Talk:Minhal Baig

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)

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)