| Revision as of 19:24, 25 July 2011 editSahuagin (talk | contribs)353 edits →Criticisms← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:29, 25 July 2011 edit undoSahuagin (talk | contribs)353 edits →CriticismsNext edit → | ||
| Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
| :::::::: My personal ability to source the statements is irrelevant; that burden is on the editor who added the unsourced biased statements. Either source them or they will be deleted. | :::::::: My personal ability to source the statements is irrelevant; that burden is on the editor who added the unsourced biased statements. Either source them or they will be deleted. | ||
| :::::::: "You have not made your case." The determination of whether a given statement can or cannot be "taken seriously" is a violation of both ] and ] by definition, since it is both original research AND a non-neutral point of view. ] (]) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | :::::::: "You have not made your case." The determination of whether a given statement can or cannot be "taken seriously" is a violation of both ] and ] by definition, since it is both original research AND a non-neutral point of view. ] (]) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::: Additional lies or at least demonstrably false statements made by you include that I deleted the entire criticisms section (I did not), that Ottomachin did not add any criticisms sections (he did), that Ottomachin's additions were agreed by consensus (they were not). ] (]) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:29, 25 July 2011
 | Unified Modeling Language was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
|
German language diagrams?
I hope I don't offend other languages, but since this is the English wiki version, would it be possible to replace the foreign language drawings with English translations? The component diagram is in German i think, there other other languages for the other diagrams, they are not very instructive to me. 24.6.16.141 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very true. The diagrams should be very helpful in understanding exactly what each type is for and complete the textual explanation but they don't do much when you can't read the labels in them. When reading the page I felt very frustrated when I didn't exactly understand the purpose of the different diagram types and then couldn't read the examples. 80.179.212.193 (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Changes to update these diagrams should be propagated to all the related pages like Interaction_overview_diagram. --Mamanakis (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Concepts section removed
I removed the "Concepts" whole section, because that list is already present in the UML template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Jack Reeves quote
Minor thing... should the Jack Reeves quote be removed, since he doesn't have a page on Misplaced Pages? Either that, or a page for him should be created so people know who it is that is being quoted... the page he did have was deleted by SimonP (justifiably, as it was practically blank and weasel-worded) Yoda (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would not make the assumption that a page on Misplaced Pages is a requirement for someone to be quoted. (Misplaced Pages != Notability). This is per their own guidelines. If it is that big of a deal to you that all people quoted should have their own Misplaced Pages entry, then create the entry. It is pretty simple. An absence of a page is not grounds for the removal of a quote. Emry (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
German diagrams
Would it be possible to replace the diagrams featuring German text to equivalents with English text, as this is the English version of Misplaced Pages? 217.35.93.182 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- As a start I removed the German text from the image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree.. this isn't exactly a sparse area in terms of finding images, as far as I know there is an over abundance of UML diagrams. Whoever posted the german pictures surely could have taken a moment to do some basic searches for enlglish UML diagrams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.63.30 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- From some types of UML diagrams there are still hardly any diagrams in English on Wikicommons, sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are lucky, because I am from Germany and I have translated the Pictures for you :). Unfortunately, my English isn't the best, but the translations should be alright. I don't have an account for Wiki(m|p)edia (Commons) but you can find the images here: http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=169009604. License is the same as in the original images. Please upload it to the Commons. --87.181.230.5 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The history diagram
On the subject of the history diagram: maybe we should use a diagram that also includes OPM, a method/notation proposed in 2002 which is demonstrably superior to the clunky and user-unfriendly graphical-crawling-horror called UML. D0nj03 (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- The history diagram only mentions OMG related diagrams, which I think is reasonable. On the other hand the Object Process Methodology article could need some serious work. Do you have any images to spare to illustrate that article? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen one in , but I'm not sure if we can use it.
- D0nj03 (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wikified the OPM article as a start and added this article to a new further reading section. You indeed can't just use images from articles or presentations that are not yours. You need to ask permission. If you are really into the matter, the easiest thing to do it draw a series of diagrams yourself. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Initial Image
The initial image should be replaced with just a UML diagram. There's no reason to have an image of an actual UML digraming software. Must have been the software authors or a fan that put that up.Firefight (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have added all images to the article, except the diagram overview scheme, and I am not the software author, nor a fan of that software. I just liked the illustration, because it is some how different. Beside this main article, I also illustrated a dozend articles about the UML diagrams. In these articles I did add just a UML diagram. The illustrating here is not agian just one of these UML diagrams, but something different. If you find this confusing you might suggest an other different image or maybe improve the subscript of that image. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing very different about this image - it is just a yellow class model! To represent UML we need a collage of different types of UML diagrams - something like an artist's portfolio. I will work on creating this collage.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I support any good initiate here. I agree, using a collage could be a good idea. But off cause the current image is not just a yellow class model. It is a yellow class model in a UML modeler context. I like this image not just because it is something different. It is a visual attractive image, and it shows (just a little) that UML can be applied. This subject of the application of UML is hardly mentioned yet, in the current article. I think adding such a section to the article , would be an improvement as well. We could move the current image in that section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- How does this diagram show that "UML can be applied"? A screenshot of a UML diagramming tool says nothing about the applicability or otherwise of UML. Such a screenshot belongs in the Misplaced Pages pages that talk about UML tools and List of UML tools. It simply does not belong on this page. Pls move this diagram to one of those pages.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I support any good initiate here. I agree, using a collage could be a good idea. But off cause the current image is not just a yellow class model. It is a yellow class model in a UML modeler context. I like this image not just because it is something different. It is a visual attractive image, and it shows (just a little) that UML can be applied. This subject of the application of UML is hardly mentioned yet, in the current article. I think adding such a section to the article , would be an improvement as well. We could move the current image in that section. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What is a section on Object Oriented Analysis doing here?
The section on objected oriented analysis sticks out like a sore thumb. It adds very little to the material following it, and is not very well written either. And, of course, there is a separate wikipedia page for this topic>
This sections needs to be removed. Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What is it with all these Critisisms?
Looking through the section on Critisisms, I get a feeling someone is taking sides (against UML)? Is that in keeping with the Misplaced Pages tradition.
Remove this critisism section, and all the material preceding it is perfect - give s concise and clear explanaion of UML. Then comes this Critisism and it seems to become political!
I have been a UML practitioner for over 8 years and I like its expressive power and find many of these critisism to be invalid. So, should I use this Wkipedia page to express my support for UML?
Or should this Critisisms section be simply removed?
Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I partly disagree. Some of the criticisms just inform you about less optimal aspects of UML. I think this should stay. I do think things section should be better cited. Only if not, it should be removed. There are a lot more articles about UML. I think this here is about the (only) place, to give an overview of the existing criticisms. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Makes sense.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Personally I think a well cited criticism section is a valuable asset to the article. My priority here would be to get every critism section referenced with sources. Only if we can't find them, we should removed it... And again I think a new section should be added explaining where, when and how UML is applied. This section could complement the criticism section. I realize now my main problem with the criticism section is not it's existence, or it being not well cited, but that the article it is out of balance in... because it doesn't explain about it's (succesfull) applications. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have made some initial attempts to find some references, which seems to be very hard. It seems easier to rewrite the whole section... and some more sections of the article. I think there is still a lot to improve to realize a more concise and clear explanation of UML. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is hard to find references because of one single reason - some of these critisisms are personal opinions.
- Example: The critisism "Aesthetically Inconsistent" makes use of subjective terms like "jarring" and "aesthetically pleasing". I, for one, find that UML provides for creation of aesthetically pleasing diagram if the "UML artist" has the requisite experience, aesthetic sense and flair! In the case of any diagraming notation, an inexperience practitioned can end up creating poor diagrams.
- The critisism on "Weak visualization" is along similar lines - just someone's opinion. It uses a subjective term like "hard to remember". Moreover, it is also factually incorrect - the same line style does not mean different things in different diagram types! Dependency is the only line style that is "loose" enough to be subject to such accusation, and that looseness is intentional. In other words, being a formal language with a formal spec, UML does the exact opposite of what this critisism accuses it of. It, in fact, infuses every line and every arrow with very strict meaning (semantics).
- The critisism "Tries to be all things to all programmers" says UML "tries to achieve compatibility with every possible implementation language". I have not seen this goal stated anywhere in the UML specs, and hence this is factually incorrect. In reality many elements of UML (use case, activity diagram , sequence diagram for example) have nothing to do with implementation languages. It then goes on to talk about "restricting the scope of UML to a particular domain", whereas UML is not meant to be a domain specific language (unless you consider "system analyis" as the domain)! I suspect this part of the critisism refers to the Profile mechanism of UML, but that has now become very formal in UML 2.0. Hence this part of the critisism too is no longer valid!
- This is why I am having trouble with this section. This whole section is akin to someone who is tone deaf critisizing Beethoven as being too loud!
I removed the criticisms section. It was silly. We don't need to start polluting Misplaced Pages with subjective criticisms. Cdiggins (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just undone your removal for given reasons here. Also it is not the case, as you suggest, that this criticisms section has been added here yesterday. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm only glancingly familiar with UML, but have started addressing the lack of citations in the Criticisms section, finding (naturally) that some of these criticisms are overstated even when valid. I don't agree with Kishorekumar -- the software engineering literature is chock-full of opinions from opinionated people (far more so than the literature of any other branch of engineering, I think), so these opinions should be relatively easy to find and cite, if they exist at all. On that assumption, I removed the criticism that Action Semantics is not clearly Turing Complete, after a 15-minute websearch. This WP article was, in fact, the only source of that objection I could find. Every other source I found while searching on "UML" + "Action Semantics" + "Turing complete" only talked about how UML Action Semantics was Turing Complete. Yakushima (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe we should just removed the whole section, move it here to the talk page, and only accept well cited criticm. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nice try! :-P, but i don't think so. May be this wikientry must put (as a separated section) both side of the coin :pros and cons of the UML.
- Yes, I agree. I've visited this article just because I wanted to know whether there is any substantial criticism, not to inform myself about UML. And yes, I find the criticism given here substantial. -- 77.183.251.1 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
--200.83.2.4 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)--200.83.2.4 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
non-free/non-open references
- reference 12
- B. Henderson-Sellers; C. Gonzalez-Perez (2006). "Uses and Abuses of the Stereotype Mechanism in UML 1.x and 2.0"
links me some site where I am asked 25$ to read the article. not useful at all for me. Is this ok? what's wikipedia's stance on non-free/non-open references/sources? Couldn't this be abused by content providers to place 'ads' on wikipedia to generate revenue?
User:89.217.145.227 09:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. I removed the link, becuase I think there should only be links to free content. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was semi-free, in that the link did go to a full abstract and full first page of the article. Not enough to substantiate the claims the citation supports, but not useless either. I don't think it's Misplaced Pages policy to limit links only to fully-free content. Admittedly, a doi might make more sense here. Yakushima (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it is not useless. I just removed, what I consider, a commercial link to the springer site, see here, with a anom user added there, see here Dec 19 2008. In my experience these commercial links are normally not used. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
dubious criticisms moved from article page
I copy the uncited criticism from the main article to this section. Feel free to reinsert with a source.
- This criticism is more frequently directed at UML 2.0 than UML 1.0, since newer revisions include more design-by-committee compromises.
- Weak visualization: UML employs many line styles that are graphically very similar; the meaning resides in permutations of line (dotted or solid) and arrow head (open or closed, filled or empty). The same line style can mean different things in different diagram types. The asterisk is used to signify iteration in behavioural models and parallel multiplicity in structural models. The multiplicity of an association is shown by an annotation disconnected from a line (unlike conventional data model notations).
- Only the code is in sync with the code: UML has value in approaches that compile the models to generate source or executable code; on projects where the code is not generated, the code can fall out of sync with the model, assuming it ever matched up precisely in the first place.
- Aesthetically Inconsistent: This argument states that the adhoc mixing of abstract notation (2-D ovals, boxes, etc) make UML appear jarring and that more effort could have been made to construct uniform and aesthetically pleasing representations.
- Defining a UML 2.x model in one tool and then importing it into another tool typically leads to loss of information.
-- User:80.61.183.71 09:59, 29 June 2009 (CEST)
- Ok, that's fine with me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect/misleading statement that the RUP process "created based on UML"
A statement within the Paragraph under "Unified Modeling Language topics"/"Software Development Methods" states that "...and new methods have been created based on UML. The best known is IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP)" is inaccurate or misleading. RUP is a process and not a language and it's misleading to state that RUP was created from UML. Wiki2shahid (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Copy-paste registration
- In this edit text is copy/pasted here from the Meta-Object Facility article
-- Mdd (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Abusive edits
I see that this page have been abused repeatedly (some dude just think this is a sandbox) by 210.212.90.86, so I reverted the page back to the last version before the abuse.--Kenneth Vergil (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Error naming convention in figure
In the section about metamodeling , the text ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Unified_Modeling_Language#Meta_modeling ) and the figure ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Meta-Object_Facility ) are not coherent ( the correct one should be the text...).
Specifically, the figure starts numbering models top down (M0 = MOF -> M3=run-time instances) while text starts numbering bottom up (M3=MOF -> M0=run time instances)
The figure needs to be corrected such that the top layer (MOF) is labelled M3, with the layers below this labelled M2, M1 and M0. I have corrected the text to reflect this. (Refer to diagram in OMG UML Infrastructure v2.3 on p19) ZZZ zzz 222 (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Now the Figure is corrected but the text is wrong. Where your changes to the text reversed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.63.140 (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
External Links
In section external links there are some communities and links to resources of dubious quality and very outdated some of the, there are a forum with out actualization since 1 year and articles with clear reference to uml 1 which have conflicts with uml 2.
I would change the links, and I would replace the outdated ones for newest. I don't change because I don't want to bother to anyone .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.68.83.249 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC) <--this was original comment made my me (I wasn't logged in :S) User:Aludstartups.
I think the link to the linkedin group could continue due this it is running and is a link with the professional community (is close to the one registered I know) and I propose to add this link: http://case-tools.org/uml.html
- The linkedin link is a breach of WP:ELNO as it's essentially a forum. The case tools appears to be OK based on the same policy though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- thanks Walter and thanks for teach me too :) Thomas —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
- The linkedin link is a breach of WP:ELNO as it's essentially a forum. The case tools appears to be OK based on the same policy though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Nicer diagram examples
Hi, could our community produce straight & clear example-diagrams? (And all 14, for that matter). At the moment, they're German language. Which is OK with me, but is not a good illustration. -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I think they might be UML non-2.0. And very ungrouped, just randomly in the image-namespace.
- I just added some illustrations to the UML-navbox. I do think that is nice.
-DePiep (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Minor Error
In the section titled "Interaction Diagrams" the brief definition for Interaction overview diagram says "provides an overview in which the nodes represent communication diagrams". I think this is incomplete. Nodes may contain any of the interaction diagram types. A better wording might be: "provides an overview in which the nodes may represent any one of the interaction diagram types: sequence diagram, communication diagram, timing diagram or interaction overview diagram."
Nodes may also represent interaction occurrence frames which are activities or operations to invoke, although this might be more than what's needed in a summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.128.85 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Criticisms
User Ottomachin is adding criticism sections which flagrantly violate NOR and NPOV. His personal opinion or experience of UML is irrelevant and does not belong in the article.Sahuagin (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- No it's not. Lacking a criticisms section, particularly when criticisms with WP:RS references exist, is bad and creates an unbalanced article. His opinions don't belong, but criticisms do. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- There have been four edits. Sahuagin's removing material that has achieved consensus status, Ottomachin's restoring material that you removed with the flimsy reasoning you exhibited above, Sahuagin's removal again, this time without reason, and finally mine restoring the original state. So Ottomachin didn't add a criticism section, Ottomachin simply reverted your removal of it. Your attempt to make it appear as a POV edit is not borne by the facts. Please don't try to misrepresent thing to us. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- "that has achieved consensus status" where has it achieved consensus? how do statements such as "Any document which contains language such as "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot" cannot possibly be taken seriously." NOT violate NOR, or NPOV? That is a personal opinion and does NOT belong in a Misplaced Pages article. I am only deleting opinionated statements based on personal experience that were added by Ottomachin as recently as July 13; not the sections that are sourced and written reasonably well and have been here a while. Sahuagin (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Lacking a criticisms section, particularly when criticisms with WP:RS references exist, is bad and creates an unbalanced article. His opinions don't belong, but criticisms do. " Sure, but I didn't delete the entire criticisms section, only the personal opinions of user Ottomachin that he added on July 13, 2011, and July 17, 2011. Sahuagin (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, the criticism section as a whole should obviously stay, but the opinionated whining comments that have been added by Ottomachin must be removed, and any unsourced criticisms need to either be sourced or removed. The need for a criticisms section does not override NOR or NPOV. Sahuagin (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Walter, are you crazy? Could you please explain how "Any document which contains language such as "... may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot" cannot possibly be taken seriously." does NOT violate NPOV or NOR??? That is an opinionated statement that does NOT belong on wikipedia. How can you possibly justify leaving a statement like that in a wikipedia article? Honestly, that amounts to basically saying "UML is dumb" or "I don't like UML". Sahuagin (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I may be crazy, but you haven't made your case. It's an example and probably one that from an actual case. How can you possibly justify a statement like yours? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- "How can you possibly justify a statement like yours?"
- "Any document which contains...X...cannot be taken seriously". The statement is telling the reader how *they* should interpret something. That is a flagrant violation. It seems even Ottomachin agrees, since he has edited his phrasing out. I'm having a hard time determining your motive here; Ottomachin is clearly a troll or at least an overly opinionated editor, but what exactly are you doing here defending a statement like this? Do you just have a persecution complex and think I'm bullying you or something? Do you *honestly* think that kind of language belongs in a Misplaced Pages article?! How can you possibly think that is a NEUTRAL point of view?! You even said that a particular individual's opinions do not belong in the article. That sentence is only the worst example of personal opinion, original research, and strong bias, which is littered throughout the criticism section. A criticism section should be indicating the criticisms of *third-parties*, NOT editor's personal experience or opinion on the matter. Your only possible motive here that I can see is you think you have some special claim to this article. May I direct you to: WP:OWN. Sahuagin (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- References are required. Assuming good faith on the part of other editors is as well. That appears to be something you're lacking today. Please take a step back and stop questioning my motives and calling other editors trolls. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I'm doing fairly well considering I'm being lied to and name-called, and am still the only one communicating about the issue. Sahuagin (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Who's lying to you and what names are you being called? If you're suggesting that I am doing those things, please show me where. You're actually not the only one communicating. You're actually making some bold accusations and being rather rude in the process. I still don't agree with your claim of POV on the statement, but since the editor has removed it, that's no longer an issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think I'm doing fairly well considering I'm being lied to and name-called, and am still the only one communicating about the issue. Sahuagin (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- mr "minor edit" stop wrecking and chopping and removing info for ur petty bureaucratic self satisfaction u have never made a positive contribution to this page so what gives you the right? leave it to active knowledgable and interested contributors
- mr "minor edit" your edits would be much more useful if instead of wholesale hacking of great chunks of content you instead skillfully address the actual problem
- i dont think we need to be badgered by you, we know the citations are required, unlike you we also know where they are, does the phrase "work in progress" mean nothing to you? i have other things to do as well as this
- Your statement that "Any document which contains...X...cannot be taken seriously" neither violates WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR is flat out wrong, and even you contradict it.
- It seems that the quality of this portion of the article is degrading by the day, and is now doomed to be exceedingly sub-standard for the time being. There is nothing I can do when any modification I make is reverted. Hopefully someone else will try to clean up the mess you two are making.
- Sahuagin (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) For editors who cannot follow, those were the following edits http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unified_Modeling_Language&diff=441189733&oldid=441187421 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unified_Modeling_Language&diff=441369456&oldid=441369087 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Unified_Modeling_Language&diff=441373611&oldid=441369456.
- My statement is not flat-out wrong, but feel free to hold whatever opinion you want. Just because you state it, doesn't make it fact. You have not made your case.
- I don't trust you could clean this or any other article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really care who you do or do not trust. The current state of this section is unacceptable by Misplaced Pages standards.
- My personal ability to source the statements is irrelevant; that burden is on the editor who added the unsourced biased statements. Either source them or they will be deleted.
- "You have not made your case." The determination of whether a given statement can or cannot be "taken seriously" is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR by definition, since it is both original research AND a non-neutral point of view. Sahuagin (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additional lies or at least demonstrably false statements made by you include that I deleted the entire criticisms section (I did not), that Ottomachin did not add any criticisms sections (he did), that Ottomachin's additions were agreed by consensus (they were not). Sahuagin (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)