The Official TWiT Wiki:Community bulletin board/Archive 2

From The Official TWiT Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

User Pages

  • Should all user profile pages follow the same template? If so who want's to propose one? Should it contain an avatar? Theta1594 21:45, 9 January 2009 (PST)
    • I think user profiles are up to each user. There might be a suggested template, but I don't see why that should be mandated. Ccheath 06:58, 10 January 2009 (PST)
    • I concur with Ccheath. A suggested template would be nice but not mandatory --Hapa 11:21, 22 January 2009 (PST)

Semantic MediaWiki

Perhaps this wiki would be a great place to showcase Semantic MediaWiki? Automatic linking of panelists to shows, parameterized searching (eg: all TWiT or MacBreak Weekly Episodes with Merlin Mann in 2007)... there are lots of possibilities. Oh, and it has super-sweet timelines. It's an extension to MediaWiki, so installation effort should be pretty minimal (I'm sure it's gotten better since I've installed it). --Listrophy 14:25, 10 January 2009 (PST)


I noticed that the first show notes have appeared (MC57). Therefore, I think we should figure out how they should be organized. To me, "MC57" is not a very intuitive name. I have come up with a few ideas:

  1. Show notes be named as "Podcast_Name Episode_Number" in the main (article) namespace.
  2. Show notes be subpages of the podcast page (i.e. "Podcast_Name/Episode_Number". However, there is a problem: If we do that (by setting $wgNamespacesWithSubpages[NS_MAIN] = true; in LocalSettings.php), article page titles with a slash (/) in them would be considered subpages, which could cause some problems.
  3. Show notes get their own namespace (Show notes:), with show notes being subpages of a podcast page in that namespace (i.e. "Show notes:Podcast_Name/Episode_Number")

What do people think? -- Imperator3733 17:32, 10 January 2009 (PST)

At first glance I would vote for option 3. It seems fairly easy to implement without introducing serious usability problems. With option 1 there's always the small chance of encountering a naming conflict, so I think that should be avoided. I have a couple of questions about how this is going to be implemented though. Where are these show notes going to be linked from? Are the pages for each podcast going to link to every single show or will they be linked to from elsewhere? Also, if we go for the 3rd option a better name for the namespace would probably be (Episode:) or something along those lines considering that these pages could show summaries of the episode, guest lists, etc. --Steveh 18:04, 10 January 2009 (PST)
Keep it Simple so I'm for option 1 (oh and please, please give this wiki some time to take off before we start with editing rules, deletion templates and other advanced wikipedia stuff :)) Hoffmann 18:12, 10 January 2009 (PST)
I think we should get the rules out of the way early before or it could become quite the chore to reformat everything to make it conform later. It seems like the logical way to do it. --Steveh 18:19, 10 January 2009 (PST)
+1 for option 1. Using slashes is supported but not recommended in MediaWiki, so option 2 probably isn't the best. There's been a lot of thought into why they're not recommended, but I won't go into that here. Option 3 is bad because there is no need for namespaces in this context, and it plays weird with stuff like searching. --listrophy 18:22, 10 January 2009 (PST)
Good points. If we do go with option 1, a strict naming convention would be needed IMHO. I still would like to know where the links to these shownotes are going to go. Are we just going to link recent episodes on the podcasts page and then orphan them after a certain number of episodes? It seems Hoffman and Listrophy have two different methods. --Steveh 18:33, 10 January 2009 (PST)
I linked the recent show notes from the show page eg FLOSS Weekly and made a table overview for all shows FLOSS Weekly Show Notes and liked to that from the show page too. Hoffmann 18:43, 10 January 2009 (PST)
I like the way that's laid out. I would have no problem doing the show notes for every show like that. Perhaps instead of naming that index "FLOSS Weekly Show Notes" it could be something along the lines of "FLOSS Weekly Episodes Guide" seeing as it lists more information then just the show notes. Otherwise it's fantastic. --Steveh 18:56, 10 January 2009 (PST)
I'm fine with ".. Episodes Guide".
The FLOSS Weekly Show Notes page needs a link to FLOSS Weekly! Is that page bot-generated or can someone just make the fix?
Fixed. Added the link to the tables header. I think the FLOSS Show Notes or Episodes Guide (or whatever) should be the model for how show notes are handled from now on. Perhaps just say Episode 1 instead of FLOSS1 under the Show Notes column. --Steveh 19:25, 10 January 2009 (PST)
In the spirit of "Just make the change and it will get reverted if it's bad," I fixed MC57 to redirect to Munchcast 57. --listrophy 18:27, 10 January 2009 (PST)

OFFICIAL NOTE: The official naming scheme is Podcast_Name Episode_Number. In the case of This WEEK in TECH, the Podcast_Name variable has been shortened to TWiT. --listrophy 16:21, 11 January 2009 (PST)

I kinda disagree with shownotes being on the TWiT Wiki for the following reasons.
  1. It's kinda redundant considering that we have a mostly complete set of show notes on
  2. This is my main concern, this will conflict with the upcoming XMPP River Leo will be setting up. What I'm worried about is the river being overshadowed.
  3. Most edits will not even be edited in the shownotes.
Feel free to agree or disagree with what I just said. --Taylor Karras 11:59, 12 January 2009 (PST)
I think shownotes were one of the main reasons why leo created this wiki. He wants his shows to show up on google and so needs a searchable transcript of the shows. Hoffmann 13:04, 12 January 2009 (PST)
I agree. Plus, during yesterdays TWiT the notes were up incredibly fast. I believe this is the best way to do it. --Steveh 13:14, 12 January 2009 (PST)
I disagree mainly because the upcoming river would be rendered redundant and this is supposed to be a Wiki that's supposed to be all about everything TWiT. What would you want for shownotes, the XMPP River or the TWiT Wiki? --Taylor Karras 00:54, 13 January 2009 (PST)
            • No - show notes are one of the MAIN reasons for this wiki, and it's working really really well so far. Don't worry - the river will just give people another way to contribute. River content will be incorporated into the wiki afterwards. Leo 23:02, 14 January 2009 (PST)

Show notes format

We're all very excited by the potential of this wiki. In the post-production department, we are going to be posting all our formerly private internal production notes here instead. This doesn't have to look the same as our internal notes, as we all think that what you guys are coming up with is much better. But we have to meet a few requirements for each show, and would like to add them to the templates. Perhaps a template guru could help me incorporate these items if possible. I've gone in much greater depth than you probably need below, but I wanted to give you insight into some of our internal processes and the reasoning behind them. These solutions could probably be addressed in a few ways. Thanks!

Show Titles
Show Titles Have Each Word Capitalized
Show titles follow this naming convention (without quotes) --
Security Now 178: Listener Feedback 57
If this whole text could link somewhere prominently in the top right of the wiki to the live show page (to in this case), I think that would be appropriate.
Brief Description (or tagline or log line or teaser)
  • These are 10-17 words long that goes in an area called "Teaser" in both our feeds and on the website. They usually end with "and more" in case we missed something in our description.
  • Daily Giz Wiz: I often write this as a sales pitch as to what this item will be good for, ending with "with the <a href="">XYZ</a>. So it's like this: "Wrap up your alphabet faster with the compact, three-letter, English <a href"">XYZ</a>."
    • Note: Instead of using html code for the links, links should be as follows: [ XYZ]. -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 06:47, 30 January 2009 (PST)
  • FLOSS Weekly: I summarize what the open source software does based on Randal's notes, the content of the show, the project's website, and Wikipedia.
  • Futures in Biotech: I summarizes a description Marc Peletier gives me.
  • Jumping Monkeys: I list the big topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
  • The Tech Guy: I list the big topics in Leo's opening monologue, the guests, possibly the topic of an interesting call, and end with "and your calls."
  • MacBreak Weekly: I list the big topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
  • Munchcast: I list a few of the topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
  • net@nite: I list a few of the topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
  • Security Now: If this is has "Your Questions, Steve's Answers" or "Listener Feedback" in it, I put "Our regular mailbag episode with questions and comments from our listeners." Otherwise, I try to write something that best summarizes what Steve writes about the topic.
  • Roz Rows: Leo writes these.
  • This Week in Law: I list a few of the topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
  • TWiT: I list a few of the topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
  • Windows Weekly: I list a few of the topics, ending with a comma and "and more."
Longer Description
Very open to what this should contain.
For shows that have guests, I write: "Name Name from Company" and with links for both the person and company if possible. For FLOSS Weekly I always write "for" instead of "from" because usually the person is an advocate of or participant in the open source software, but don't actually work for that company. Linux isn't a company, for instance, although there are companies that use it.
Audible pick section
If it's a weekly show I call it "Audible pick of the week." If it's the Daily Giz Wiz I call it "Audible pick of the day." Tony and I need to mark the time codes of the ads for our clients, so we need to have a field to do that on each section that lists any ad. The preferred way to write this is "The Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick, Vol. 1, Unabridged, By Philip K. Dick, Narrated by Anthony Heald, Malcolm Hillgartner, Paul Michael Garcia, G. Valmont Thomas, Scott Brick
Other ad sections
Tony and I need to list the time codes of all advertisers so the advertisers can quickly go to that time code and know what was said in the show. This is only for the audio version we create in post-production, not the live version.
Production Notes
We also need a section called "Production Notes" where Tony and I can make notes.
Duration (or Length or Runtime or Running Time)
We need a regular place to put this. This is the length of the final produced audio version.
Album Art
It would seem helpful to have each show notes page have a small version of the album art, but I don't that's a requirement.
If someone wants to shoot a screenshot of each show and put it in the top right, that would be fun, but I don't that's a requirement.
We need a standard place to put both recorded date and publish date or release date, such as:
Recorded Date: January 14, 2009
Publish Date: January 15, 2009
We also need places to enter, if needed:
This is something we sometimes put at the end, usually only in TWiT but occaisionally in MacBreak Weekly or other shows.
Special Ending
We occaisionally use non-standard outro music.
Edited By
Edited by: Tony or Dane or Leo
This is a catch-all area for the editor that could include time codes of places we edit out swear words, notes to the effect that someone's Skype kept cutting in and out, any special editing instructions from Leo, or any major problems we had with the editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danegolden (talkcontribs)
Dane, I shall put it on my TODO list. --listrophy 17:20, 15 January 2009 (PST)
  • Dates should now be taken care of. I deprecated the 'Date' parameter on Template:Infobox Episode. It has been replaced with two additional option parameters. The first is 'Recorded' for when the show was originally recorded and the second is 'Published' for when the show is going to appear in the podcast feed. The 'Date' param will still work for the time being, but it shouldn't be used for future episodes. --Steveh 17:50, 15 January 2009 (PST)
  • I think all information that's only really of use to producers and advertisers should be under a single heading, not mixed with the rest of the show notes. For instance; information like audible ad times and locations, where other ads were placed, who edited the episode, notes on production, etc should be down at the bottom of the page under the heading 'Production'. --Steveh 18:13, 15 January 2009 (PST)
  • Thanks Steveh for Dates changes. I think it would work fine for me and Tony to have a special section just for us. Would 'Production Notes' be redundant? Danegolden 16:11, 16 January 2009 (PST)
    • 'Production Notes' or 'Production Information' seem fine to me. --Steveh 16:21, 16 January 2009 (PST)
FLOSS Weekly is the name of Randal's show, not FLOSS. Could we change naming convention? Danegolden 09:56, 17 January 2009 (PST)
I think I changed all of the links and pages. Let me know if I missed one. -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 11:14, 17 January 2009 (PST)
  • Alright. I think we've got a pretty good bite on it. I took some of the recommendations here and made a few tweaks to The Official TWiT Wiki:Manual of Style#Show Notes. I added a short description at the top to meet with Dane's Brief Description request and a Mentioned Products section to meet with Colleens request for a section to list products for TWiT Pick (discussed on IRC). I also added a Production Information section to the bottom. Currently the production info has no guidelines. I think that's best left up to the staff. I just left a note there stating that that section shouldn't be touched. I still have a few problems with it I think should be discussed before we finalize it. I'll list them here: --Steveh 20:42, 18 January 2009 (PST)
    • Panel/Hosts: We have a dedicated section for hosts and panelists, but we also list them in the infobox. Is this redundant and is it necessary to list all panelists and hosts for each and every show? Perhaps we could just do it for one time guests and first time panelists? --Steveh 20:42, 18 January 2009 (PST)
    • Topic: We currently have two bullets we use under the topic heading. We have a brief synopsis and a dedicated bullet for external links. Could the external links not just be worked into the text of the synopsis? --Steveh 20:42, 18 January 2009 (PST)
    • Show Logo: Dane said something about putting the show logo or screen shots on each episode page. I think the screen shots wouldn't work too well, because I think most of them would just be pictures of Leo and none would be all too descriptive of the show. The show logo I'm on the fence about. I'm not sure we need to show the logo on each and every episode, but it might be nice to have. --Steveh 20:42, 18 January 2009 (PST)
  • I created a prototype layout that I think with a little bit of tweaking would work for most shows. User:Steveh/Sandbox --Steveh 21:45, 18 January 2009 (PST)

List of MacWorld Speakers Gift bag items

I'm making a List of MacWorld Speakers Gift bag that will be posted on my user page in a bit. --AnotherBrian 16:08, 11 January 2009 (PST)

A simple note

I've been noticing that a lot of people aren't signing talk page discussions. To do this, end your comment with four tildes (~, that thing to the left of the 1 on a standard keyboard), like this ~~~~. This makes sure that we know who said what. If you see anyone not signing this, leave a friendly message on their talk page. Thanks. -- Imperator3733 08:44, 12 January 2009 (PST)

Copying Templates from Wikipedia

I see some people have been templates from Wikipedia instead of creating their own templates. This doesn't apply to templates that are just code or hacks or whatever. This is about templates that are transcluded on the pages, I'm concerned because the license is incompatible with ours, Wikipedia's is GDFL, ours is CC-BY-NC-SA (if the proposal passes, this won't be a problem) and the fact that this makes us look like we're copying from Wikipedia and we have no prior wiki experience other then balantly copying templates from other sources. Here are my main reasons.

  1. Wikipedia's templates are designed to handle Wikipedia's large articles and self-moderating behaivor. We are a small wiki and most of us do not need the additional meta templates or the advance templates. The documentation template I hate because it directly implies that we're a Wikipedia look-a-like when we're our own wiki.
  2. Licenins issues as stated above
  3. Shows that there are few people who actually know how to create templates and project pages, which is what a Wiki needs to survive.

Feel free to disagree or agree with the comments above. --Taylor Karras 17:52, 13 January 2009 (PST)

Legal issues aside (which is a BIG aside), there aren't very many people on here who are fluent in MediaWiki language... and I mean FLUENT. I consider myself pretty darn good, but the guys on Wikipedia are just wired for it. The last thing we need is a crapload of templates that are too confusing for the best of us to understand. --listrophy 17:56, 13 January 2009 (PST)


Using the by-nc-sa license makes all content incompatible to wikipedia content. IMHO this is bad and we have to do a lot of double work. Lets reconsider this decision. I suggest using the CC-BY-SA license which will allow us to freely share content with the wikipedia[1] [2]. (Maybe Leo can explain why he coose by-nc-sa). Hoffmann 22:06, 14 January 2009 (PST)

  • All TWiT products are licensed BY-NC-SA to prevent commercial reuse of the content. Is incompatibility with Wikipedia an issue? Leo 22:48, 14 January 2009 (PST)
    • All the templates from wikipedia cannot be reused. The same problem exists for lists And I like to reuse parts of guests biographies from wp. Also I believe in network effects and that in the long term both wikipedia and the twit wiki will benefit from a compatible license. I understand that you want to protect your work (e.g. your podcasts), but for the wiki I don't see the problem of commercial reuse. And if someone wants to sell a printed version of this wiki, why not? He has to give attribution, so it will be free advertising. Hoffmann 23:46, 14 January 2009 (PST)
      • I agree with your reason for putting the netcasts under CC-BY-NC-SA, but I also agree with Hoffmann's reason for putting the wiki (and just the wiki) under CC-BY-SA. Assuming the transition of Wikipedia to CC-BY-SA happens, we would be able use Wikipedia content when we want. -- Imperator3733 23:43, 14 January 2009 (PST)
        • To clarify my point of view, I want to change only the wiki content to CC-BY-SA. Hoffmann 00:03, 15 January 2009 (PST)
          • OK I've changed it to CC-BY-SA. We need a page to describe the license. Leo 07:48, 15 January 2009 (PST)
            • Thanks Leo! Great decision. See Copyright for further discussion. Hoffmann 08:02, 15 January 2009 (PST)
          • Okay... so how does switching to the CC-BY-SA allow us to reuse wikipedia content? I'm definitely not getting that. --Steveh 08:58, 15 January 2009 (PST)
            • That's a good question. Do we have to wait until August when Wikipedia shifts? It looks like the GDL is compatible with CC though. I'd guess it's not an issue. Leo 08:37, 15 January 2009 (PST)
              • I'm not a lawyer and interested in practical solutions. So I think it is now O.K. to reuse Wikipedia content when we give attribution (in the changelog).
              • Well, as it stands now everything on Wikipedia is still licensed under the GFDL, which stipulates that derivative works must also be licensed under that same license with a copy of that license available for all works which use it. I still don't think we would be able to use wikipedia content until they switch to the Creative Commons license. --Steveh 08:58, 15 January 2009 (PST)
                • See [3] "Licensed under the GNU FDL version 1.3 (Wikipedia uses GFDL 1.2, and "any later version")" So the any later version allows us to use GNU FDL 1.3 which is compatible with CC-BY-SA. Hoffmann 09:09, 15 January 2009 (PST)
                  • From my understanding, section 11 of the GFDL 1.3 was created for the sole purpose of giving a window to multi-authored texts to convert to the CC-BY-SA license. It does not give derivative works the right to publish GFDL under a different license, just the original publisher (Wikipedia). This means that Wikipedia or any other wiki currently licensed under the GFDL have the opportunity to relicense their materials to the Creative Commons license. So Wikipedia can relicense their works in accordance with GFDL to the CC-BY-SA, but we can't copy works that are currently licensed under the GFDL and relicense them. We would have to wait until Wikipedia makes the transition before we can use their content. --Steveh 09:45, 15 January 2009 (PST)
                    • As I'm neither a native english speaker nor a lawyer, it is difficult to continue the discussion at this point. I still think the intention of [4] is to make wikipedia content compatible to CC-BY-SA, but the legal situation might be as you described it (e.g. wait until the wikipedia transition is done) .
                      • To put it in simpler terms, the GFDL has provisions to allow certain publishers to migrate to the CC-BY-SA license, it has not been made compatible with that license. --Steveh 10:12, 15 January 2009 (PST)

Style guide and spelling

For the writing of any descriptions or show notes on or the feeds, I've been using the AP Style Guide (the one in my head - I used to write for a living) with the exception of some common tech words that guide gets wrong (we use "website," which everyone knows is correct, rather than the AP's "Web site"). Often the New York Times search engine is a good way to confirm standard American English spellings. They almost always spell words correctly, unless you're looking at their blog posts, which often have temporary errors.

For company or project names, I rely on the company's website first. But rather than relying on their logo, I generally go to their copyright and terms of service, which are done in HTML. Secondly I rely on Wikipedia. Third I use the New York times search engine (text of article, rather than headlines - you'll see they don't use Yahoo! but rather Yahoo). Then I rely on the most common variant of the spelling found on Google, then I rely on Associated Press news articles. We don't want to use ALL CAPS unless it's CNET, which is actually better as CNet. We try to use intercaps if the product or company uses it (MySpace or iPhone - only don't start a sentence with a lower-case "i" like iPhone), but not if they don't (Macworld or Facebook). We don't use exclamation marks or other punctuation marks in the name of Yahoo or any other tech companies, products or websites. Danegolden 16:19, 15 January 2009 (PST)


I've made several Infobox Templates based on the one made for FLOSS weekly. More Specifically I created Template:Infobox Windows Weekly, Template:Infobox net@night and Template:Infobox Security Now, as well as modified Template:Infobox FLOSS and Template:Infobox TWiT. The new one are an improvements over the basic Template:Infobox Episode one by automagicaly creating link to the description page and the relevant episode page on (see for exemple Windows Weekly 89. The only problem I have encounter is the the original Template:Infobox Episode doesn't have any space for the Title of the episode, only the topic. This information is the same on, say, FLOSS Weekly, but differ with something like Windows Weekly. My knowledge of templates is limited and I don't want to break anything by making changes to the parent template (in this case Template:Infobox Episode). The only thing needed, is more space for the title besides, or under, the Caption field. Feel free to make any changes to these templates, but beware: they are already used in almost every show note pages. (don't break anything!). Ve2dmn 10:57, 16 January 2009 (PST)

Done. The parameter is Title = Episode_title. Let me know if that works for you. -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 11:47, 16 January 2009 (PST)
Looks all right. (Example:Windows Weekly 90). I'll check all the templates and the associated pages when I get the time. Thanks! Ve2dmn 11:53, 16 January 2009 (PST)

People Articles

This has been a grey spot for a while. I have seen articles about people of all kinds being created, from semi-regular guests to one-time guests to people not really connected with TWiT. Mostly we need to set some guidelines on which types of articles about people we should create. My proposal is to create articles about TWiT Staff, hosts of TWiT podcasts and regular-panelists only, I think this will create a number of articles relevant to the TWiT Wiki. Leave comments below. --Taylor Karras (t c s) 23:58, 26 January 2009 (PST)

That looks like a good proposal. The only thing we would need to clarify is how often someone needs to be on a show to be a "regular panelist" (but that could always be handled on a case-by-case basis). -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (PST)
I think based on the current number of episodes for most TWiT shows and the way most shows shape up that if someone appears on three or more shows they are probably a regular. What are people's feeling of linking to personal websites of non-regular (guest) contributors instead of creating pages on the wiki for them? --BenFranske 21:43, 27 January 2009 (PST)
I am of the opinion that if someone is an official guest of the TWiT Network - even for just one show - he/she should get their own page. The length of such page would be determined by frequency of appearance. —listrophy ( t | c | Logs: bdpr ) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (PST)
I agree with listrophy that each guest could have a page if someone is particularly enthusiastic about the guest, however that list could very quickly have hundreds of names. For instance we have a guest on TWiT Fit this week but he probably shouldn't warrant the detail of Veronica Belmont, Molly Wood, Ryan Block, or even Jonathan Coulton (who Leo talks about a lot even if he's only been on TWiT twice). I'm using TWiT hosts Wikipedia page as a guide here. So anyway, I think it's best to have regular hosts, frequent hosts and guests. Hosts would be the co-host of any two person show, plus Andy Ihnatko, Alex Lindsay, Scott Bourne and Merlin Mann (on extended hiatus), as well as John C. Dvorak, Patrick Norton, Wil Harris, and Jason Calacanis. The others would be either frequent hosts or guests, depending on the threshold you decide upon. These could all be listed on the same page in sections if appropriate. Danegolden 07:06, 4 February 2009 (PST)

Proposal: Include TWiT Wiki as a community on the main page

I think the wiki is developing into another TWiT Community and so should be listed and linked on the main wiki page. You could link to this page or to some other page describing the wiki and providing additional links to wiki community resources such as this page. --BenFranske 21:46, 27 January 2009 (PST)

I totally agree, and even put the wiki onto the front page as part of the TWiT Community awhile ago. Unfortunately, it was implicitly agreed to be taken away. —listrophy ( t | c | Logs: bdpr ) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (PST)

Request for a non-admin

Could a non-admin please try to edit this page? From what I can tell, semi-protection isn't going to work right now and I'd like to test this out. If you can edit the page, just leave a short message there, and if you can't just mention it here. Thanks. -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 06:53, 28 January 2009 (PST)

BenFranske has edited that page, which confirms that semi-protection will not work right now on this wiki. -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (PST)

Episode infobox update

I just finished adding code to create links to the previous and next episode's show notes to {{Infobox Episode}}. The hardest part was adding the code so that it'll only show up when the indiviual show's template is ready, so it only works with Maxwell's House right now (see one of those show notes pages to see what it looks like). I'll be adding the code to the other templates soon (probably before the end of the day). -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 08:11, 28 January 2009 (PST)

All of the templates are updated now. Let me know if there are any problems. -- Imperator3733 (talk | contribs | sysop | Logs: bdpr) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (PST)

To Who It May Concern

I should of done this earlier, considering that I've been acting badly and irresponsibly over the past few days, this acting has gotten me banned from the IRC chat and has lost me my sysop privileges. I've been sitting in this room, thinking about what I've done, thinking about the over-the-top way I've been acting and the anger I was holding on to. I guessed I sort of snapped under my own stupid behavior and foolishly took it out on some guy that I didn't have any problem with and in term I was digging a deeper hole for myself rather then helping myself out. In short I would like to formally say that I'm sorry.

Dan, you were probably right, I do have a long way to go before I change. Right now I'm just acting like a complete idiot over there, stressing out over small situations and probably spewing nonsense. I knew I shouldn't of snapped at you or theoretically any of the mods for that matter, but I just took everything too seriously and started thinking that I was being mocked again. Yes, I know what I said and did and I didn't forget any of them, it's constantly replaying over and over again in my mind, bound with guilt for what I did. But I guess some time away from the IRC will do me some good as it will allow me to catch up on some of the things I've been missing and allow me to calm myself down a lot.

Leo, I know why you did that. You thought with my recent temper tantrum that I had back there, and it showed me that I had a lot to learn if I was to ever become a sysop. I learned that I was being egotistical and I wanted to feel like I was on top. I don't know why I was acting like a dick to Imperator, I guess his ways of doing things didn't match up with mine, but I've learned from that. Still, I feel that the deopping was a little premature as I feel that a sysop should be deoped if he does something inexcusable on the wiki or abuses his power on the wiki, which I have not done because I've been mostly helping out the time I was still sysop, I'll stop there.

What I'm trying to say is that I think both of you is right, I do need to change my behavior and for the better of it. This behavior has gotten me in trouble at other places, not just here. Guess I didn't learn from it but it did ruin my life getting angry over small situations that could of been easily forgotten and obsessing over them from my incorrect position. But, no use talking about the past here, I've learned a lesson and I'm taking some time off. Also Leo, I'd seriously be great for sysop again, because I seriously love to help be a part of creating this wiki, I did most of the parts and I'm thinking of implementing an image use policy for images. Still, I need to learn my lession.

Sorry for anyone I've alienated and lost during my time of anger, thanks again!
--Taylor Karras (t c s) 18:22, 31 January 2009 (PST)