User talk:Gcman2012

Gcman2012 - we need to talk. You seem to have a full re-write that appeared originally when the page was first put up. It was decided then that it was hagiography and was tempered down and new material added. I'd like to resolve this in an amicable manner and believe we can reach some sort of compromise. Your thoughts?

This isn't the same person who is editing his wikipedia who must have done that before. I don't know who that was or when that happened, but I took the time to scour the internet for sources to add about Grant. Why are you so interested in Grant and posting those articles. I'm okay to resolve this in an amicable matter as I want to stay objective as according to Wikipedia's policy. Let me know what you're trying to achieve and what the information is that you're operating on.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Grant Cardone". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Sewell (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, a Dispute Resolution procedure has commenced. Please direct your input over there. Many thanks. Henry Sewell (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi There Gcman. Would you please come over to Grant Cardone's page so that we can discuss this matter. In the meantime I had added some information to the article and also confirmed that it was Michael J Wolf who actually "broke" the Alex Baldwin story on Twitter. It would be good to talk to you and see/check what other information you would like included in the article. Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance in this matter. Henry Sewell (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Your recent editing history at Grant Cardone shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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 may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please note that articles related to Scientology are also under article probation under the COFS arbitration case. TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles related to Scientology are also subject to the remedies at the Scientology arbitration case. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)