User talk:Glevum

II Corps (German Empire)
Glevum, please do not collapse the 1914 mobilisation OrBat in II Corps (German Empire). The table contains an anchor "MCT" that all the other German Empire Corps point to. See III Corps (German Empire). It has a line in its 1914 mobilisation OrBat of
 * Munition Trains and Columns corresponding to II Corps

If the table in II Corps is collapsed, the link in III Corps will not work properly. It is why I have deliberately left the II Corps table uncollapsed. Hamish59 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, Glevum! Fully understand the consistency angle.  Hamish59 (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to "Hannibal's Crossing of the Alps"
Your edits are appreciated. I started that article awhile ago, and it needed those revisions.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join Milhist
 Hello ! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject&mdash;we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cornwall
I've reinstated the statements about the national dish status of the pasty, which you commented out. That is the term that the sources use, and we should reflect that. The issue of Cornwall's status as a nation has been discussed countless times on countless different pages here, and the consensus is that a nation is not the same as a sovereign state, or even a constituent country - regardless of current administrative arrangements. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsuccessfull minor rewording
Hi, Glevum!

I see that you work quite a bit with small improvements, which make the texts less illogical, and therefore a little bit easier to read. IMHO, also this work is great and important, and one of the main advantages with the whole wiki concept is that it enables such "wikignoming".

However, I think that your change here made the text more illogical, not less. There now is no clear connection between the first part of the sentence and the rest of it. Before your edit, I think the sentence was technically correctly formed, but indeed probably too technical. My original sentence was complex enough to make the relations between the various parts hard to follow, I suppose.

Do you think
 * The males and females are so distinct in their morphology, that it often makes it very hard to decide whether or not a given male and female belong to the same species, unless they are captured while mating

would be better? I'm a little suspicious as regards "so...that" constructs. However, in this case, perhaps such a construct might do the text easier to follow. JoergenB (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment @Glevum, Following a quick glance of your rewording & spelling works myself. I would hate to be rude but, they're a hit or miss. Whenever you edit an article more than a few words, half of it seems to be an improvement, the other half just worse. DA1 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In vs On and Was vs Were and Its vs Their are some of the things you need to work on. And you overuse the word "that", sometimes editors leave that out in boxes and plot summaries because they're trying to be succinct.
 * "Here's the pencil you gave me"... I presume you would prefer it be "Here's the pencil that you gave me" even though the former example was completely fine. That's what I mean. DA1 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment mistake
Typoed the closing tag here. ('->' instead of '-->') FYI. Now fixed. --Palosirkka (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)