This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think you are mostly right. I hadn't taken a look at the page since I wrote the sections on the princely state and 1947 over a year ago. Various people have added bogus material that (frankly) needs to be yanked. I have left unreferenced/refimprove section tags in those sections and if no one responds in the next month, I will feel free to remove that material. I will go through the remaining paragraphs soon. I would urge you, however, to either simply express your discontent on the article talk page or mine. Plastering the top of the page with banners doesn't make a point, least of all yours, since most people are inclined to simply revert the banner. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing the issues. I really don't like it when people remove the tags but I understand your point. You may feel free to remove the tags after you believe you have went through the article throughly. Thanks. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Military history service award
By order of the coordinators, for your good work tagging and assessing military history articles, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
