User talk:UnknownForEver/Archives/2008/5

Thanks
Thanks a lot! your barn star has energized me a lot, to continue my work at wikipedia. -- S M S  Talk 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I saw all the work you have so far done and it it was long past time, that you got something for your work. Just glad I could help. --Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Hello! I think reading Manual of Style and specially Manual of Style for images may help you in editing. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...not sure if your implying that I did something wrong. In regards to my edits on Gilgit, I was trying to unstack the images and have them correspond with their respective areas. --Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't seen your edits at Gilgit, I was just saying it after looking at your some edits for last couple of days, which involved left aligning of images. Images are mostly right aligned in articles but that doesn't mean that all images should be right aligned, some are left aligned too, but usually they are done in some exceptions. So the links I told you will guide you through the Manual of Style usually and preferably followed here. There is nothing wrong you have done. Just to let you know some of the guidelines of wiki. So you can be more bold while editing. -- S M S  Talk 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool. I usually like put one image on one side and another on the other side if they are under the same heading. This way it doesn't seem they are stacked on top of one and another. I will try to get some reading done for the Manual of Style. Thanks. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He's already been reported.
He's a non-issue. HalfShadow (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never saw what you had written. I kinda skimmed through it. Ok, sorry about that.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Delhi-Lahore Bus
Hi - I have addressed your concerns regarding possible bias in the article. You were right, but primarily this article isn't about those political events, so there isn't any need to go into details that invite such bias issues. Please let me know if any other problem exists. Thanks, Vishnava (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, thats all for now. Thank you for fixing it. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you reversed my edits to the Pakistan article's introduction, without explanation. I don't understand why you removed the mention of East Pakistan - at its formation in '47, the east wing constituted half the country. I think that should be mentioned in the intro. Vishnava (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was primarily due to another statement. "Throughout its history, the region has been invaded", I don't think Pakistan existed when Greeks, Arabs, Persians etc, invaded the region (since the word "it" would refer to Pakistan).
 * Also when you read the the information on "East Pakistan", it does not flow. I agree it should be there but it does not flow. Maybe rephrasing the sentence would help. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying your points. I have asked the question on Talk:Pakistan so others can weigh in on what should be done. Vishnava (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if there are any other questions. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check my changes to the article introduction. Vishnava (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited some minor stuff. The only problem now left is that we need to cite some sources. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow.
That vandalism on your talk page was the BIGGEST edit I've ever seen. Kimera Kat (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think :). Hes been using different IPs to say the same thing over and over. | See Here --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Deleted the 2 MB of nonsense. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 02:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

good work, best wishes
so nice to see u revert vandalism so swiftly, your recent reverts on the jayalalitha article and her redirect is appreciable. --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict
Can I know the reason behind your blatant disregard and respect for others' edits? Maybe reverting vandalism has gone over your head. --AI009 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop it or otherwise I'll report you. --AI009 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Hi!

Recently you came on my talk page and left a message in which I consider a threatening and offensive tone. It seems you have not read Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks since you seem to be more interested in getting me banned rather than my reasons for reverting your edit.

My reasons for reverting your edits are the following:
 * Deletion of information without reason
 * Inserting new information without sources
 * Editing existing information that does not conform to NPOV

I shall go through each of your edits that controdict the listed reasons

"Kashmir decides to remain independent."
 * Where is your source?

"September,1947:The maharajah begins to drive out Muslim Kashmiris from Kashmir.
 * Why was this deleted?

"1947/1948:Indian troops enter Srinagar. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 commences."
 * What source says Indians troops entering Srignar started the war of 1947?

"1989: Armed militancy begins in Kashmir resulting in mass exodus of Hindu Kashmiris."
 * Mass exodus? Your use of this term is a violation of NPOV besides that fact there is no source

"February 1999: Lahore Declaration is signed. "
 * Reason for removal of content is...?

"February 5, 1990:Solidarity day is observed throughout Pakistan and Azad Kashmir for the alleged massacres by Indian armed forces..."
 * Reason for removal?

"May 2, 2003:India and Pakistan restore diplomatic ties; cease-fire is declared."
 * Source for a declaration of a cease-fire?

Unless these problems are addressed, there is a valid premise for reverting your edits. And also remember, don't use an offensive tone before knowing the facts. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another note, feel free to go through Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hey, thanks for discussing.

"Kashmir decides to remain independent."

Will add source.

"September,1947:The maharajah begins to drive out Muslim Kashmiris from Kashmir.

Where is your source?

"1947/1948:Indian troops enter Srinagar. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 commences."

OK

"1989: Armed militancy begins in Kashmir resulting in mass exodus of Hindu Kashmiris."

Will add source

"February 1999: Lahore Declaration is signed. "

What?

"February 5, 1990:Solidarity day is observed throughout Pakistan and Azad Kashmir for the alleged massacres by Indian armed forces..."

Source and why is it significant?

"May 2, 2003:India and Pakistan restore diplomatic ties; cease-fire is declared." Will add source.

If your concern was sources, then you could've added tag. Your intentions are quite obvious here. And next time, discuss disputes before edit warring. Tx --AI009 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

--AI009 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have failed to read what I have suggested. Sources were not the only problem. I do not need to add a fact template. Since you have failed to read Wikipedia's policy on unsourced material, I shall suggest you read that. Now, unless my concerns are addressed, I have a pretext to revert. If you however continue to revert without addressing my concerns, you are the one edit warring which I remind you is a ban-able offense. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added sources and removed unsourced material. If you continue to remove sourced material and add biased content,I have a pretext to revert. If you however continue to revert without addressing my concerns, you are the one edit warring which I remind you is a ban-able offense. -- AI009 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing sourced material? --AI009 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it a bit humorous that you copied and repeated my own words and used them at me. But to get to business:

1989:Armed militancy begins in Kashmir resulting in displacement of 300,000 Hindu Kashmiris.


 * You falsely cited CIA's World FactBook. The source does not state that the insurgency is responsibly for the displacement of people.

"September 24, 2004: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf meet in New York during UN General Assembly." "September,1947:The maharajah begins to drive out Muslim Kashmiris from Kashmir." "February 5, 1990: Solidarity day is observed throughout Pakistan and Azad Kashmir for the alleged massacres by Indian armed forces. (While occasional shootouts and excesses by the Indian Armed paramilitaries have been documented there is no independent account of massacres)."
 * Your reason for deleting this?

"December 2001:Attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi by Kashmir resulting in 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff."
 * Its a great fact knowing that Kashmir attacked the Indian Parliament.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1989:Armed militancy begins in Kashmir resulting in displacement of 300,000 Hindu Kashmiris. You falsely cited CIA's World FactBook. The source does not state that the insurgency is responsibly for the displacement of people.

Point Taken

"September 24, 2004: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf meet in New York during UN General Assembly." "September,1947:The maharajah begins to drive out Muslim Kashmiris from Kashmir." "February 5, 1990: Solidarity day is observed throughout Pakistan and Azad Kashmir for the alleged massacres by Indian armed forces. (While occasional shootouts and excesses by the Indian Armed paramilitaries have been documented there is no independent account of massacres)."

Your reason for deleting this?

Because it was unsourced

"December 2001:Attack on Indian parliament in New Delhi by Kashmir resulting in 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff."

Its a great fact knowing that Kashmir attacked the Indian Parliament.

 I meant Kashmiri Militants --AI009 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:AI009
I was just following his edits that this clicked in my mind that he seems to be a sock. Well about his edits he is still adding unsourced content. -- S M S  Talk 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 'unsourced content'?! LMAO. Are you Pakis ganging up on me? --AI009 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * personal attack? threats? where did I make a personal attack against you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AI009 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I shall again refer you to Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. By using the term "Pakis" you are violating that policy politically and through affiliations. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to avoid a revert war on Eizenstat's characterization of Pakistan in insurgency.
Could we try to address the issue of the inclusion of Pakistan in the table, drawn from Eizenstat, on the insurgency talk page? Pakistan is in that table because it is listed, several times, in the cited article.

In all sincerity, if you are willing to discuss why, in the terms of the model being discussed, on the talk page, we might find things that would improve the article. Simply revert-warring without explaining why you consider the sourced material incorrect does not share any relevant information you may have in mind.

I'd like to move this discussion to the insurgency talk page.

Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you mind giving me the link to the source, please. I looked at |this one and conducted a search and it did not mention Pakistan in it. Either I am looking at the wrong link or the search did not work. Following this I removed Pakistan from it. Thank you for contacting me before reverting. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * May I start by thanking you as being one of the people that does the incredibly courteous and helpful thing of copying comments to both talk pages? I had given up hope there were others that liked to do that!


 * To answer directly, it's a different link: footnote 41, Eizenstat, http://www.cgdev.org/doc/commentary/15_Eizenstat.pdf  While it's not a table format, Pakistan is mentioned several times in that article.


 * The table does merge the weak states listed in several articles near there. It's my vague recollection that I tried putting references on every individual entry in the table, but added so much more text, in edit mode, that I kept making formatting errors in the table. Maybe there's another way to present that information that is both concise, but unambiguous as far as sources. I didn't mean to imply the table was from a single source.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I find it more beneficial if the comments are posted on both userpages and thank you for noticing.


 * If I were you, I could have also created the table. I looked through the source and now understand why Pakistan was categorized as a weak state but I guess I find it hard to believe a state with a nuclear power and the 7 largest standing army. However referring to the topic of insurgency, I believe the problem is recent, as Pakistan has not had a history of insurgency-related problems. Otherwise, I see believe you may revert my edit since I now see the justification. Thank you.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect to insurgency, Pakistan is particularly complex. I agree that it has a large and potent military, and needs one to maintain a balance of power -- or of terror -- with India. Since this is a talk page and some synthesis is reasonable, I suspect Eizenstat is thinking more of the FATA, where the national government has very little control, and where there is a porous border with Afghanistan, which is in even worse shape.


 * I believe that there should be a series of country-specific articles on the national doctrines for insurgency and counterinsurgency. Fortunately or unfortunately, the U.S. publishes more of its doctrine than any country I know, so it's easier to document. Over at the Military History Project, we are thinking about how to organize articles about the global/general level, which insurgency tries to do. I have just pulled my material, as a result of an unpleasant edit war, out of an apparently idle article on unconventional warfare. Unconventional warfare is really an ambiguous term, but what I shall call "UW" is the U.S. doctrinal mission for conducting guerilla warfare. Foreign internal defense (FID) is the U.S. counterpart for counterinsurgency, although it does have some British and French history that should split out.


 * If there were an article on Pakistani policy towards the FATA and Afghanistan, and how the national government sees it, I would be fascinated to read it. It is my hope that the rest of Pakistan is moving in a very positive direction, and, if one ignores the FATA, it certainly is not a weak state if present trends towards political freedom continue.


 * I'll summarize a bit of this on the insurgency page, and ask for suggestions on the table.


 * Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you are going with country-specific articles, some nations are more hard hit by insurgency than others. I am not sure what the edit war was about, but I always thought of unconventional warfare as guerrilla warfare (state vs. individual groups). I also have particular interest in historical military topics.

There are very few good articles here that contain Pakistan's policy towards the tribal areas. Frontier Crimes Regulations are the rules through which Pakistan governs the tribal areas. However, that article is small and not up-to-date. I assume you have read the Federally Administered Tribal Areas article. If not, might I suggest this section regarding the political system in FATA. This article gives some information on the relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I can tell you now, that Pakistan and Afghanistan do not get along currently. I shall see if I can find more articles about FATA. Otherwise, if you have any questions about a topic relating to Pakistan, you can ask me.

Also might I mention that, the government does have little control over FATA, however, it relies heavily on the tribal system there to enforce the laws. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On UW

 * Here is a link to the direction I'd like to go, for discussion in the Military History project. I prefer "insurgency" to "unconventional warfare", as unconventional warfare has at least two wildly different meanings:
 * Unconventional as in guerilla warfare
 * Unconventional as in nuclear warfare


 * Now, rightly or wrongly (my personal opinion is wrongly), the U.S. special operations doctrine defines "UW" (I prefer the abbreviation to avoid the ambiguity) as the mission of conducting guerilla warfare. You'll see the other doctrinal mentions at the link. As I understand, the British Commonwealth prefers "low intensity conflict" to "special operations", and has its own doctrinal terms. We have one New Zealand editor who says that his country has yet another term.


 * The Military History project has "article improvement drives", and I had signed up to get "unconventional warfare" out of "start class". I soon realized that what was there was ambiguous, mixing up guerilla warfare and blockades and nuclear weapons and emasculation and white phosphorus -- I am not joking. On April 14, I posted, both at MILHIST and the article talk page, that I proposed to do a rewrite and update. As you will see in the MILHIST discussion, we decided to make insurgency the globalised article and UW the U.S. doctrinal article.


 * A few days ago, a furious anonymous IP editor burst back at UW, and argued that it had to be globalised, after I had proposed that UW refer to the U.S. doctrine while insurgency would be the global. After several days of arguing, appealing to other editors, etc., I gave up.  My U.S. discussion is stored on my computer until we decide what to name a new article about U.S. doctrine. I can put it in my userspace if there's interest.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It does seem odd to have UW as the international article. I have always seen UW as a term used by United State officials and US army manuals. Farther more, if each country has their own term, it would be better to use a more common term than UW, which is frequently used only in the US. I can't think of another word that would fit the US doctrine so it is hard for me to suggest a new name for the article. It is also better if the insurgency article was chosen since it contains more information that fits the international level rather than unconventional warfare, which has vivid information that applies only to the current Iraq war and to the US. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is now Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine), which moves away from what I found an unworkable situation with an anon IP editor at unconventional warfare. I would differ that UW, even in the U.S.-specific context, applies to the present situation in Iraq. There were U.S. UW programs in the early seventies, with Kurdish resistance to Saddam.


 * From a U.S. doctrinal standpoint, the activities in Iraq are a mixture of foreign internal defense (i.e., the country-specific version of counterinsurgency and counter-terror. I do distinguish between the doctrinal approaches and the fantasies of the Bush Administration. :-(


 * Insurgency was always intended to be the globalised article. It was discussed in MILHIST and had a number of knowledgeable contributors. The unconventional warfare article, which the anon IP insisted had to be globalized, is now, if anything, going downhill -- no sources, and a mixture of concepts that I've never seen put together in professional military writing.


 * I don't know any better way to resolve the situation than avoiding unconventional warfare, continuing to work on insurgency, counterinsurgency, and counter-terror at the multinational lavel. In addition, FID needs to be clarified to make it US-specific (and splitting out the French and British material in it), while it still is compatible with counterinsurgency. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just looked at the FID article, and it is long! You will have to go through a lot of information to edit out foreign topics. It might be better if you dismantle unconventional warfare into other articles. So it might be a good idea to work on insurgency and counterinsurgency articles. Let me know if you need help with anything. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Philippine Navy
I see no need to remove the acronym "PN" in the Philippine Navy article as the Philippine Navy and press in the Philippines actually do use that acronym. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I have never seen any international news media refer to the Philippine Navy as PN, I have seen international news media refer to Pakistan Navy as PN. I thought there might be confusion between Philippine Navy and Pakistan Navy and since you already have another name for that the Philippine Navy Ships, it might be better to use that acronym. Also word of advice, before you undo an edit, especially one that mentions contacting the user, you shouldn't undo it before know the editor's reasons. Your actions can lead to an edit war. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What confusion would there be? The article was about the Philippine Navy and didn't mention the Pakistani Navy in any way. As to international news media, surely Janes should suffice? I understand that you wish to avoid an edit war, but there was nothing to discuss on this issue and the standard procedure for controversial edits is to discuss them on the article's talk page so that editors who have knowledge of the subject can all offer their input. In this particular case, you removed a little detail that is a known fact and asked to be contacted. Seeing as the edit was minor, I reverted your edit and left you a note instead. Besides, you should have posted your reasons in the edit summary and, if you had to, expanded it in the article's Talk page. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The edit was indeed minor, and that it was I said contact me and also why I didn't post it in the talkpage. I didn't expect it to be controversial, which I think you have made it. As to the edit, I withdraw my case since by logical terms other navies sometimes also have the same terms as well. All do you had to do was state that. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history project
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan Naval Academy
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pakistan Naval Academy, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.paknavy.gov.pk/Pna.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Pakistan
Hello! your participation is requested here. -- S M S  Talk 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll forgive me but I cannot join something that will get me more involved in Wikipedia. I have exams coming up and another personal issue this summer. I will reconsider after my exams but I can't say I will be sure since I might not be "here", this summer. Sorry. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No Problem! Good luck with your exams and praying that you may have a happy summer! -- S M S  Talk 07:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with your exams. Though not actually committing to the WikiProject, you have shown that you have the guts to actually be a part of the project by having your say on the Prostitution in Pakistan article on the topic of over-citing. It was through your participation that the author has now reverted his edits and we are good to go on the article. Thanks for your help. Forgive me, but I would like to self-nominate you as a member even if you are inactive on the project. People need to see your example. We are currently discussing awarding schemes. If only we had one, I would have had given you that. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 05:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the positive feedback, I really appreciate it! --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
UnknownForEver, per your request on WP:RFR, I have enabled your account with the rollback feature. Please read documentation on the tool, and remember that it is to be used for the removal of vandalism only—it must not be used to aid edit warring.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Anthøny 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New task force for Military of Pakistan
Hello! can you please look at this topic and sign in for support (or even oppose) for a new task force for Pakistani Military articles which are about 546 in number. Thanks! -- S M S  Talk 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to tell you that you need to be a member of the WikiProject Military History for voting. -- S M S  Talk 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a member ;) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Women in Pakistan
You should review the Sex Ratio in Women in Pakistan as you have deleted the same section in Demographics of Pakistan‎. Misaq Rabab (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...you didn't properly copy the section which is why the source didn't come up in Demographics of Pakistan. The last line falsely cites a source since no where does the article mention Pakistan. Otherwise the ratio given in Demographics of Pakistan does not match the one in Women in Pakistan, which I'm guessing is because its citing a 11 year old source (excluding the "1981", which is really outdated). I removed it from Demographics of Pakistan because it would be allow for a confusing template to be placed on the article (someone really messed up on this). I will find some uptodate sources and fix it later unless you want to fix it now :) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mughal Empire‎ and Ayub Khan articles have been modified with unverfied info can you please check and revert them. Misaq Rabab (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ayub Khan: I reverted the edits by the IP 207.237.7.58 since it looks like the person inserted POV and original research into the article.
 * Mughal Empire: I looked at the edits by Sunzlvy and verified that 2 of them were correct. The other one falsely cited a book and I reverted that one. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New page for MILHIST copy-editors
The coordinators have decided to make it easier for copy-editors to watch the new requests by creating an own page for this purpose. On WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests all new and old requests are listed. Please add this page to your watchlist. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The King of Fighters XI
My content removal "did not appear to be constructive", huh? I'm dealing with vandalism, here. Did you bother to check? At all? 88.161.129.43 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You added un-sourced material to the article, The King of Fighters XI, while at the same time you replaced previous contents. Thus you removed content from the article. You also state it is not vandalism, although this could be possible, you are engaged in an edit war with IP:24.180.23.230 which makes it hard to believe who is vandalizing. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)