Talk:Why the lucky stiff

message: This got cut from the main article because it was unsourced. But it's still interesting so I want to put it here:
This article is a stub which clearly should be merged with the main entry, Elf With Ham. 69.49.44.11 14:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  secrets 

message: Hey Hu12, why don't you actually look into the external links you're removing as "spam" before removing them. This is a biographical article, and I was inserting a link to why the lucky stiff's blog titled RedHanded. He's known for his writing there more than anything other than his book... --Sinned 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RedHanded 

message: Hi, I cleaned up the article and rewrote some of it. some thoughts about it:
* Some bits may not be NPOV though. Is it possible to pay celebrities or journalists for nice quotes to put in Wikipedia articles? 
* I need someone to fix the Paul Adams quote.
* I hope my changes don't break the mousehole hack btw, I don't have mousehole here.
Zorbid 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: This looks like a home page of a Jackie Brown as it is... "look at me", "here's what I like to do", "my hobbies", "photoes of my pet cat", "look look what I have drawn"... ouch. --Sigmundur 12:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. How many bloody backlinks does the article have to his site? Smells like PageRank whoring to me :p Davedx (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Totally agree. This is for deletion. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response on Talk:Why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia material? 

message: The link seems dead, it's normal. It is only accessible to people with the technical know how, as described in http://hoodwinkd.hobix.com/ . (Assuming it's still up, since I'm barred from accessing it from behind this firewall).Zorbid (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in fact down...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.126.228 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding hoodwink.d 

message: _why looks like Jack Black. I'm sorry, it just has to be said. :P Jesset77 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I thought the exact same thing. :D --208.65.73.201 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto! Destynova (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: _why can't look too similar to Jack Black if I can easily distinguish him from Jordan Raskopoulos on the photograph here.[song] Das-g (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Black 

message: On February 23, 2009 _why tweeted with a request for his page to be edited. 
* Should this request really be executed though? The new alias returns no result on Google, and it seems like an attempt to play with Wikipedia.62.197.126.228 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitter request 

message: I've added quotes by John Resig and Tim Bray.
They were self published, but the high notability of both authors turns them into WP:RS. -Zorbid (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I don't know if this counts as notable, so I'm putting it here: "Why, the lucky stiff!" appears on page 114 of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, as seen at <http://books.google.com/books?id=YtcIAQAAIAAJ&q=%22why+the+lucky+stiff%22&dq=%22why+the+lucky+stiff%22&ei=Gik3SobgAZqGkATV9-mlBQ&pgis=1>. Noah Tye (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly, that book seems to have quite a bit to do with _why... --Devynci (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name, "_why the lucky stiff" 

message: I am going to remove the large "disappearance" sections and reduce them to a small mention of today's events.  The information currently on the page openly states that little is known except for speculation and sensationalism, so I feel that a simple "His online presence has been mostly removed" will do until sourced information emerges. Max (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds like the right approach. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not speculation. Josephgrossberg (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, but how about at least some minimal mention of that fact itself, that there is no satisfactory explanation yet of said disappearance? That would be more helpful than total silence on the issue. Toddcs (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

text: So, on (or about) 11/17/09 I added the following sentence: "The exact circumstances of Why's sudden disappearance are at this time still the subject of considerable conjecture and debate." And I added a reference to this discussion page itself. But skomorokh removed all of the above, objecting that we need to stick only to the facts. Well, as I see it, said conjecture and debate *are* in and of themselves undisputable facts. So go figure. Toddcs (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

text: the disappearance goes beyond "mostly" though, as far as I've seen it nothing of his online persona remain (apart from the servers, which still resolve and run but don't accept requests anymore).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masklinn (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the same notice should be placed in the links section Dmitriid (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  No, I watched a video of that lecture on Vimeo... there were a ton of people. It was funny. About the Hackety Hack thing, well, he explained that Shoes needed more work before he could continue. There is recent code from Hackety Hack 2.0. On the subject of the twitter post, it could have been related to anything... perhaps he was coding and made a huge mistake, then tried to fix it, frustrated him, then felt the need to post about it. --Devynci (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance 

message: _why has closed down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.137.240 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's over 

message: I think this should be in the article.  It's probably no coincidence that the man disappeared after this started making the rounds  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.243.107 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until it starts making the rounds in reliable sources, it's irresponsible of us to engage in outing article subjects.  Skomorokh  02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why everyone is so reluctant to put anything up about his disappearance when so much is actually known. I know who _why is through multiple friends of his and I can vouch for the fact that the sources out there are accurate (for example http://jonathaniswhy.posterous.com/). I lived in and grew up in Utah. One of my freelancing colleagues, Todd Wilson, used to work with Jonathan Gillette at Inetz Media and vouched for his interest in Ruby and his genius. Another friend of mine knew Jonathan from a local Mormon hipster message board, http://spockwithabeard.com, which I also belong to. They met up in person at least once. He said Jonathan was very emphatic that they should not share his personal identity with others. I'm not sure exactly why. Anyway, since I approach it from the angle of someone who knows the information is accurate, I'm not sure why there is so much hesitation to report on something, especially when that posterous blog has collected some pretty convincing digital evidence.Cayblood (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that I don't think that a sentence or two about his identity is inappropriate in a wikipedia article even if it's against his wishes. On the contrary, I think withholding the information out of respect for our interpretation of his wishes is not good journalism.Cayblood (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Great note. And while we are at it, you might want to censor google so that search results don't bring in anything of worth. I mean... his name could be exposed again, and we already know he doesn't want to be known ... :-) 80.108.103.172 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Identity 

message: The links pointing to the github repos are now dead.  I found an alternate repo at github that seems to have a large percentage of the originals: http://github.com/whymirror/.  They seem to be gathering as many of the original repos as possible from a number of different sources(quite evident in the public activity) and merging them into one account.  All one needs to do to get to one of the original projects is to replace /why/ in the original url with /whymirror/.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.159.225 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth noting is that the links to his code are currently dead links. A mirror, at least, would be helpful. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I wasn't as clear as I could've been.  http://github.com/whymirror is about as close to a mirror as you can get 72.39.159.225 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am agreeing with you. At the time I made the comment, I could not add that to the page. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Github 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Why the lucky stiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://whytheluckystiff.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316024256/http://whoiswhytheluckystiff.wordpress.com/ to http://whoiswhytheluckystiff.wordpress.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Why the lucky stiff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005013617/http://www.honeybadger.io/blog/2013/04/12/is-_why-coming-out-of-exile to http://www.honeybadger.io/blog/2013/04/12/is-_why-coming-out-of-exile
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205074640/http://podcast.rubyonrails.com/programs/1/episodes/the_camping_episode to http://podcast.rubyonrails.com/programs/1/episodes/the_camping_episode
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908142354/http://redhanded.hobix.com/ to http://redhanded.hobix.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article about _why is a bit confusing. I mean I can understand that wikipedia wants to gather objective facts; that is fine. But a lot of the article seems to have been written with an anti-why focus in mind.
That is strange. Again, not against the facts, but the wording is really odd ...
Take this here:
"In April 2013, a complete book attributed[15][16] to Jonathan Gillette was digitally released via the website whytheluckystiff.net (which has since changed ownership) and the GitHub repository cwales."
So that makes it clear that this did not come by _why, yes? I mean, if it was ANOTHER owner, why would the article insinuate it came from him? If
the ownership changed?? That makes no sense. It also contradicts other parts of the article.
I don't really want to get involved in this, but my opinion is that the article isn't totally objective right now. Probably because different people
wrote it, and a few may have had a specific agenda in mind. Someone should go through the whole article and make it more objective, without removing
the facts. But I mean just if you think about the () parens part ... "which has since changed ownership" ... by the way, why would he retain the
website in 2013, if he retired from the _why personae in 2009? That just does not add up! Who wrote that? 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Article