Talk:Geekologie

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geekologie. 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/20100331123842/http://voice.paly.net:80/view_story.php?id=5486 to http://voice.paly.net/view_story.php?id=5486
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121226055703/http://techland.time.com:80/2012/10/22/25-best-blogs-2012/slide/geekologie/ to http://techland.time.com/2012/10/22/25-best-blogs-2012/slide/geekologie/

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) 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Geekologie writer moved to Borninspace
On June 15, 2020, the Geekologie writer moved to Borninspace. This is part of Geekologie's history. The fact that this is an information from the site does imply that until such date there was one single writer for Geekologie. Deleting this information from the article, specially now that Geekologie is in practice defunct, merely causes people to not be able to find the where the writer currently is.

Additional information about what happened after this event may be included, but this must not interfere with stating the event above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowzee (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. First, your edit was supported solely by a primary source. We need secondary sources for this.
 * 2. Second, the cited source does not say there there is only one writer on that website, so refering to that person as "the writer" presumes something not in evidence, a point underlined by the fact that the website continued for over a year. The mere departure of one writer from a website does not merit inclusion, especially when it comes from the site itself.


 * I explicitly explained the second point in my first edit summary, and although I neglected to also mention the first, I included it in my second edit summary. However, you nonetheless restored the material after I removed it the first time. Please do not revert without a valid rationale, and/or without falsifying the rationale of the person whose edit you're reverting. Nightscream (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Timeline:
 * June 15, 2020
 * "I leave my post as Geekologie Writer":
 * https://geekologie.com/2020/06/gw-blasting-off.php
 * June 16, 2020
 * "There's obviously no way to fill the void left by Mr. Geekologie Writer":
 * (joke-picture of monkey replacements)
 * https://geekologie.com/2020/06/no-geekologie-isnt-dead.php
 * June 16, 2020 - August 25, 2021
 * Unidentified replacement writer(s) keep the site up
 * August 25, 2021
 * Geekologie is defunct
 * unknown date:
 * "Formerly the Geekologie Writer, I wrote Geekologie for the last 13 years ":
 * https://www.borninspace.com/about-us/ Bowzee (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Geekologie is defunct
 * unknown date:
 * "Formerly the Geekologie Writer, I wrote Geekologie for the last 13 years ":
 * https://www.borninspace.com/about-us/ Bowzee (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.borninspace.com/about-us/ Bowzee (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * And yet, nowhere in your timeline did you address the issue of secondary vs. primary sources. I wonder why? Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your personal sarcasm is uncalled for and I do not see your point. Not agreeing with your personal interpretation of source levels does not make the cited facts untrue. Writing [whatever requirement needed] is more appropriate than your personal vandalizing of the page, as it seems to be what yo are here for. Bowzee (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You're evading the point.


 * I haven't expressed a "personal interpretation". I made the point that one of Wikipedia's guidelines is the one concerning the need to rely on secondary sources, rather than primary ones, that the source you cited is a primary one, and that you persistently evaded that point, choosing instead to attempt misdirection by talking about other things, and sure enough, you did this in your message above.


 * You did this emphasizing my "sarcasm," by claiming I made a "personal interpretation", and by falsely accusing me of "sarcasm". Sure thing, Bowzee. You've accumulated 51 edits here on Wikipedia, and your edit violated Wikipedia policy, and now you're accusing the 17-year veteran edtior and former administrator with over 150,000 edits under his belt who explained this to you of "vandalism." Please read WP:VANDAL to see how Wikipedia actually defines vandalsim. You do all of this, while never falsifying the central point I made about the source you cited being a primary source, or even referencing it. Again, why is this? Is it because you don't wish to learn the policies and guideines and govern content on Wikipedia? Is it because you think those rules don't apply to you? Do you figure that not addressing this point and talking about other things not relevant to this will accomplish something? If so, what? Do you think I'm fooled by this tactic? Do you think any other editor who may join this discussion will be?


 * One more time: The source you cited is both a primary source, which violates WP:PSTS.  What is your response to this? Nightscream (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)