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