" 

 == Now what??? == 

 Linking to your own website is allowed (I checked the rules) if done with a relative and non abusive way. I removed all sponsor ads on the site and wish to share my information with the stained glass community. Is this the building of consensus? I have complied with all of the rules and wish to add my valuable resource to the listing. What do I need to do now? Please let me know what other rules are involved here. I don't wish to get anyone angry and remove my post being so. I'd rather avoid that situation altogether.  

 Thanks DESG 
 :First, while the page you linked to does not have ads, the main page (which is one link away) appears to be primarily a commercial site. Second, to repeat myself, discuss the possible inclusion of the link on the article's talk page to try to arrive an consensus. (This has been suggested numerous times).    

 All set... I created a talk page. Lets talk... some more ) 
 article's talk page 
 
 :Good, but just so you know, you should've started a discussion when it was first suggested to you 7 hours ago, before your block.    
 :::Spamming continues unabatted []. He just won't stop.   
 :I have left a long message on the article talk page about this. Both users appear at fault to a greater or lesser degree and need to discuss and agree changes. I feel that the other two external sites are as bad as Desg's with regard to adverts and either they all go or he should be allowed his site. Frankly I don't care which but I would like Desg and RogerJ to stop fighting over it.   
 ::Hi - I agree. I haven't even looked at the other sites since I don't care and don't have expertise to give an opinion. I just know Desg asked for consensus on his link, and none has appeared yet. I think this page could definitely use a 3O, and perhaps these two should take a break from it for a while.    
 ::Turns out RogerJ is concerned about the content of Desg's site rather than the adverts. Not sure he should consider it spam in that case. Thanks for the support - I have now removed all the external links. A previous request for a 3rd opinion appears to be outstanding. Lets see if they behave now.   

 == Thanks for your offer == 

 Thanks for your offer of more information, I appreciate it.  I'll be communicating with the other user first, and get that part straightened out, then I may need to talk with you afterward.  I've looked this over, and I get what's going on... not my first rodeo, you might say.   

 I really appreciate your offer of help, but at this point the less input from you the easier my job will be.  I've read the history of everyone involved and a scrambled talk archive is no big deal, I've read the comments from before they were archived.  

 How this happened, it was an accidental bite to a well-intentioned newer user who was a little too bold.  It's no big deal and nothing anyone needs stress over. Just a misunderstanding.  Thanks for your note, I'll talk with you in a few days.   
 :Got it. Thanks.    

 ==Paul Edinger== 
 If this has anything to do with the Paul Edinger page, it is completely true, as facts that are verifyable were used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by   •  . 
 :Please review our neutral point of view policy. Statements like ""Paul Edinger is a mediocre kicker, at best"" or ""an almost equally bad kicker"" or ""sent him packing after the dismal showing, but was amazingly picked up by the Minnesota Vikings"" are not neutral, and are unacceptable for an encyclopedia article.    
 ::While I apologize for what I put on the other pages, you were wrong to delete the stuff about Paul Edinger. Other than the opinion about the Arena Football League, which was based on fact, the rest was absolutely true. Go ahe