I don't believe that this specific issue warrants a separate page. If you believe that the information should be retained, then perhaps the best option is to merge it into Dreams from My Father.-Reconsider! 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that, but this is not a G10 speedy deletion. Lulaq (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Barack Obama substance abuse controversy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jmundo (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a repost and is currently a redirect to original material in Dreams from my Father which I will expand. Please use proper process for redirects potentially needing discussion. Lulaq (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here if you support or oppose deletion of the redirect WP:Redirects for discussion#Barack_Obama_substance abuse controversy. Lulaq (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:68.33.79.36, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The type of language you used is wholly unacceptable. Try using {{uw-vandalism}} and its variants instead of insulting the IP. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi. When you recently edited Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Today Show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change like article like you did here. If you do that again, you will be blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This happened a year and a half ago. I was drinking when I made this one edit. I knew at the time Mr. Bush had not passed away. It was wrong and I apologize for this. Lulaq (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jerry Buss. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow entering verifiably false information. If this is a coercive threat, as it appears to be, I will request arbitration for any type of bullying conduct. Lulaq (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No bullying was intended.

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/sports/basketball/jerry-buss-longtime-lakers-owner-is-dead-at-80.html

LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/sports/basketball/nba/lakers/la-me-jerry-buss-20130219,0,6996360.story Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg and CBS Sports say 79, and they have confirmed in private communications that they are accurate. Couple this with the firsthand source backing them up in Wyoming's paper and we have a real issue. Please tone down any accusations of bad faith or rule breaking in this matter and I'll promise to do the same. Thanks. Lulaq (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, my apologies for the templated warning. Let's add to the discussion at Talk:Jerry Buss. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Technopat. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Robin Hood plan because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Technopat (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My header is more professional than your header. Are you joking. Lulaq (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up your editing at ANI here — Ched :  ?  03:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lulaq: I noticed the ANI discussion and would like to record my thoughts. A corollorary of anyone can edit is that all sorts of people will edit, and patience is needed when dealing with problems. A good rule of thumb is to consider whether what you write in an edit summary would be suitable if addressed to a colleague at work, particularly knowing that several managers are watching. It is necessary to use moderation in such circumstances to avoid disruption because strongly expressed opinions lead to escalating back-and-forth exchanges that generate a lot of heat with no benefit. It is better to put energy into the underlying issue (the proposed change to the article), and ignore the possibilty that the other editor is misguided. Don't worry too much about the ANI report, but it would be highly desirable to be much more moderate in the future. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm A.amitkumar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act without properly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with a proper edit summary. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please try to maintain civility in your edit summaries, the article edit history is open to every one too and these kind of edit summaries don't show editors in good light. Thanks ! Amit (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at Talk: Chelsea Clinton. I think we can work this disagreement out. Tvoz/talk 07:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do! Lulaq (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George W. Bush military service controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lulaq, I've started a talk page discussion on the edits to the State Bar of Texas page. I've got some concerns about the section you've added that need to be discussed there. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning that you are edit-warring on the State Bar of Texas article. Your changes are not adequately sourced and include WP:BLP violations by making WP:UNDUE claims about a living person that is totally unsourced. I've already pointed you to a discussion on the talk page about this, and both Famspear and I have highlighted the concerns we've got. You've ignored this. Please note that you are close to the WP:3RR limit, which means you can only make 3 reverts (partial or full) on an article in a 24 hour period. Going beyond that, except in limited circumstances, is likely to result in you being blocked from editing. One of those circumstances is BLP violations. You need to use the talk page on the article to get consensus before adding your change back in. Ravensfire (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As another warning, you can also be blocked for edit-warring, even if you don't break the 3 revert limit, if you are repeatedly pushing your version into the article without any attempt to work towards a consensus. You need to use the talk page to discuss the edits and address the concerns that have been raised. Ravensfire (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at State Bar of Texas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You are at the 3 revert limit, another revert and you will be reported to the edit war noticeboard. Ravensfire (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the hypocrisy. You were edit warring too. Lulaq (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to remove the BLP violation that you were adding to the article. I was also using the article talk page and trying to get you to do the same thing. You did nothing but revert, revert, revert. That doesn't work well on Wikipedia. When your change gets reverted, you need to discuss it on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lulaq: It is obvious that you’ve been edit warring to push an agenda to publicize the admittedly well-known DWI conviction of a Texas law enforcement officer – but without providing a source that even mentions the incident. One of your edit summaries includes the preposterous claim that this is not a BLP violation merely because the incident actually occurred. Here’s what you wrote: “[name redacted] was convicted of DWI, so no BLP violation even though you liberals love to rewrite history”.

Earth calling: The mere fact that something occurred to a particular living person does not mean you are allowed to about that living person and that incident in Wikipedia without providing proper sources that actually mention the incident.

AND, it’s obvious that when at least two Wikipedia editors corrected you, you not only made the above-quoted ridiculous statement about the BLP policy, you also attacked other editors for being “liberals” who “love to rewrite history”.

In short, you have treated the Wikipedia article on the State Bar of Texas as a place to insert your own personal animosity regarding the Texas State Bar and regarding a Texas public official who was convicted of a DWI conviction – without proper sources to back you up.

That is clearly unacceptable. Your proper job as a Wikipedia editor is to report on what OTHER people (reliable, previously published third party sources) have written, not on what you personally feel about something. Citing the State Bar rules and an application form for your ranting, when neither the State Bar rules nor the application form even mentions the living individual (or the DWI incident) is a misuse of Wikipedia – as is attacking other editors for being “liberals” who want to “rewrite history.”

Please review Wikipedia policies on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, and Biographies of Living People. Famspear (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable information does not violate WP:BLP and WP:BLP is not violated unless false facts that are negative are posted against a BLP. But you little peons knew that before you cried that in your edit war and before you flamed me on my talk page. I suspect meat puppetry. Lulaq (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what issue is being discussed, but the statement I'm replying to is entirely incorrect. A glance at WP:BLP shows it refers to NPOV + V + NOR, and reading just its introduction confirms that the view stated above is incorrect. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor was truly concerned about WP:BLP, he would make the edit that I just did. He wouldn't section blank. And this editor has a history of seeking out revert wars. Lulaq (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion only works if people engage with what has been said. Currently there is no indication that you even saw my comment about what WP:BLP says. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with what you wrote. Lulaq (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While editing some matters, it appears that things might be getting out of hand. Please take a breather, and read the nice essay about mastodons. We can fix and source the article later. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read

Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

Which is quite dispositive. Meanwhile, kindly self-revert your edit war refusal to abide by the current template which you were previously referred to. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? You are the one you is dangerously close to 3RR. I kept your edit, but asked you a question. Quit putting false and harassing warnings only wall per WP:HARASS. Thank you. Lulaq (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At State Bar of Texas. In fact you are well past 3RR, and any further reverts will be reported at WP:ANEW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, but it does seem you're cyberstalking me to revert my edits. Lulaq (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]