Talk:2014 Union budget of India

On a reverted edit
I see that one of my edit has been reverted by Cutest Penguin. I would like to know why it was reverted. The user has not provided any edit summary for it and I see that a Twinkle has been used for it .I feel that it is a Twinkle abuse. The edit which I made is a referenced edit. I request the user to provide explanation for the revert or  undo the action .--Commons sibi (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Article 2014 Union budget of India is talking about the budget 2014 by NDA,a political party in India. It is quite fare to see allegations from opponent parties as well as the reference that you have given in your edit which I have already reverted is of the same political party and will be considered as primary source. If the article is about budget then keep it up to budget article only don't try to make it a allegation article.  C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 06:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome observation . Could you please explain why the other "so-called" allegations in the Reaction have not been reverted . // If the article is about budget then keep it up to budget article only don't try to make it a allegation article.// Please note this is not government document and the edit which I have made is  not in the lead section or in the budget component section  . I have made it in the reaction section . I think I have not made it into an allegation article . But its you who have tried to violate the Neutral Point of view  . Please explain if you have not .And for the part of  //will be considered as primary source.//, its true that its a primary source , but , it doesn't contain and factual data which skews the argument . The above said party's website has it and that is a authentic source of their press release .Commons sibi (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The simple answer to this is ... those were not reverted just because of third party references as well as you highlighted a particular political party in your edit this could be as promotional activity. You are welcome to add allegations under Reactions section with the help of third party sources but I am afraid to say that section is not talking about a political party it is about the reactions by the people associated with some or other party C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to know from when making an edit became "highlighting a political party" . Baseless allegation . //If the article is about budget then keep it up to budget article only don't try to make it a allegation article.//  // You are welcome to add allegations under Reactions section// self contradictory views  . The section reaction with adequate inputs may / may not be expanded like this. Which typically means that, the edit should have been clarified before being reverted . And regarding  ... those were not reverted just because of third party references  , the actual view point from a party comes from its press release which is put up in its site . If it showed facts then its wrong to cite it as a primary source . But a quote , I dont think its crossing the line .Commons sibi (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)