User talk:Darknipples

Say Hello

A useful link Wikipedia:Template index or two weight_inline undue inline weasel inline

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.

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.

Mary Rosh

"No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"

Need help

Hello. I am trying to figure out why you moved "Nazi Gun Control argument" to an article talk page. Your comment says "This section is completely unsuitable here." So are you saying that it doesn't belong in the "Disarmament of the German Jews" article? I am not contesting this action. I am only trying to understand it. I think the whole merge was botched in the first place. What should happen with this section? Does it need further editing? I am pinging 3000 who concurred with you on the talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I may have been a bit overzealous in putting the whole section on the talk page, I just wanted it to be very clear why it was poorly implemented. The section on took up waaaayyy too much space without the necessary WEIGHT, especially for a FRINGE theory, and ended up making the article into an obvious WP:COAT. The addition to the article was initiated by a well known SOCK that had spent years pushing POV changes to multiple political articles across Wikipedia. Unfortunately, certain legitimate editors seemed to encourage their behavior and went along with their misinterpretation of policies, however, local editors at the Disarmament of the German Jews and I agreed that it was detrimental. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response. Before the AfD, which had the endgame of merge, was the former Wikipedia article "Nazi Gun Control argument" a fringe theory? Or is that what it became after the merge to "Disarmament of the German Jews"? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see what you mean. Thanks again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

OK then, sorry I didn't address your earlier questions more directly. The section could be improved, and I'm happy to hear any suggestions you have there. Just for future reference, here are links to the Iljhgtn's 2 consecutive AfD initiations from the September 2025 archive.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi gun control argument: Revision history
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi gun control argument (2nd nomination): Revision history

Cheers. DN (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, another quick clarification, I don't recall being the one that moved that section to the talk page, but I was firmly against it's inclusion and agreed with the change. I believe that was done by Scope creep

Sorry for any confusion on that, I have trouble remembering what I did last month, let alone November of 2025.

Cheers. DN (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello DN. I don't have an opinion on the quality of the section as it is. I would need to analyze it further to make some kind of assessment. This section seems to have been involved in promoting some POV issues (see Statement by Drmies). Those issues are the source of my original interest in this former Wikipedia page, and, now, talk page section. I can't see reinserting this into the "Disarmament of the German Jews" article based on your above response.

After I originally posted here, I guessed that it was not you who placed this on the talk page. But it is a net positive that three editors share similar opinions about this section. You also have my support for this placement onto the talk page. I might return to make suggestions as per your invitation. Thanks very much for your detailed responses to my query. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

After giving this matter further thought, I am thinking, perhaps I should have told you right away why I was interested in this section. Sorry that I didn't do that. It either didn't occur to me, or I found it difficult to articulate at the time. In my defense, it is difficult and emotionally challenging to follow the edits of a sock editor. To me, this sock was is particularly infuriating. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello again. Please don't archive this discussion just yet. Some of the Arbiters might be taking a look at this thread. It might be related to the current ARBCOM case. I will keep you informed. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I have paused my auto-archive. Cheers DN (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for pausing your auto-archive. Feel free to go ahead and archive the page if you wish. The evidence phase is over. I am interested in resurrecting "Nazi gun control argument" article again. What do you think of this idea? ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not as sure as I was originally, but I would support it. Having a single sentence about it on the disarmament page appears to be stable enough, but the standalone version was a bit of a troll-magnet, Iljhgtn's case in point. This in turn helps to keep the trolls busy with low hanging fruit. Still, it's important to listen to what the community wants. Thank you for asking. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree about it being a troll magnet. I wasn't aware of such things happening in the Gun Control space until this ARBCOM. So, I am looking at - would it be worth it? I am also thinking of doing an RFC asking the community if this topic is notable to ensure a more dynamic input - than what happened with the AfDs. Have you heard of this type of thing - where the community is asked about the notability of a topic, specifically to resurrect a page? I don't think I have encountered such an RFC. So the idea may sound odd. And it may be more trouble than it is worth. So, these are things I am also considering. Or it may be, the best course of action, is to let dead dogs lie. I am sure this gun advocate's fringe theory is widely available outside of Wikipedia. So, really - does it matter if we have a page? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

And thanks for your thoughts on the matter. It is really appreciated. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe it only matters if the community agrees that it does, the important thing is that there are editors like you around to ask and answer these questions. If you have other WP projects that feed your passions, I think it's safe to let it go for now. DN (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I think I am going to drop this and go back to topics that I was editing before the ANI and ARBCOM Gun control 2 ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Removal of “Modern” from description of Modern Liberalism

Recently, you removed my clarification of the description Liberalism as Modern Liberalism. Seeing as the source refers to it as Modern Liberalism and the Wikipedia article the link goes to does as well, I don’t understand why adding the word “modern” was at all controversial. You also removed the description of a left-wing faction from the infobox. I’m not sure why you did that either. Now, rather than saying only that it is a center to center-left party, it is clarified that while it is primarily a center to center-left party, there is a smaller left-wing faction. I think that is appropriate, and struggle to see why someone else wouldn’t. No one in the talk page seems to deny that people such as AOC and Mamdani are left-wing figures. Yavneh (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

And yes, this time I decided against listing it as minor. Yavneh (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out which edit, so that I know what specific article and change you are referring to? Cheers. DN (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, this type of question may be more appropriate on said article talk page, not my user talk page. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the issue . This edit included only the Left wing faction and no others, which is extremely misleading (see my edit summary). I am fine with restoring the "Modern" addition. DN (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It characterized the left-wing as a faction, as opposed to the mainstream center to center-left, as is common on Wikipedia. In fact, on the same page, Progressivism is listed as a faction underneath Modern Liberalism. Yavneh (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I see your point that saying Factions does not clearly imply it to be smaller than the other designations, so I changed that to “smaller factions.” Yavneh (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page, and stop using my personal talk page in regard to this matter. I would also say this new change you are suggesting requires local & or community consensus, so making you argument here is not helpful as I am not the only editor you should discuss this with. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

TDE

Sources

• "Economic theory holding that if a government provides benefits to big business and tax breaks to the wealthy and investors, those benefits eventually filter down to the lower classes. Proponents of the trickle-down theory contend that economic gains by the wealthy (such as tax cuts) result in investment or purchases that ultimately result in more jobs for the middle and lower classes by creating economic growth that increases demand for goods and stimulates production. In contrast, they contend, increases in tax rates initially produce more revenue, encourage savings, and stimulate investments but ultimately hinder production and decrease revenues in business. EBSCO
• "The origins of trickle-down can be traced back to William Jennings Bryan, but his phrasing - “leak through” - didn’t really catch on. Through the years the same basic idea has also been known variously as “supply-side economics” and “Reaganomics”. Critics of trickle-down policies haven’t overlooked the fact that giving the rich a helping hand may yield political benefits for the politicians offering that help. Since Reagan’s time, trickle-down economics has been derided by other politicians as “voodoo economics” and as “the rich pissing on the poor.” The broad idea of trickle-down economics is that giving economic help to companies or people at the top of society should, through one of various possible mechanisms, generate benefits for those in layers further down. The Conversation
• "Since the election of President Trump, the biggest legislative achievement was undoubtedly the $1.5 trillion dollar Tax Cut and Jobs Act, passed at the end of 2017"..."The tax bill evidences the legislative vision of the Trump administration. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act marks a clear return to the “trickle down” policies or better yet, “voodoo economics”. University of Illinois
• " " The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 64, Issue 2, April 1997
• "The message of the IMF report is clear: Income and wealth inequality isn’t a class problem, but a national issue. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” the authors of the report write. “The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels.” While disciples of Reaganomics may be clenching their fists, Will Rogers is probably laughing from the grave." Pacific Standard
• "The idea of “trickle-down” originated from political debates to describe the economic policies of a party or politician. There was never a formal concept of “trickle-down economics” in the sense of economic theory. The term-of-art was used to describe policies that directly benefited to rich but were justified by arguments they would ultimately also benefit the middle class and poor. In fact, the term was not originally used by those advocating for such policies, but as a critique of the political discourse promoting such policies. While the term “trickle-down” was not used by William Jennings Bryan in his 1896 speech as he was running for president, the rhetoric was present in the introductory quote above. The term was first introduced by humorist and vaudville performer Will Rogers in a column critiquing then-President Herbert Hoover’s economic policies, also quoted above." Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 39, Issue 3, Autumn 2023 & columbia law - first draft

DN (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

True Texas project

https://www.texasobserver.org/american-stewards-liberty-conservation/

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/13/true-texas-project-christian-nationalism/

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/06/12/true-texas-project-conference-christian-nationalism/

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article259725010.html

https://americanstewards.us/true-texas-project/

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/272998683

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/04/kari-lake-addressed-the-true-texas-project-an-extremist-group/72764174007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z1127xxe1127xxv000041&gca-ft=178&gca-ds=sophi

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/ted-cruz-maintains-ties-to-right-wing-group-despite-its-extremist-messaging/2021/04/23/64387376-8e58-11eb-aff6-4f720ca2d479_story.html

• https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/23/defend-texas-liberty-nick-fuentes-jonathan-stickland/

https://www.texasobserver.org/the-gop-primary-for-governor-is-a-contest-of-extremism/

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/nearly-100-extremist-groups-operate-in-texas-heres-the-list-21462538/

https://fortworthreport.org/2025/08/04/texas-pastors-poised-to-wield-political-power-after-irs-says-churches-can-endorse-candidates/

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/True-Texas-Project-Houston-VFW-Jeopardy-night-17225508.php

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/true-texas-project-conference-chaos-b2562788.html

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/war-on-white-america-influential-texas-group-hosting-pro-christian-nationalism-conference-34789192/

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/election/2026/article/comptroller-primary-results-21329222.php DN (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass shootings

https://time.com/5668471/gun-violence-background-checks-odess-mass-shooting/

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6459a927-26ec-4d25-8aea-058e2eedb018/files/r7p88cg945

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/fact-check-mass-shootings-gun-laws.html

https://time.com/5668471/gun-violence-background-checks-odess-mass-shooting/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-proposes-eliminating-gun-show-loophole-regulation-rcna102800

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/04/upshot/mass-shooting-gun-laws.html

https://abcnews.com/US/gun-loophole-allowed-west-texas-mass-shooting-suspect/story?id=65363861

https://apnews.com/mass-shooters-exploited-gun-laws-loopholes-before-carnage-6ba30f601233ed7aa3d49a3c76c026ed

https://jied.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/jied.146

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/06/highland-park-shooting-gun-law-loopholes

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/gun-show-loophole

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html DN (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC) DN (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Signpost mention

Hello, You are mentioned in an upcoming signpost piece. You are welcome to submit a comment either by emailing me or in the newsroom. Publication is scheudeld for the 13th. Czarking0 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2026 (UTC)