User talk:Mrbrklyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I might add that the Barcan Formula was named AFTER the family. How do I know, I asked her at her sisters 90th Birthday paty.

http://www.mrbrklyn.com/images/esther_90th_birthday_party_2007/dsc01392.jpg

She gained her intellectual background from her extrodanary father who died when she was about 5. The family was accomplished, but destroyed in Europe at the tern of the century and the reminants escaped here to give fruit. In truth, several of the members likely could qualify for inclussion into wikepedia, but thats for another day. Seperating an article about Ruth from her family is inapropriate.

[edit] Note

Mr Safir, I don't understand why you decided to remove the biographical information from the article on Dr Barcan Marcus less than a day after having added it for the fourth(?) time.

Thank you for having removed it, though, as it was largely inappropriate. More to the point, it wasn't particularly relevant: everyone has many relatives, but of the list of relatives you provided, you made no claims as to why any of these particular individuals should be considered notable (and thus why they should be mentioned at all), nor did you explain how they were related to her (and thus why they should be mentioned in that article).

Furthermore, that family photo from 1906 that you uploaded? I don't see how it could be considered appropriate for the article, since it dates from 15 years before her birth. Again, thank you for removing it from the article, but why did you add it in the first place? DS 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Mr Dragonfly, I removed it dispite it being largely appropriate, if the entire entry as a biographical entry is appropriate at all. This entry, as it is currently entered, is a simple vanity page monitored by Yale University. This is not the purpose that a Wikipedia entry should have. If they want promotion of their faculty, they should just pay for it.

The indidivual theories which are discussed should really be broken out of this page and more fully fleshed out if they are worth coverage. The Biographic page should focus on the life and accomplishments of the subject. As they are the theories are nearly incomprehensible, and the biography has no biographical information. This is fundementally wrong, which is why I've occasionally returned the family history when someone else removed it. Although I didn't write the original family entry, I had returned it a number of times, and trimmed it once when there was inapropriate materials added to it. If Ruth didn't ask me to remove it, I would have not only added it, but improved it so that this page could be corrected. Unfortunately, dispite the fact that I strongly feel that the subjects of biographical entries should not be writing their own entries, nor influencing through their associated public relations engines, businesses or employees, I just don't really chose to muck around into family politics when both Mrs Marcus and her sisters are so aged and frail.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this matter. I might pursue it further in the near future to address the issue as a whole, but I'm really up to my elbows right now with my research on healthcare software and the negitive affect current software modalities have on morbitity and mortality. That, plus teaching and my full time job is keeping me busy.

Dr Reuvain Safir