User talk:VRB TO

Deviantart is not a reliable source
Please understand that Deviantart is not a reliable source. Please see Identifying_reliable_sources.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop using Deviantart as a source! It is not a reliable source.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Dinosaur Size
Hi! You're recent edits to Dinosaur size were all reverted. SVPOW posts and the comments on them are not considered reliable sources. Also, some of your other edits did not accurately represent the cited sources (The description paper of Notocolossus gave a range of 44-75 t, with 60 t (66 short tons) considered the most likely value. We chose to put the full range here on this page). If you have any questions about what constitutes a reliable source, see Identifying reliable sources, or you can drop me a message at my talk page. Ashorocetus (talk &#124; contribs) 17:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=721159154 your edit] to Supersaurus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * an animal with a 12.14 meter neck, suggesting size of up to 33.8 m and {convert|42|MT|ST|abbr=on}. https://svpow.com/2014/07/13/sv-pow-showdown-supersaurus-vs-

Datonglong
Why did you move it from 2016 in paleontology to 2015 in paleontology? A preprint of the article describing it was only published online in 2015 and was not registered in ZooBank then, so that didn't count as valid publication; it can only be considered validly named when then print version of the article naming it was published - which happened in 2016. Regard --Macrochelys (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)