Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Freida Pinto, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Your edit to the 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa to the statement made by Air Marshal Raghavendran about Portuguese POWs he met in Goa read as follows:
"However, this statement can be explained as the desperate need of an Indian officer to raise his own morale; as India, an extremely poor, backward and underdeveloped Third World country, had recently emerged from a long and humiliating domination by the United Kingdom, its easy victory in the Portuguese territories of Goa, Daman and Diu over the tiny armed forces of a much smaller and distant European country ideally served the said purpose of national pride-raising."
And is attributed to an editorial in a newspaper dated 25 Feb 1962.
The 'statement' was made in the memoirs of the Indian officer written in 2004. It is highly unlikely (outside of a time machine scenario) that the Noticias would have commented on his statement 42 years prior to his making it. I believe you have written your personal rebuke to Air Marshal Raghavendran's statement and then concocted a source to back it up. Please send us a link or a scanned copy of the said editorial. Tigerassault (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NOTE: I noticed that a lot of your inputs on the aforementioned page are violations of our above policy, as well as WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. Last warning, if you continue to do this, I guarantee you that you will be BLOCKED very soon. Take heed~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of the people involved in the construction of this article are neither Indian nor Portuguese - and this is made plain by the huge debate that has occurred over the name of the article. Had this been an article driven by 'Indian Pride', it would have been called 'Liberation of Goa'.
I believe that article takes great pains to give a purely technical and data-driven account of the conflict, without taking sidest. For instance in the first section (efforts to resolve the issue diplomatically) the article relates only the actions and statements made by various parties without trying to dissect these actions/statements or giving commentaries on these. Similarly the military build-ups described later on the article relate only the troop strengths and their dispositions in a completely objective manner. You will notice in this section that information on the military preparations of the Portuguese are related from Portuguese sources and likewise for the Indians - simply on the belief that each side would know best about its own forces.
Now the military hostilities themselves rely overwhelmingly on Indian accounts - simply because most of the actions conducted were by the Indians themselves with very little conducted by the Portuguese other than withdrawals and bridge-destructions. Nevertheless, there are some very detailed accounts from the Portuguese side inserted - note that the account of the naval battle at Mormugao is taken mostly from a Portuguese military magazine (This battle is one of the few instances where the Portuguese actually fought back). Another battle which involved Portuguese military actions (other than withdrawals) was the battle at Diu, and hence this section relies heavily on Portuguese accounts as much as Indian accounts. You will notice that - in this section - every alternate paragraph is sourced from www.areamilitar.net. Here we have tried to put in a blow-by-blow account with every Indian action related through an Indian source followed up with a description of the Portuguese reaction taken from a Portuguese source. In one place the article describes how soldiers from the 20th Rajput tried to cross a creek on rafts and came under fire from Portuguese machine guns, forcing them to retreat - while the next paragraph gives a Portuguese account of how the Portuguese soldiers retrieved the rafts and rescued a wounded Indian soldier.
The statement attributed to Air Marshal Raghavendran was made in 2004 in his memoirs, and I doubt if they would have been recounted 42 years earlier. What you read in Mozambique was probably attributed to some other person, but unless you can retrieve and find out who said it (maybe even scan and upload the article to silence any nay-sayers) it would not be prudent to rely on personal memory. if you can find and upload the article copy, it would be interesting to insert the information into the article.
With regard to Carlos Azaredo's account, I have added a lot of Carlos Azaredo's accounts (taken from http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.culture.region.india.goa/82375) in this article and note that he has already related the account off how he was beaten up by a Sikh officer for telling him to go to hell. I will insert the story in here.
I have inserted the story about the beating of Capt Azaredo. But I have a point to make regarding your earlier insert regarding the editorial that was published 50 years ago.
"However, this statement can be explained as the desperate need of an Indian officer to raise his own morale; as India, an extremely poor, backward and underdeveloped Third World country, had recently emerged from a long and humiliating domination by the United Kingdom, its easy victory in the Portuguese territories of Goa, Daman and Diu over the tiny armed forces of a much smaller and distant European country ideally served the said purpose of national pride-raising"
I recall that you did not put this statement in quotes and then say that this was the opinion of a newspaper editorial in Mozambique. You merely put it in after the quoted statement from Air Marshal Raghavendran as if it was part of the article's narration.
- It was not - Air Marshal Raghavendran said "The Portuguese looked unsoldierly" to which an editorial in a Mozambique newspaper reacted "These words came from a 3rd world mentality struggling for self pride"
- It was - Air Marshal Raghavendran said "The Portuguese looked unsoldierly" . But, you see, these words all came from a 3rd world mentality struggling for self pride
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LM Radio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Natal and Transvaal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I already corrected the links for Transvaal, Natal and Orange Free State. They now refer to the former South-African provinces that David Davies meant in his farewell messages. Thanks for your remark. Namaacha (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Flames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egyptian mongoose, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Portuguese and Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)