User talk:JamesRJohnston

WHOA! you just don't jot your opinions in brackets in the article itself! you might have written such on the margin of a book you checked out of the library! The proper procedure is to make comments in the Talk page of the article, hopefully with suggestions on improvements instead of you opinions or impressions, This is not a forum or a blog. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, my apologies. I hoped that someone with more time to spare would take a look. The material has the "feel" of having been written by enthusiastic students: not well-balanced. (Some time ago, I made modifications/additions to material on coherence, including macroscopic quantum coherence.  Some time later, someone who knew the subject well rearranged and rewrote the entire section. It was beautifully done; and some of what I had written was included, in a much better context. I was hoping to "raise a flag", so that someone would do that here.)  --user:Jim (talk)JamesRJohnston (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's my point. Flags are raised in Talk:Uncertainty_principle in this case. However, as you see from the multiyear troubled history of passers by opining on what they read, in this article, especially, nobody in the mob would rewrite something to your satisfaction. Personally, I find it adequate, and if you are expert enough to see its defects, you skip it and move on to the non introductory sections, like the Entropic uncertainty. If, on the other hand, you have concrete proposals for substituting paragraphs or formulas, you may propose them in the talk pages, and let the mob opine on it and then move it to mainspace after consensus were reached. But, again if you track the history of the article, most improvements are reversed in the long run... it is a bit like writing on sand at the beach. Corrections and small incremental changes are OK to do directly, though... But make sure the hundreds (~ 2400) of readers visiting the page each day do not have to contend with smudges, malformed TeX, or non-sequiturs. Maybe you could find your coherence expert again and discuss it on his Talkpage? Cheers! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)