User:Good Cop/sandbox

I've reverted a recent substantive change to the Criticisms section. The reasons are below. A good faith effort to communicate with the reverted editor(s) is further below.

The edit was reverted because:

It deleted properly cited material. Please do not do that without a strong consensus.
It replaced it with (uncited) original research.
It used weasel words: "some decision theories", "disputed by some".
The editor justified deleting the dress example with the somewhat uncivil "nonsense".
The editor alleged POV without being specific about the "perspective" that was objected to.

To the anonymous editors who have made the comments above this one:

Some of you seem to have good things to contribute to this article. Other editors who watch this article are strongly in favor of that.
Possibly you aren't familiar with Wikipedia protocols. Feel free to ask for help.
Please don't think that just because you suggest a change, other people will make it.
It's best for all concerned if you discuss non-minor changes here before you make them. If you are rational, you will find support here, even from those who disagree with you. If you just want to "bash" AHP, you might not find much.
If you are a fan of other decision theories or methods, please do what you can to generate Wikipedia articles on them, since they are pretty poorly represented right now (see MCDA).
It would REALLY be helpful if you'd get a username and a talk page. Those things facilitate discussion between editors, and without them, we all operate at a disadvantage.

That's it for now. Good Cop (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)