User talk:SchreiberBike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I have it on my watch list. If you contact me here, I will respond here unless you instruct me otherwise. Thank you.  SchreiberBike talk

Ordinal "2d"[edit]

Your page says you're interested in ordinals, so might you have anything to say about the ordinal "2d" (in question at Talk:2d Stryker Cavalry Regiment#Requested move 2014)? —innotata 01:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Innotata: I've weighed in on that requested move. I'm no expert in ordinals, but I suppose I do think about them quite a bit. Thanks for thinking of me. SchreiberBike talk 02:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sighting" of Finsch's Rufous Thrush[edit]

Hi. I noticed that in copyediting Finsch's Rufous Thrush, you changed "record from southern Togo" to "sighting in southern Togo". The source for this, Clement's book on thrushes, is now available at Google Books and says "record". Do you have some reason to believe the record was a sighting rather than one of the other possibilities? For instance, the record could be a bird caught in a mist net, which wouldn't usually be called a sighting, or a sound recording, which definitely wouldn't be. If you don't have such a reason, I believe the word should go back to "record". Thanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@JerryFriedman:, Thanks for your note. I was not aware that a record could occur based on a sound or any other possibility without a sighting. I had thought it was birder jargon which meant a bird had been seen. I will change it back. SchreiberBike talk 19:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding what I was saying and making the change. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

17th Guards Rifle Division[edit]

Thanks for picking up my ambiguous designation of the AT Battalion of this division. I've made the required change. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy

Thanks for cleaning up after me. Usually 22th means 22nd, but it means something else often enough that I don't want to make assumptions. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 04:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


If someone else hadn't already put up an Editor's Barnstar on your talk page, I would have. Thanks for identifying a source of confusion in the lists of New Hampshire historical markers, finding a good solution, and then doing all of the fixes. It's greatly appreciated! --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost done. I still have to do 1-25 and there are some where the text on the marker has changed since they were first put up and I'll go back and update those. I've also learned some New Hampshire history along the way. I even found one with what appears to me to be a gross error; #78 Odiorne's Point says "Thompson's son, John, was the first child born in New Hampshire" as though there were no people there before the Europeans arrived. I'm going to send an e-mail to the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources to see what they think of that. Anyway, it hasn't been too bad a project and I'll go back to my usual stuff soon. SchreiberBike talk 21:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Great Rosefinch move[edit]

I declined your technical move request of Great Rosefinch to Great rosefinch. The pages are not consistent, because the DAB at Great Rosefinch includes as one of its entries Caucasian great rosefinch which is now a redirect to Great rosefinch. That's the target you were requesting, which is clearly not available for a DAB! Can you please look into this (if you still want to pursue the matter) and see if you can propose something that has no loose ends? It's possible that User:Pvmoutside might have an opinion because they are the editor who moved Caucasian great rosefinch. Adding further confusion, Great rosefinch now says that the Caucasian and the Spotted are 'now usually considered conspecific'! So we now have a DAB for two birds that are probably the same species. Maybe merging the articles should be considered. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @EdJohnston: for your note. I thought I had checked that, but clearly I missed it. I'm just helping out in fixing capitalization and have no real background in birds, so as you suggest, I will ask Pvmoutside for help. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 02:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
SchreiberBike, thanks for the note. I looked at the pages, and they look fine. The Caucasian great rosefinch was the name of the species as it was split into that and spotted great rosefinch. When the birds were lumped again, the great rosefinch again became the species name, and the spotted great rosefinch became a subspecies to it, which is how it reads now. Links are provided on each of the pages. If someone from the project wants to merge them, I have no objection, however we do have other subspecies pages listed for other birds. We have a picture of the subspecies, but no picture of the nominate, or main species for the great rosefinch species page. For that reason, I am leery of deleting the subspecies page. I edited the Great Rosefinch page to redirect to the Great rosefinch page. I hope that helps. Let me know if I can help with any other questions about birds......03:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Pvmoutside:, you've cleaned it up nicely with that change. SchreiberBike talk 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing bird names to lower case in lists[edit]

Hi SchreiberBike, I've just noticed that you've been doing some editing of lists of birds to change the names to lower case. It's a massive chore to do this manually by hand (I know because I've done it) so I created a list to use with AWB. It means that an entire list can be done in a few minutes with just one edit. I'm happy to share it with you if you're interested? Julia\talk 21:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Julia W:, Thank you - such a thing would be wonderful. Please do share. SchreiberBike talk 21:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have sent you an email. Julia\talk 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Julia W:, Reply sent and I have requested access to AWB at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. It would probably make sense for me to play with AWB a little to get used to it, then start to work with the list you've made. If you would be willing to approve me for AWB, I could start on that soon. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Great! I've approved your AWB request. Julia\talk 05:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Julia W:, I've been studying and using AWB and I think I'm pretty comfortable with it. If you'd like to look at my recent contributions, you can see what I've been doing. If you would like to send that file, I can take a look at that and see if it's clear to me. If you'd like to take another approach, that would be fine too. SchreiberBike talk 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- and I go to check my e-mail and see you sent the list a couple of hours ago. Never mind the struck out text above. I'll start playing with your XML file and will be careful. SchreiberBike talk 05:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking good! I made a few minor corrections, the only ones I spotted.  :) Julia\talk 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Your approach works very well. I will check the corrections you made. A question: In your file, you didn't have the "Ignore external/interwiki links, images, nowiki, math and " under Normal settings checked. Why is that? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 17:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Shamefully, no particular reason, except for that I am not au fait with AWB and didn't realise it would be A Good Thing rather than A Bad Thing. It looks like ticking that box effectively fixes the issue with images being changed. I hadn't tried it before. Well spotted, and sorry! Julia\talk 17:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ordinals in USAF units[edit]

Since you're interested in ordinals, and have participated in past discussions on nonstandard ordinals in U.S. military articles, you may be interested in the move request I started at Talk:132d Fighter Wing. —innotata 04:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Innotata: for the heads up. I've had a similar idea on my list of future projects for a while, but I haven't started the process. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. SchreiberBike talk 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)