Talk:Minhal Baig

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 21 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 400cats, Oddcat20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose about her dismissal from[ the] Ramy['s] writers['] room

Hello!

Curbing my urges of laying "too much" of backstory/context/preface on my role in anything and something, I WP:AFTAGS the neutrality of the subject's apparent tweets which were reportedly posted as part of an anti-wage disparity trending-hashtag on Twitter®.

The latest revision by the time I pointed-out treated her tweets about the employment-status of fellow cisfemale [staff-]writers as a fact than just a quote despite of no reliable WP:SECONDARY corroborating the same, as obligated by WP:CITE. And at the end of the paragraph, the first-phrase of the last sentence also went on to state that the immediately-following tweets quoted hereinafter have been deleted( "taken down") now, something which forms part of absolutely-discouraged( and I mean that literally, irrespective of [pan]societal-norms of communicating) WP:OR since there were no WP:PRIMARY resource even, which is conditionally-allowed — let alone any secondary-source which reported anything as such whatsoever.( I also removed some junk/non-existent WP:REFNAME.) I tagged them with suitably-specific tags and added reasons specifying the issue rather going-through-the-trouble of creating a whole talk-page discussion( since it may also be defined as ‘contribution’). Within 24 hours of my effort, another editor "@Affied" took the initiative and went on to fix the notices put-in by me and removed them. And.. [S]He/they succeeded! About halfway, at the very least. The prose on alluded gender-/sex-discrimination has been fixed.( As did the addition of a valid repetitive-citation in place of 2 junks.) However, per WP:IC/WP:INCITE, any valid inline-citation MUST follow the prose/statement on English Wikipedia®[ given the left-to-right writing-order, the ‘following’ would mean something which is to the right], in spite of the claimed re-arranging and sourcing, the change to that prose has still not resulted in a good-citation. The fresh citation[ of a Variety® Digital story which broadly covers the above-referenced hastag-trend] still fails to make any note of tweet[s]-deletion whatsoever.

I didn't wish to revert the fruitful contribution even partially, let alone in entirety. Since my overall-experience on this platform has led me to conclude that's the 'panache'( i.e. reverting edits either manually or mostly, via WP:TOOLS with explanations most-arbitrary or at the very Best, -vague, one may find) reserved for those with greater-hierarchy( earned simply by making number of edits made on a language-centric edition or even universal, the latter being dependent upon the factors related to Wikimedia® Foundation) and given both of us are on the same pedestal of hierarchy( dubbed WP:AUTOCONFIRMED), I didn't as I'm extra-/over-conscious of avoiding the tempting WP:HOSTILE after being frequently-subject to the same[ from myriad of whom-I-call 'superusers']: Is that believable? Assuming there's a ‘yes’, I urge any interested-party( including the editor who originally took the initiative) to not miss checking this talk-page when browsing the article. So that I've to avoid retagging — lest I get accused of WP:TAGFARM. Let's see how long before someone pays the attention( utmost hopefully, it won't be weeks-to-months, let alone years).. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]