Talk:Natasha Vita-More

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Importance Tag[edit]

I'm failing to see the importance of this particular person; googling her name brings up page after page of ads. Where's the notability?  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't think an importance tag is necessary. However, I do think Natasha Vita-More deserves a Wikipedia article because she was a pioneer of the transhumanist movement. --Loremaster 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you throw some links up? I'm not joking when I say I can't find anything that's not an ad.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Here is one: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0331,baard,45866,1.html --Loremaster 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, considering that the "World Transhumanist Association" consists of a little over 5000 members, having such long bios of any of their "leaders" online is a bit dubious. The whole organization is a media invention, and the only reason they have such a large wikipedia footprint is that many of their disciples are heavy editors. 69.254.136.113 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like self-promotion to me, not generally notable. Studied at obscure universities, works for an obscure organization. Definitely a candidate for deletion. Pawg14 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good deletion candidate. There are reliable sources eg. here, here, here, here, here, and here. The article could use a bunch of cleanup, though. NeatGrey (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll work on cleaning up and shortening it. Should the headshot be deleted? It makes it feel like a personal webpage, particularly when the person is of minor importance. 23:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk)
Maybe replace with this image? It's freely licensed, and feels like less of a PR shot. In general, I think having at least one (freely licensed and appropriate) photo usually improves bio pages. NeatGrey (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
There's also this freely licensed image NeatGrey (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the first image is appropriate, but sorry don't know how to upload images. I'm new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawg14 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub classification[edit]

How can Vita-More's occupation be classified, if not philosopher? Biologist? Activist? Businessperson? Anything else? Also, where is she from? Article doesn't refer to her nationality. Conscious 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Artist from the United States of America. --Loremaster 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
OK! Conscious 21:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Text contrary to Wikipedia policy - Biography of Living Persons[edit]

I have, for the third time, removed some text that is clearly against the policy due to being contentious and unsourced. If it appears again I will be asking for a page lock Hpengwyn 13:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone could fix the footnote formatting for me. I've tried to just cut and paste, but it's not working for two of the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomAdmirer (talkcontribs) 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

Information appears to be referenced. If anyone can locate unreferenced information, please let me know and I'll hunt it down. Rchelsey (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Vita-More's Chronological Age[edit]

Whomever keeps putting my my age, I will ask to kindly stop. You do not know when I was born, and unless you are my mother, and you are taking great liberties with my name for that matter. "Nancy Clark" was not my birth name on my birth certificate. My mother is still alive and anyone can ask her if you do not believe me.

Under Wikipedia rules for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If the subject objects to using her age only use the year. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources. The above request was made by User:Natasha Vita-More, so her preferences should be respected and the day and month of birth should not be included on this article. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Waters.Justin. And in fact the subject has specifically written about age (http://www.natasha.cc/ageless.htm), about its overuse, and I gather would prefer the year not be used, but the policy is just that birth month and day and calculated age can be omitted. I'm just changing it to use template {{birth-date}} which allows just birth year and does not calculate age. Not sure how month and day can be deleted from associated wiki-data (not visible in article, but presumably present), but that should be done too. --doncram 00:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup tags[edit]

I've added cites and deleted a bunch of uncited/trivia material; the "poorly cited" etc. cleanup tags no longer seem relevant. Bmrg567 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

The following Links in the External-Links-section are dead: Technoccult, La Spirale, MemeBox Future Blogger, Tin Foil Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.157.190 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

fixed Pawg14 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How do we know TetrahedreX is a connected contributor?[edit]

Why was User:TetrahedreX added as a connected contributor? I don't see any evidence this editor is connected to the subject other than most of the user's contributions were of the subject. If there is not any evidence TetraedreX is connected then I recommend removing the template from the article because the few edits done by User:Natasha Vita-More do not justify the template stating "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." Waters.Justin (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)