User talk:Piyush Sriva
Hi, I saw you editing some of the Indian military history articles that I watch, I thought of informing you about a wp:SPS pakdef.info the RSN discussion was here  few editors here were inclined to add content from pakdef.info and had added it at a number of indo pak history articles. Even after the source was declared unreliable a lot of the associated content still remains on wiki articles with  tags. Feel free to remove unsourced and clearly incorrect statements. --DBigXray 10:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the very nice note on my talk page! ... and I have a few more questions, which I posed there. Maybe I should copy them to the main article talk page ... linas (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Kautialya3; I am very well aware of Wikipedia's policies, and it was actually to remove "original research" that I made my edits. The current version (which you restored) claims that the mission of the organization is such and such, but only sites a single secondary source for this. The phrasing you restored seems to suggest, erroneously, that this secondary source is saying that the organization *itself* claims such and such to be its missions, but this is not in the citation given, which merely contains an assertion by the author(s) on what they believe is the mission of the organization. This latter is more akin to criticism rather than a statement of fact about what the claimed missions of the organization actually are.
I therefore changed the statement to reflect reality better: that one source has claimed/alleged that (in their opinion) the mission of the organization is such and such. It is the current version (that you restored) that is more misleading and more akin to original research, not my more careful and cautious version. Also, the current version seems to give undue weight to just one source especially for an important sentence in the lead, so if it has to stay, it should go into a separate system on Criticism or such.
I also noticed that you simply removed some  tags I had added for some unsourced statements, without actually providing supporting citations. Kindly restore either the tags or provide citations in support of those statements. Thanks. Piyush (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)