User talk:Kensavage

corrected spelling --Ken Savage 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WFILogoGreen.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WFILogoGreen.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Overall Labor Effectiveness

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Overall Labor Effectiveness, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Overall Labor Effectiveness is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Overall Labor Effectiveness, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Overall Labor Effectiveness

A tag has been placed on Overall Labor Effectiveness, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Overall Labor Effectiveness. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Booglamay (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest http://www.searchenginejournal.com/seo-blogging-success-story-diabetes-blog-earns-40k-per-year/5240/

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Kronos Incorporated, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself admitted on my talk page, "I was asked to create the page for Kronos and I also am employed by Kronos as a web developer"! That is the quintessence of a conflict of interest. You should not be editing any articles which involve Kronos or any of its products, much less creating them. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]