User talk:UnknownForEver

Thanks

Thanks a lot! your barn star has energized me a lot, to continue my work at wikipedia. --SMS ^Talk 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Manual of Style

Hello! I think reading Manual of Style and specially Manual of Style for images may help you in editing. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --SMS ^Talk 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

He's already been reported.

He's a non-issue. HalfShadow (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, thats all for now. Thank you for fixing it. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]