This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belize, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belize on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelizeWikipedia:WikiProject BelizeTemplate:WikiProject BelizeBelize
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
I find it incredibly disrespetctful for him as a character and as a person, that after clearfully desperatively warning everyone that he wasn't suicidal, to simply determine that his cause of Death was simply suicide, I find that simply makes no sense to what we're saying. Wikipedia policy is not about self research, but about citing what others sources, say: So let me give you some sources, that I might be able to find.
No one here has decided he died by suicide. That was the outcome of the official autopsy. Whether you consider that "dignified" or not is up to you, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong and very misleading. An "autopsy" is a surgical procedure used to confirm the *cause of death*
Autopsy result alone CANNOT be used to confirmed the manner how death occurs.
For example an autopsy would confirmed that a person died from "asphyxiation" but there are several ways of dying from asphyxiation. Whether by self asphyxiation such as hanging, accidental asphyxiation or asphyxiation by a third person such as strangulation… other pieces of evidence from the investigation are needed to confirmed the manner of how death occurs.
So saying autopsy confirmed suicide is just factually incorrect as it is impossible to confirmed a person has taken his own life using just results from a surgical procedure alone. TonAMG53 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sistemx: As far as I can tell, all the sources you provided talk only about his statements prior to his death, and that is already covered in the article. Thus, we completely cite what sources say. His own words prior to the event contradicts mainstream accounts after it, but that's no reason to assume he can predict the future. If you can produce reliable sources that state "he didn't commit suicide" rather than "he said he wouldn't commit suicide", then we could update the cause of death. Gaioa (TCL) 18:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people here are stating he died by suicide when the circumstances of his passing were suspicious. The fact that a corrupt government published an autopsy coinciding with the conclusion they wanted released to the public is irrelevant. Can we please have a little less naivete than a child here?68.204.52.145 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "suspicious circumstances" are only that his official cause of death conflicted with his own statements before he died? If you have any WP:RS sources that talk about "a corrupt government" in this context, perhaps you could share them here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of coverage it gives to the Safex cryptocurrency is completely disproportionate, it's sourced entirely to twitter, YouTube, a blog and a press release, it's promotionally written (full suite of advanced ecommerce functions), the editor that added it appears to be spamming Safex all over the site, and it's improperly formatted. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for any formatting irregularities - I would happily take any advice offered. Yes, I’m new to Wiki contributions. I own dozens of cryptocurrencies, acquired mostly in 2018. However, most are complete rubbish and have done nothing - just raised money and produced no results.
The exception is Safex, which is why I have been looking for opportunities to SELECTIVELY (not spamming, as asserted by the complainant) add Wiki contributions in areas where I truly believe they meet the Notability test. As for NPOV and Verifiability, I’ve tried my best to provide a neutral commentary and use what sources are available. In this instance JM was well known to use Twitter as his primary communication medium, and therefore was heavily relied upon for the entry I made.
In addressing the reference to the “full suite of advanced ecommerce functions” - the complainant may not understand the gravity of achieving such a feat at the blockchain protocol level. Satoshi’s vision for Bitcoin included exactly that, but it was never completed and released on bitcoin. You can even look at the bitcoin source code and find unfinished marketplace-related code commented out.
I would hope my Safex entry to JM’s wiki page can be reconsidered.
FWIW, I have also done a rough draft for an actual Safex wiki page, but have not attempted to publish, as even I don’t believe there is enough independent, editorial content online (yet) to meet the Verifiability test for a new page.
@Aussiesloth If you own this cryptocurrency then you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with regards to it and should not be adding content about it to articles directly. If you own a share of it then you have a financial conflict of interest because you stand to make money if the price of the currency goes up, which may be driven by the currency receiving coverage.
The addition here was indistinguishable from the crypto spam that's been going on at this website for years. An article about John McAfee should be about John McAfee, not about random cryptocurrencies that he mentioned in tweets. The amount of coverage that you added was completely disproportionate to the relative importance of Safex to the topic of John McAfee, this cryptocurrency probably does not even merit a mention here at all, let alone an entire paragraph. The sources you used were also WP:self published sources, WP:User generated content and paid coverage, all of which are among the weakest forms of sourcing available and do not demonstrate that the topic is notable or worth inclusion.
Finally you should be aware that cryptocurrency is under a general sanctions regime due to past disruption, I shall give you the required notices in a minute.
There's a fair amount of controversy over what exactly "natural born citizen" means; I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on it. There have been various serious presidential contenders who were born outside of the U.S., most recently Ted Cruz, so it's not obvious that McAfee was ineligible. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
McAfee's domain expired some time ago and was registered by someone else. I recommend removing it from the external links and/or replacing it with an Internet Archive link. HollyJungle (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are way too many instances of paragraphs/sentences staring with "In <month> <year>" in this article. It does not read well. I started cleaning it up, but we need to really rewrite this article to conform with the WP:MOS and make it more like an encyclopedia article, instead of a rote list of "this happened, and then this happened..." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Reverted. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)