`The autumnal equinox is upon us.  A new season, a new beginning, a fresh talk page.    If there are any old conversations that you'd like to resurrect, feel free to copy them in here (so I can see the ``you have new messages`` notice) or reply directly inside the archive page.  All the archives are on my watchlist.  .     == Wikiclique == (Regarding an irate comment I made in response to reading the word ``wikiclique`` on the Village Pump)  I didn't mention you as one of the Wikiclique, though you seem sensitive on the subject. The word Wikiclique is an accurate description of some Wikipedians behavior. That can't really be denied.  :Rather, the word ``wikiclique`` is a schoolyard insult that can only serve to infuriate the very people with whom you are trying to reach consensus.  The issue you're raising on the Village Pump is important, but I feel that your vituperance is diminishing it and alienating others.  If you expect civility, you must be civil yourself.  .  :Clearly   == beta Systemic Bias section == (Regarding gathering support for removing the systemic bias from the Wikipedia)  Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.  :I can't sign yet; I need to know more.  All I gleaned from your conversation is that you feel an emphasis on things less important than the Congo Civil War and the Holocaust constituted a bias.  What other articles do you feel betray this bias?  What, to you, is the set of articles that, when expanded, will counteract aforesaid bias?Alternately, if you don't have a clear idea of what precisely is causing the bias, then why raise such a ruckus about fixing it?  None of us know or can predict what makes you feel that the Wikipedia is biased, and we all have different ideas about what articles need emphasis.  You'll need to help us out and flesh out your idea more.I think the present method (i.e., let people work as they will) is the best solution for the moment.  Eventually, every important topic will get covered, even if the fanboys get to write their novels and video games into the Wikipedia first.  .  ::Your characterisation of my argument doesn't match with what I think. I mention the demographic make-up of Wikipedia, and how this influences the character of Wikipedia. Rather than gleaning, read the arguments carefully. I am not suggesting changing the current methods of editing Wikipedia. My idea is merely a small addendum to the many ways articles are brought to peoples attentions.    == Merging Afghanistan == (Regarding my request to merge List of leaders of Afghanistan with Heads of Government of Afghanistan)  Hi Ardonik -   Thanks for your message.  I didn't want to duel-post a template - and I hope it wasn't too much of a surprise!  As you will see - there has been a lot of discussion/contention about lists of rulers etc. and what suits one person is an anathema to another. So it was ironic that another variation has been thrown into the equation.  I would like to arrive at a uniform format for all these lists - and I think that it is achievable - but may not be to everyone's taste.  This is how I see it:-  Head of State is the 'modern' generic label for a 'ruler' of an independent state.    There are some regions which are not independent states (those located in African countries, for instance) which it would be right to use the term 'rulers' for the leader.  Head of Government is a generic for the primary official in the government of an independent or non-sovereign state.  For clarity I like to try to avoid 'concurrency' on a single page - unless it is unavoidable, the page should comprise a single chronologically consecutive list and the phrase to present should only appear once on the page.  Some lists are quite long already, and I am aware that to combine lists would put some people's backs up.  But then again, to combine some and not others would be inconsistent and would vary how people approach each list.  Anyway,  as I say this is only how I see it.  The concensus should prevail - and if hundreds of people disagree with me (rather than the odd one or two) then sobeit.  I am always open to working in collaboration in the project.   Hope my reasoning makes some modicum of sense.  Thanks again for your message.  Speak soon.    :Although it doesn't sound as formal, perhaps ``List of leaders of X`` could serve the combined role of ``List of X-ish heads of state`` and ``List of X-ish heads of government.``  After all, the world leader is timeless, while the word state meant nothing before the advent of the modern nation-state.  (Just a proposal.  I'm not sure of precedent or what the current convention is leaning towards right now.)  .   ::I'm just concerned that that might sound ambiguous - and someone is bound to jump up and down about a perceived ambiguity!    :::You have a good point.  I meant ``leader-as-in-an-executive-office-holder-or-similar-position,`` not ``leader-as-in-role-model.``  For me, ``Leader of Afghanistan`` pretty clearly refers to the person calling the shots, and not, say, other members of the interim government or to anyone in any leadership role over there.  But I acknowledge the ambiguity.I think we're stuck.  English doesn't have a single clear, unambiguous phrase for the person in charge — it depends on when and where they're in charge.  If I had to choose between ``heads of state`` and ``heads of government``, I would choose the latter over the former every time, even if that meant listing leaders who, in their days, were not heading what we would now call a government.  .   ==Logos== (Regarding the copyright status and appropriate tag for Media:Wikimedia.png and related images)  It's GFDL but it's also a trademark, so can't be used in the same way as most other GFDL images. The same is true of all our logos other than the MediaWiki one which I think is PD. I was going to point you to m:Logos but I just realized that page is missing all the copyright information as well. I'll try to get it clarified.   :Thanks.  I've replied on your .  .   ==Thanks== Thanks for the birthday greetings (though it's still not till tomorrow here).  Surely that should be at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by birthday?  )    *Page created.  Feel free to humiliate others by tricking them into revealing their birthdays and then listing them therein.  .   ==Link Spamming== Ardonik - I got your message about link spamming (131.191.72.23), and I'm a bit taken aback.  You've mistaken my information site for a personal blog site, and removed all of the relevant external links I added.  I really am glad that people like you are watching out for the quality of information here, I just think that you were a bit zealous on my part.  I admit that I write my own content, and I'm trying to share it with others; but I contest that the links I added were relevant   *On the State Songs page, after the listing for ``You are my sunshine``, I added a link to my performance of the song (available for free).  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to upload the song ?  Create a page just about the song ?  I'm not sure, but I imagined that readers might want to hear the song. *On the Weblog page, I added a listing of sites where a person could get a blog for free.  I'll admit that my site has free blogs, and was on the list, but is the information not useful ? *And then the Origami page, which I added a link to the book I've been writing with detailed origami instructions.  Why would you delete that, when there are four other sites in the list that I tacked mine on the end of ?  I spend a decent amount of time making sure that if I add anything to Wikipedia, it is useful.  Honestly, I am motivated to integrate my website into the internet, but I try very hard to make sure that i