"quicker response please email me)

  
You forgot to remove the  tag, which is deprecated and automatically tags the image as lacking a source. I've restored the image and added a rationale, and will try to place it back in the appropriate articles. east718 // talk // email // 

ThanX for the fix.  Actually I had problems selecting the right license tag (from the Image upload menu provided), IIRC there was no selection for PD image modified (cropped in this cases) and the GPLed.  This should be fixed.

 

 1RR 
East- I noticed this. Could you elaborate for me where you believe I violated my 1RR restriction? Thanks.   
Revert one, and two. It's a bit late to block you though, so just be more careful in the future. east718 // talk // email // 
Yes, those are two reverts; however, the 1RR restriction on myself was only in regards to Canadian monarchy articles, and PoC's edits, not to other pages or other editors. Now, though I was technically within my bounds there, having later read MangoJuice's comments to PoC on reverting and entitlement, I realise that the same applies to myself, and would have applied earlier. That second revert was a kneejerk retaliation to a move that was purposefully irritating, and, though technically allowed, was just a continuation of a dispute, rather than an effort to seek resolution. Anyway, I hope that clears things up.   

 Sorta like the 24.X fella 

 seems to be a single purpose IP editor.... reverting to his own version on several articles. A similar modus operandi to the 24.X IP fella you blocked the other day. Do you concur that this IP is a ""my way or the highway"" editor? And can a nail belt be thrown across his current road? -speak politely 
Again, I don't think it's the same person. The edit-warring sure merits a block though. east718 // talk // email // 
Oh I didn't think it was the same person. Just the exact same bad habits. As always... thanks for all your assistance! Have a nice day! -speak politely 

 User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal 

I plan on taking this to DRV, just to let you know. The ""policy"" rationale given was without any explanation at all, as I pointed out in the discussion itself. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so.   
And from the page creator himself: Keep - It's a humourous cabal nothing more. Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors. eric (mailbox) 

He made the intent clear. He even edited the page to remove some of the parts that people had concerns about. The deletion supporters have nothing more than an assertion without any evidence.   
I don't really think that flies. Some people in favor of deleting did provide explanations: ""There is absolutely no intent [of improving the encyclopedia] here. It's purely a social page.""; ""makes no indication of how it will improve Wikipedia"".  Despite EricV89's claim that it was meant for ""only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors,"" this idea never saw a genesis