User talk:Good Cop

I'm on. DCLawyer 22:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's never too late to say...

Welcome!

Hello, Good Cop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- AuburnPilot ^talk 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Talk:Ann Coulter

Please be careful. You might find yourself straying to trolling which is never a good thing. --Rtrev 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could be considered trolling and/or a personal attack. Please stop if you have nothing of import to contribute to the discussion. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I was about to remove your comments myself as trolling. Please see WP:CIVIL if you want your comments to be taken seriously. Caper13 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to message on my page

I did assume good faith. That is why I didnt delete them as trolling. I would suggest that you seek to phrase your comments in a way so as to convey similar meaning to what you have written above, without using inflammatory and insulting language. You will probably get a better response. Good luck. Caper13 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of rules

You previously insisted I could not remove or even qualify a statement that you felt was "well sourced" and insisted that as long as it is verifiable it cannot be removed. You are now doing exactly that. The statement you claim to be "false" is a direct quote from the respected journal I cited. Any argument on your part that it is false is POV and OR. Apply the same rules to yourself as you would others. Hubbardaie 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, as you put it, "distorting" anything Schenkerman said. In fact, I offer his entire quote a few lines later in the criticisms section. It is an exact quote and the entire abstract from his article proves the quote is entirely in context. You need to stop deleting well-sourced statements. You have proven my points a few days ago by violating the very rule you stated. Any person properly educated in the field of decision sciences and operations research would agree with me that Schenkerman was a critic of AHP and the quote states exactly that. Hubbardaie 12:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the source of your confusion. Schenkerman did not specify in his staement that he was refering only to those situations that have the stated error. Since not all situations necessarilly produce these errors he said users can be seriously misled. But I was clearly referring specifically to those situations where there **are** errors in which case the **will be** misled (that is what errors do, by definition). But instead of deleting the entire statement without clarifying your position why not make that specific change and explain why as you just did? You were close to violating the three edit rule and you would have saved us both time.

regarding the point about the watershed mgt reference, that simply has no place in the criticisms section. I think you should at least qualify it as a statement of proponents, not an uncontested fact. Most of the article is filled such claims even though the AHP is uncontested and universally accepted by experts. The criticisms section makes it clear this is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.16 (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Hubbardaie 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggested on the article discussion page that you apparently need to WP:AGF, WP:3RR and WP:OWN. I know I’ve told you before about your behavior of assuming bad faith. Please get more Wiki. Second, I believe you broke the three revert rule, or you were close. We may have both lost track of the count. You really need to review WP:OWN since you were complaining about “destroying the work of other people” in a section I mostly wrote. This is what Wikipedia does. It's a collaborative effort and you don't own your input. I know you've been with Wikipedia for a while so I don't know why this concept has eluded you thus far. Sorry if I'm coming off as a little patronizing but you should know better.Hubbardaie 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AHPDevice.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:AHPDevice.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more discussion at Talk:Chairman. And just so you are aware, I will take a non-answer to these questions as an indication that you do not object to the changes I propose. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of International Society on Multiple Criteria Decision Making

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International Society on Multiple Criteria Decision Making requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ukexpat (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]