User talk:1ann8con9fos4

RM Foster

Hi, Thank you for your contributions, but I have undone some of your editing to R. M. Foster, mostly because you have deleted all the referenced material without replacing any of the references. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability to understand why I have done this. I also believe that Foster is mainly notable because of the use his work was put to by others in filter theory. I cannot understand why you chose to delete that. Without it, there really is no justification for a Wikipedia article on him at all. SpinningSpark 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding templates and categories to articles that do not exist. And you should definitely not be editing templates until you understand what you are doing. Stub templates are used on many articles across Wikipedia and the changes you made to the mathematics stub is going to appear in a lot of places you did not expect. Besides which the article link you inserted does not exist. Drop a note on my talk page if you need help and explain what you are trying to do. SpinningSpark 00:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Facts in Wikipedia are supposed to be supported with references. You have now deleted several, which is not usually a good thing. You deleted the Seising ref which was supporting the claim Foster went to Harvard. Why did you do this? You have inserted a ref for "The Foster Census". Do you mean this, written by Foster? Are you just trying to add that to the Bibliography or is it in place of the Seising ref? By Wikipedia policy it is better to provide refs from works not written by Foster. You have deleted the ref supporting the number of children. Is this because you want to add a fourth child? You should really provide a ref for this. Really, the details of the children could be left out of the article altogether unless they are themselves notable. Please explain what you are trying to do, I can help you get this right. SpinningSpark 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS!!! If you look at the actual book to which I made my reference, and read the pages written by Professor S. Schuster in the Biographical Preface, pages iii to v, then you would find out more about Ronald Martin Foster. I do not understand why you insist on changing these CORRECT facts.

You are right, I know very few facts about Ronald Foster. I just want to properly reference the article. Is this the book you are talking about? SpinningSpark 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the book though I know that while he had spent years "generating" all those "graphs', the Canadians wrote the actual book so despite that reference you gave me he was NOT an author. I have also added another book that he revised the fourth edition -- I think he may have been at Harvard when B. O. Pierce was Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy there.