Tarquin typed:Now BOTH Stevertigo AND Goatasaur seem to have these. Of course, I can't tell -- they just show as "??" on my screen.

Please go back to usual signatures, guys. And go clean up the existing ones. It was amusing while it lasted, but joke over

Well, Ill admit to having started the 'mess' and respect your opinion Tarquin. But the idea of Kanji is to be understood.... i had long thought that Kanji was too complicated to be useful, and that [[igo]] would be the only thing of Asian culture that could be used... I was wrong, and now Im telling people they should raise their kids to learn Kanji at an early age.... the phonetics are irrelevant... its the ideas that they convey which is useful. A soft introduction is forthcoming on the WP.

Now, these are the benefits of Kanji in general... Im just using mine for a sig... Object to it if you will, but I dont see any basis for it other than "its too inconvenient to move the mouse over to show me the name the Kanji links to..." RK and your argument, that using Kanji as an embellishment, violates 'the policy of segregation of languages' doesnt hold water. Does this mean that you guys will police the Zhongwen Wiki to remove any Engrish or Romanji? Tranculturation is a fact of life, and the web is speeding this up evidence of this... p.s try setting the browser to use the unicode it probably already has installed instead of western ISO.... -豎眩

Jimmy Wales wrote:

... I've seen your Kanji, I know what they link to, but I have no idea what the Kanji themselves are.

Just a final note on this topic to say I have thrown down the gauntlet. from [[User talk:Stevertigo]]:

Hi Stevertigo. If you have such a thing for kanji, I have a suggestion: we currently have pages for latin letters: A http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,B http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/B,C http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/C, and Greek letters. How about a page for each letter of Kanji http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji? -- Tarquin http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarquin 13:40 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

That should keep him busy!! *evil laugh* ;-)

Stevertigo wrote:

Its not a lack confidence... Its the expectation of responsibility balanced with other things...

When I say that I want to de-mystify the sysop position, this is exactly the sort of idea that I want to counter. Basically, there is an expectation of responsibility, professionalism, good will, for _everyone_, not just sysops.

I ''totally'' agree with the demystification, and politicization... but I dont think that Joe Anon should just show up, do some stuff for a couple of weeks...

Traditionally, the only reason to even have sysops is not as a title of nobility, but because there are/were certain irreversible or hard-to-reverse commands that are very useful. We just want to make reasonably sure someone isn't going to start trashing the database.

I guess Im also curious about SSL and sysopdom, and the such... If someone really wanted to 'fork' the wikipedia they could get access pretty easily couldnt they? -Stevertigo.

SSL access is a different thing from sysop status. SSH access has a much higher standard, and is *really* just a technical thing. I have to know someone pretty well, or have someone vouch for them that I know pretty well, they have to have a reasonably good cause, some computer skills, etc.

Someone wishing to fork would not need SSH access, but if I knew them, and if they had a reason why it would be helpful, a desire to fork would not preclude them. (Although, I don't want people to *fork*, really.)

--Jimbo