I would recommend staying with either and I or We structure. What I mean is, sometimes you say "...we have the skills and knowledge" and other times you say "I provide stunning website designs that comply..." It is not a huge deal but can be misleading. If you are a one man operation that I would pronounce that fact and stick to it. If you either have other designers or plan on hiring more employees in the near future use the "We.."
Other than that I like the layout. It is clean and sleek. There is not a whole lot of content yet but I am sure you will be adding more soon as you stated it has just been redeigned. Other information that I would include would be the different technologies that you use, coding formats, etc. Also, supplying templates as portfolios tells me that you have not done any client websites yet. If this is the case that is fine, but if you have made some for people list them!
One last thing, you might want to include your copyright info on each page.
graphics are very attractive on it. but on you portfolio
you may want to choose different screen shots besides their navigation
especially on the third one down, which is silver, like the layout on your page.
but its still very nice
On the portfolio page the floral pattern is a tad garish; I would suggest that you leave the floral pattern to the section header as it is on the other pages or perhaps use the floral design as a border instead of a backdrop.
I would drop the "Gaming Unlimited" and "3D RED" templates from the portfolio as the amateur feel of the designs detracts from the professionalism of the rest of the site.
There are a few minor alignment issues in IE6 but they shouldn't take much time to iron out.
On a whole I think that the site is very good, however, if I were you I would put more emphasis on your ability as a graphic designer as I think this is one of your selling points.
Visually, quite stunning. Good graphics. Loads @ 56K in 9.-something seconds... "under 8 seconds @ 56K" is the golden standard. "Eight seconds" is about the attention span most users will devote to a site that, if it isn't resolved on their screen, they are reaching for the BACK button...
But personally, I'd allow 10-seconds if the site was really good.
For no more graphics that insertion page has, you could easily hit 'under 8 seconds'. Optimizing/reusing graphic elements could achieve this. Screenshot image.
In Services/logo section you mispelled the word 'usually'.
I like the site a lot overall. Three things bother me though(all on portfolio page).
1. The image displayed on the portfolio page isn't helpful. Perhaps taking a screeny and cropping to at least the nav bar would look better? The first and fourth sites shown are the worst. It's an easy fix.
2. I don't like the design behind the text describing the template there. You should perhaps shift it further to the right so there is not change in background contrast.
3. This one is more about preference but on the "Visit Site" button I'd move the curved line that 'splits' the button further down. It creates too much tention with the text right now.