenda, and has an editor or group of editors arguing in bad faith to defend it. Admins do not like taking action against racists/"civil POV pushers" (WP:SEALION is a good essay about it). I have seen multiple instances of racists being given so-called "topic bans" instead of indefinite bans or ignored altogether. Calling someone "racist" is almost as bad as racial slurs to some Wikipedia users/admins. They often require people to assume good faith past the point of absurdity.

Also, users frequently accuse others of being socks without evidence like the user above did. That's against the rules but there are rarely consequences. I got pretty frustrated and it seems like you're getting a bit frustrated as well. Just try to ignore it and edit to the best of your ability. If there are contentious edits, start a discussion on the article's talk page (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS) and try to build consensus using reliable sources (WP:RSP for a list of some). Remember not to break the WP:3RR, which means no more than 3 reverts on an article within a 24 hour period. Try not to get discouraged :)

Relevant section from WP:PEARLCLUTCHING:

"Pearl-clutching is very similar to tone policing, a form of anti-debate tactic intended to distract from the main point of the discussion. It can be compared to taking a dive. You aren't really hurt, but in order to provoke a reaction from the official, you act like you are. With pearl-clutching, one acts like a comment is overtly egregious in order to persuade others into thinking the comment was bad-faith or malicious, with no regard for accurate representation of the original comment. The goal is to undermine the original poster of the comment by accusing them of incivility, when incivility is typically the least of concern in the matter at hand, as pearl-clutching is often induced as a last-ditch effort by POV-pushers to gain ground when they are being shut down.

Pearl-clutching comes in many forms, and is typically easily identifiable because the pearl-clutcher's claims are usually a stretch at best. Pearl-clutchers are almost always POV-pushers or those wanting to aide a POV-pusher's argument, but it is sometimes just about grandstanding."

TL;DR: Editors are WP:PEARLCLUTCHING, ignore that. Try to build consensus and don't break the WP:3RR.

Good luck and be careful! Desertambition (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but those same users are accusing me of being your sock puppet so I would advice against being on my talk page unless someone summons you. I understand I summoned you tbh so I'll be more careful. Can you tell me who specifically wants me blocked? June Parker (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to me but I don't want you blocked, like I said I think we could work out a solution since most likely, we're both trying to do the right thing here. Asking you to follow Wikipedia policy is kind of the opposite of trying to get you blocked. Desertambition has a history of accusing editors of being racist, POV pushers who try to get opposition blocked. I hardly edit in this area at all and have only seen them on ANI for my own threads there, but them trying to put me in that group over our content dispute is not something I think you should take seriously. Keep in mind I also never accused you of being a sock, I said I was suspiscious. Not sure why everything has to get so escalated. TylerBurden (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You did accuse me of being a sock. Multiple times. Across multiple pages.

Desertambition has a history of accusing editors of being racist, POV pushers who try to get opposition blocked.

Is this not exactly what you are trying to do to me? I'm opposition to you, and you keep threatening me with a block I'm not even sure you havr the authority to dole out. June Parker (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What? You are the only one bringing up sockpuppetry on that article, based on my comments here. At this point you're lying. When have I threatened to block you, let alone kept threatening to block you? This is honestly ridiculous, you seem to be making up things on the go despite all my attempts to solve the dispute. More false accusations and I don't know what else to do than take this to ANI, that's not a threat, but it's the only solution I'm starting to see at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No need, I'll gladly end this conversation that you started since I am bothering you so much. I already resolved to stop reverting the Melissa King assault case page yet you are still pestering me. June Parker (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I wrote this reply before seeing your response up above, which frankly had disgusting assumptions. You're refusing to be civil still, so I will be raising this. TylerBurden (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for continuing to pester you, as you call it, but what do you mean you summoned Desertambition? I see no ping, so they just stumbled across your talk page, or how did you summon them? TylerBurden (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That was my mistake, I pinged them in the Melissa King assault case page and had a brain fart, then assumed I pinged them here. They stumbled on my talk page the same way you "Stumbled" on my talk page. Both of you are very heated about the topic of white genocide, whether it's real or fake, and anyone who doesn't agree with you damn well better or else.

I know I said I would end the conversation but your threats and suggestions are getting ridiculous. June Parker (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for answering. I don't understand why you keep bringing up white genocide conspiracy theory, when the topic is unrelated and I personally have no interest in it. But apparently you've made up your mind that I am obsessed with it, so think what you will I suppose. Can always have a look on my edit history and see if it's true, though, rather than just make false accusations. TylerBurden (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am still perplexed on how you keep talking to me about being civil when you have repeatedly assumed me to be an alt account merely because we have a dispute going on. I can't force you off my talk page but just remember you're the one who initiated this conversation and opened up with these weird accusations. I really should end the conversation myself. June Parker (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I raised suspicion, once. That's literally it, you not being able to back up anything with proof proves that. You can keep falsely accusing me of assuming you're a sock, when all I did was make an observation, never directly accusing you. But you're obviously not willing to let that go and accept it for what it was, despite me even apologizing. If you don't want me to respond, then I would say stop lying to me and make false accusations about me because when you do these things I feel I have every right to defend myself against them. TylerBurden (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You have, you accused me of being a sock multiple times on this talk page alone, and now you are backpedaling.

It's also interesting how they show up on the article at the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least.

"It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing."

Again, feel free to talk to yourself on my talk page but you can't just accuse someone of something like that, deny it, and then act like I'm the one being hostile. June Parker (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Accusing you of being a sockpuppet would be saying June Parker is a sockpuppet, not making observations about edit behaviour and timing. One is an accusation, the other one is suspiscion. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that, this notion that I'm backpedaling is also false. I still wouldn't be surprised if you're more related to Desertambition than you're letting on, but that is not something I am going to accuse you of being with certainty, because I don't do that without feeling sure about it which I do not. You say that you're not a sock, I'd hope that's not something you'd lie about. You are not willing to accept an apology for quickly becoming suspiscious, and that's ok, nothing else needs to be said on that and continuing with these false accusations is not doing you any good. TylerBurden (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox categories

You either use a colon (like this: Category:Wikipedia) or you merge them into the template {{draft categories}}. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that helped. June Parker (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Category at Robert Mugabe

Hello. I just reverted your removal of the category Category:Anti-white racism in Africa. The lead says "Critics accused Mugabe of being a dictator responsible for economic mismanagement and widespread corruption and human rights abuses, including anti-white racism and crimes against humanity." which means that there are some people think it is true with sufficient references to support a statement that "critics say...", and that statement is on a GA which means that there has been some level of review so a discussion of the appropriateness of the category on the talk page to get a consensus would be a good starting point.

Can I also suggest that a edit summary of "It’s as if someone with an agenda against blacks people just started pasting this everywhere" may be seen by some as failing to assume good faith WP:AGF.

Gusfriend (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Recovering edit conflict message

This guide should help you out: WP:EC

TL;DR: If you leave the page after an edit conflict your edit is lost. If you scroll through the page when an edit conflict occurs there is both your submitted version and the current edited version. You can copy paste your changes into the newer version to merge. Hope that helps. Desertambition (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

your edits and comments

the talk page on Heard is not the place to discuss this but you flat out lied when you said you just changed an image. Here is the proof changing Zimmerman's ethnicity, adding an inappropriate category for an event to a BLP and your edits to the Kenosha unrest article. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

No shit dude. Right before your edit conflict distrupted the corrections I was trying to make to my message, I meant to correct my statement with "I merely added a category and copy-edited from an existing article" which is exactly what I did. I added categories to all 3 pages, and moved Trayvon's lead image to the bottom on "Teenage years" and replaced it with the original image from 2009, which was removed for some reason.

I was not aware a previous revision claimed Zimmerman was white, but is he not white already? I would not have changed what his race was without a source despite my personal opinion and experience, but why are you accusing me of bad faith over a simple category edit and a mistake that anyone with eyes could make? June Parker (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You literally added it yourself. It has nothing to do with prior revisions. Are you claiming you didn't make the edit? PRAXIDICAE💕 20:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know if you view a previous version of a page, and click "Edit source" you automatically rollback all edits made after the fact?

I tracked the old edit that removed the 2009 image and did my work from there. Like I said, I was not aware that edit also changed Zimmerman's race.

As for the Kenosha edits, that was also just a category addition. Not an alteration of the page's contents. Which was met with consensous and deemed good faith before being reverted, unlike you who is now axe grinding over a simple accident. June Parker (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So, you restored edits to that of a blocked sockmaster without actually checking the content? Sounds like the onus is still on you. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You just keep making accusation after accussation and shifting goalposts. Igala OmOnu is not currently blocked according to his userpage, but assuming you're referring to another account he may operate I was (Again) not aware. I don't understand how you expect me to figure that out without being told.

That edit was the newest version to contain the 2009 image and I did not want to go futher back as to accidentally scrub edits made by earlier users. It was the simplest solution to what I was trying to do. June Parker (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, your claim that all 3 pages were on your watch list is likely false. You've only ever had 1 edit on two of them [1][2], can't say the same about the third [3] but you made the next two edits within seconds of each other. Yet you want to accuse me of trying to push my own narrative? June Parker (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced or inappropriate OR

Please stop making unsourced edits or inappropriate original research. When changing categories, please ensure they are defining characteristics. Cyberpunk 2077 is not an "Internet Meme". -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ferret: You shadowed 3 edits of mine, 1 adding a category [4] that was supported by two existing sources [5], one gramatical altercation and the removal of a source that did not add to the subject [6], and one which was actually the addition of a source to back up a pre-existing statement [7]

None of this is "Unsourced" or "Original research" June Parker (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nor was this message about those edits. -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Please stop making unsourced edits or inappropriate original research. When changing categories, please ensure they are defining characteristics. "

Which refers to my most recent edits to Invincible (TV series), Cyberpunk 2077, William Hahne, and Types of rapists. Only one of these edits had anything to do with what you accused me of.

The categories for Invincible fit because it is mentioned in the article that the show spawned a meme. "Film and Telivision Memes" do not cover the timeframe so both that and "Memes in 2021" need to exist.

And yes, sources need to be listed in RSP to be "Unreliable" to the point where you can remove it on the spot without consulting anyone. Check out the egrigious use of The Plain Dealer on Melissa King assault case for example, used to push the narrative that black kids routinely hunt down and beat up white kids on May 1st (Which I can't find shit about aside from Wikipedia)

Please finish talking to me here before you make your 3rd revert. I'm willing to hear you out if you just tell me why instead of accusing me of doing nonsense. June Parker (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually that’s not true. A lot of sources are clearly unreliable but not on RSP. And what is “shadowing”? Doug Weller talk 18:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Shitpost plagiarism chunks

Sorry to see you boxed up and misunderstood, tough break. Anyway, how big a stolen chunk are we talking and is any bit of it already attributed to the wrong guy? We don't need a reliable source to exclude bad info, we just need to know it's a meme/copy/forgery/fake/whatever. If it all seems on the level, cool, just remain vigilant. In any case, it was nice to meet you, June Parker. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What? What are you talking about? June Parker (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Buffalo shooting. You'd said Gendron ripped a bunch off from Tarrant's "manifesto". Are any of those parts the basis for anything in the article about Gendron? If so, they shouldn't be. They reflect another person's views and/or reasons. Sorry to confuse you. If you still don't understand, forget about it, nothing crucial. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean June Parker (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions that you don't understand? And obviously you should look at the top of the talk page of any related article that you edit to see if it has specific restrictions. I think you need to answer my question about what you mean by shadowing also, as if I'm right it's an accusation you need to avoid. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I get the feeling you know what I meant by "Shadowing". When it happens twice, followed by the same baseless bad faith accusations on my talk page and threats to stop notifying them of relevant disputes on theirs, while bothering me on mine, it's a fact not an accusation. And a commitment to misunderstanding. June Parker (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Only warning: BLP violations

WP:BLP still applies on talkpages, and it is plastered up and down on Talk:Buffalo supermarket shooting that it's a BLP violation to assume the guilt of the accused. If you make another comment alleging that a living person has committed crimes that they have not been convicted of and have not confessed to the underlying fact pattern for, you may be blocked from editing indefinitely. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you angry because I said “Murder”, because I said it was a hate crime, or because I said two condemned preteens (Emmett and Tamir) weren’t evil people?

According to reliable sources, as I said, the shooter admits via his livestream and manifesto to what is legally considered “Murder”, which is laying out a plan to kill a specific person or group of people, then carrying it out.

I didn’t make any baseless assumptions, and everyone else on the talk page is on the same page. No idea why I’m being singled out. June Parker (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent tendentious editing, violations of the policy on biographies of living people, battleground mentality, and failure to heed constructive criticism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Since you created this account, you have chosen to focus on the highly contentious topic of racism. This topic area requires the utmost care, delicacy, and diplomacy, but you have consistently sought out conflict and eschewed attempts at dispute resolution. Looking just at your last 48 hours of edits:

• You have been edit-warring at Emmett Till, including to downplay a living person's claim that she did not perjure herself.
• You've started a thread at Talk:Waukesha Christmas parade attack with the remark "I believe anyone insisting [this was racially motivated] is just a troll or hates black people." (To be clear, consensus is on your side with respect to racial motivation, but starting a discussion with such blatant hostility is incendiary.)
• You've referred to a living person as a murderer for a crime he has not been convicted of and, when I warned you to not do so, immediately did so again in response to the very warning (§ Only warning: BLP violations)

Growing pains are normal when editing in topic areas like this, but, looking at threads higher on this page, I see that you have consistently rejected advice on how to avoid conflict, often instead lashing out at those trying to help. In at least two cases (with MartinezMD in § Denny article and with me in the section above) you have gone as far as to straw-man the other person as a racist (But if you want to insist all forms of anti-police brutality, anti-imperialism, and interracial crime is inheritly anti-white I can't help you; Are you angry because I said “Murder”, because I said it was a hate crime, or because I said two condemned preteens (Emmett and Tamir) weren’t evil people?). When Doug Weller warned you for calling TylerBurden a liar in § April 2022, your response was to say that Doug was refusing to assume good faith and to ignore the matter of your own incivility. At Special:PermaLink/1087712910 § My talk page you argued with Praxidicae, ferret, and Drmies, all over something where, as Drmies said, all you needed to say was "Okay." And when ferret warned you in § Unsourced or inappropriate OR, you likewise immediately fought back and accused ferret of "shadowing" your edits.

I don't see any evidence that your attitude toward constructive criticism is improving. Rather, you seem to take all criticism as a personal attack to which you must respond in kind. This isn't Twitter. This is Wikipedia, a collaborative project to write an encyclopedia, where we address one another as we would address colleagues in a workplace. And where you perhaps see people ganging up to attack you, I see people being remarkably patient.

I fear this block will only feed into that narrative that everyone is out to get you, but indefinite is not infinite, and if you can see a path forward for yourself as a constructive contributor to this collaborative project, I'm open to hearing it. Although, I'll say now, if that path forward involves you continuing to edit about race or racism at all, I don't think I would support it. I would also need to hear that you understand WP:RS and WP:BLP and understand that the latter applies even to those accused of crimes or other misdeeds.

If this is where you and Wikipedia part ways, I wish you the best. You have a lot of passion, of a sort that fits in very well in many communities. Just maybe not this one, if you're not willing to temper it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame you felt the need to block me for calling someone who admitted to what is defined as murder a murderer, but I can see the problem when it comes to me editing BLP stuff. It just seems to bring out the worst in people. Maybe I should have stuck to pop culture.

I won't exactly deny much of what you say I'm doing, but I should clarify a few things. For one, my thread on Weukesha was opened up that way because that page has problems with editors trying to push a white genocide narrative where it does not. We can both agree on this. Obviously if I request to use sources insisting on the same narrative I would appear to be another one of those trolls, as you can see I was swiftly replied to by one of them. so I opened up stating my opinion to clear that up.

Second, this conversation where Doug first messaged me was between me and Tyler. Doug left the first message asking me to not do something and Tyler arrived accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Desertambition, dragging me into a pre-existing disbute they had.

Third, this has nothing to do with politics, but ferret's "Warning" on my pop culture edits were not accurate. As I had already explained to him, none of my edits were unsourced or original research, as they added categories, added sources to existing information, and cited sources for new info I added. If he had told me some of my sources were invalid (Like he chose to later on William Hahne) I would have understood his point better. He said the edits I laid out were not what he was talking to me about despite reverting those edits for the same reasons he messaged me.

And yes, this does feed what you call my "Narrative". Mainly this "Arguement", If you cannot see the problem with rapidly accusing me of things I did not do, swearing at me, and demanding I don't message on your talk page while at the same time bothering me on mine, days after Initially accusing me of pushing my own narrative when I merely added categories, I don't know what to say. And I don't understand where all those other users came from or what they had to do with Prax's request of me. Like you said, this is not twitter.

I may leave over this, which I doubt will bother you, but as you said, if you're willing to hear my out in the future, hopefully when my perspective on things may have changed, I may come back and request an unblock. For now though, farewell. I will not miss these ridiculous fights that were forced onto me. June Parker (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I am being mentioned here I feel the need to respond, June Parker is incorrect that I "arrived accusing June Parker of being a sockpuppet dragging them into a pre-existing dispute". First of all, there was no pre-existing dispute between me and Desertambition, that thread was the first time I ever interacted with them. The only reason I was familiar with them is that I had seen them both be reported and make reports on ANI several times and had read some of the threads. June Parker and Desertambition showed up at the same article at the same time pushing the same narrative, with June Parker appearing to be a new account, so while I never directly accused anyone of being a sockpuppet, I mistakenly expressed my suspicion to another editor which caused both Desertambition and June Parker to greatly pursue the narrative that I had directly accused them. Certainly in hindsight it more seems that Desertambition simply found another editor with the same goals and started following June Parker around, so my suspicion was incorrect and I even apologized to June Parker.

But I can see that June Parker still has the same view, and it is this stubbornness as well as general unpleasantness in the form of accusing editors they disagree with of all kinds of things without any foundation or basis at all that makes me not surprised to see this unfortunate end result. I found Tamzin's "This isn't Twitter. This is Wikipedia" to more or less sum up the problem, you seem to let your emotions get the better of you and start throwing nonsense at people the same way people do on that website, but that's (thankfully) not how Wikipedia works or otherwise there is no way it would function. You can't accuse someone of being a racist or conspiracy theorist just because you don't like their edits or arguments, it's all based on civility and consensus which I have also seen from you so you are capable of it, but you simply lost it too many times. That all being said I hold no ill will towards you personally, so farewell for now at least. TylerBurden (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tyler.

"June Parker and Desertambition showed up at the same article at the same time pushing the same narrative, with June Parker appearing to be a new account, [...] I mistakenly expressed my suspicion to another editor which caused both Desertambition and June Parker to greatly pursue the narrative that I had directly accused them. "

As I told you the first time, this is an accusation. You kept mentioning this everytime I explained we were two different people ([8] [9] [10] [11]). I did not take kindly to this as well as your repeated pushing of it. Desert was the one who took an interest upon me for some weird reason (As you can see by his pearl clutching essay, in reference to you, which is becoming more and more relevant now), so I still don't understand why you want to continue to hold on to the idea of me being someone else's sock puppet, even after we stopped thinking about it and agreed to speak to eachother respectfully. In absence of any serious apology, albiet I never really asked for, needed, or expected one.

Like you said, this isn't twitter. You cannot jump at me with a bad attitude and expect me to not take offense, or deny what you claim I am. Everything you said doesn't match up with your claims that you have no "Ill will" against me. If I ever decide to return, and if I am ever unblocked, I would appreciate if you did not insist on me being a sock puppet in the future.

I hope next time you message me it has nothing to do with politics, since I will leave that entire topic if I come back. June Parker (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what else to say other than that we clearly have two completely different views over what happened, but people can look into that history and see for themselves should they want to and make up their own minds about it. I do not see how I have directly accused you in the first place, let alone according to you seemingly have continued to do so even at this moment when I thought I made it clear I do not think you are a sock at all. Like I said I made a mistake voicing my suspicion, altough I would never directly accuse someone without evidence, that's what SPI is for, I tried to apologize for being hasty with that, as I do whenever I make a mistake asked to or not, but it evidently was not accepted and that's fine by me. That was water under the bridge to me until you decided to continue with it in response to your block, but I don't see why that would be a reason for us to stop communicating respectfully. I was not intending to message you at all again until I saw my name being dropped here, then of course I will need to explain myself. Either way, agree to disagree I suppose, there is no point in us repeating the same thing that was argued over and over at ANI as frankly it was a waste of time then and it is even more of a waste now. Let whomever stumbles across this look into it on their own if they want. TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, agree to disagree.

Hopefully next time you message me, or vice versa, we will talk about content in the Spider-Man PS5 (2023) article instead of African politics. June Parker (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Haha indeed, unfortunately, I do not have a PS5, altough those recent Spider Man games have tempted me to buy one. I do dabble in some video game editing from time to time though, so it would be a pleasure to encounter you there one day in a much more relaxed environment. Until then, take care and so long. TylerBurden (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I edited mostly video game and comic articles until recently when I was still an IP. In fact I got some guy to insert an image of Earth-616 Miles Morales in the article after I found one and put it on Wikimedia.

I know we keep saying farewell but this is actually relaxing. See you later, or in a few minutes. Your choice. Cheers June Parker (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Had to go off Wiki and didn't see that you had replied. But yea, I agree, it is always nice to have positive interactions, espescially with people you have had disagreements with in the past. An important reminder of the human being on the other end. I am confident that despite all the Wikipedia stuff, if we were to meet each other in real life and hangout we would likely get along well and have many things in common, already there is the mutual interest in video games. I think most of us on this site are trying to do the right thing, these clashes happen and you are not the only one that has struggled with handling them. I have to fight hard to contain myself from saying things I will regret sometimes as well encountering certain things, on the other hand editing in non controversial areas is a joy and feels very rewarding as you probably know from your video game and comic articles (altough those can also have some crazy disputes haha). I honestly wouldn't mind chatting more, but perhaps this talk page is not the best place for it. If you happen to have Discord or the like, you could email me if you want. TylerBurden (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Racially motivated violence against french people has been nominated for deletion

Category:Racially motivated violence against french people has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tilted Towers

Hello, June Parker. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tilted Towers, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

retired?

Blocked Indef is not "retirement." 50.111.40.79 (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, a blocked editor may use that template to indicate that they aren't going to appeal the block for the forseeable future. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sylens

Hello, June Parker. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sylens, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)