User talk:KMTRAGER

September 2020

Hello, I'm GenQuest. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mount Tambora, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, you may be blocked from editing. Where are you getting a figure of 213 cubic kilometers?! Jasper Deng (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the volume of 1815 Tambora eruption was more intense than the original estimate volume (160-180 cubic kilometers) that I made. But the volume of 1815 Tambora ash was 150-213 cubic kilometers from contemporary evidence, and might have yielded far lesser thicknesses if measured in the outcrops some time after the eruption (Self et al., 1984). If so the eruption was of VEI-7 ranking it one of the largest holocene explosive eruption comparable to other large holocene explosive eruptions. This is the source that I've found http://www.kscnet.ru/ivs/bibl/vulk/kuozero/Pon-KurileLake.pdf KMTRAGER (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The volume might have been more intense than previously thought ( 213 km³ ) bulk volume

The volume might have been more intense than the original estimate volume that I made was 160-180 km³ ( 38-43 cu mi ) but I changed it to 160-213 km³ ( 38-51 cu mi ) of bulk volume if so the eruption was at Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7 ranking it one of the largest holocene explosive eruption comparable to large holocene explosive eruptions. KMTRAGER (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Lake Ilopango#Eruptive history. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:KMTRAGER/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:KMTRAGER/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KMTRAGER! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Your recent editing history at The Dark Knight (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]