en User talk:Gautam3

Please Don't Post Junk Here

TO EVERYONE - especially Wikipedia users & admins: Please Don't Post Junk Here. No ads, no didactic advise on tagging images, or other things.

However, if you have a comment to make about me, my profile, or my writing in specific then PLEASE do feel free to edit this page.

Gautam  ^Discuss 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raga

Replied on Talk:Bhairavi. IPSOS (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gautam ^Discuss 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was on my watchlist so I saw your note right away... The new article will need some work... IPSOS (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting, but not my cup of tea. I like Indian music, but know almost nothing about it but what my ears tell me. I will help with formatting and layout and the like if asked, though. IPSOS (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia 1.0 Review Team!

Hi Gautam, Thanks for signing up to help. I apologise for being slow to reply, we've been very busy with the Version 0.5 release. Please let me know what you'd like to do, or just read the FAQ page and start reviewing. Thanks! Walkerma 02:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Professor Wakerma: Thanks for your note in my discussion. I am a Biology and Music student, and would like to edit or manage those articles. I hope to be of some help! Thanks. Gautam ^Discuss 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply. Interesting that you're a music student - I just went this evening to watch a senior recital by one of my friends who's graduating from the Crane School of Music (she did fine!). It would be great if you can review any biology articles, including adding your comments on this dinosaur list. I'd also appreciate it if you could nominate some suitable animals, birds, etc. Could you also consider putting together a set nomination of musical instruments? After Version 0.5 was put together, I felt this was one glaring omission - the only instrument we have is a Chinese traditional one. Can you help? These are just some ideas. Thanks, Walkerma 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see a lot of music articles listed at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, you may be able to review those (I did piano). Regarding your question - I'm guessing that you're referring to the set nominations. I'll have to add a piece to the FAQ page on those. Meanwhile, look at the discussion under the dinosaur list, and you'll see the kind of thing - how important are the topics, how good are the articles, are there articles missing, or should some be omitted? That kind of thing. Regarding the single article reviewing - consider the importance of the topic, and then review the article to see if it's OK to include. For most topics of reasonable significance (like most of the music articles on the general nominations page), we look for a decent B-Class quality. That means we tolerate perhaps one of the common weaknesses - one major aspect not covered, poor English in places, poor referencing - but not all of these together. You chould be able to review an article in about 10-15 minutes. Thanks, Walkerma 06:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raga Project

You may have noticed that I have started producing a [for a raga project]. My aim is to list all the major ragas by the end of the year, and add even some esoteric or less common ones as well. Gautam ^Discuss 18:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raga Project pushes forth...I have done around 20 or so pages for Ragas using the template. Gautam ^Discuss 05:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of California Basic Educational Skills Test for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article California Basic Educational Skills Test is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Basic Educational Skills Test until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JC · History · Talk · Contributions 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gautam3. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican debates listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Republican debates. Since you had some involvement with the Republican debates redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic debates listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Democratic debates. Since you had some involvement with the Democratic debates redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Custom signature fix needed

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are obsolete and in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
Remove anything in the Signature: text box.
Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:
[[User:Gautam3|Gautam]] '''</big>[[User_Talk:Gautam3|Discuss]]

Fixed signature:
[[User:Gautam3|Gautam]] [[User_Talk:Gautam3|Discuss]]

More information is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]