Talk:October Revolution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Peaceful demonstrations"

Wikipedia's on article on the July days contradicts the description of the demonstrations as peaceful saying "The Bolsheviks intended to hold peaceful demonstrations. However, armed clashes broke out." Have edited the article accordingly. --Russell's teapot (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical Issues

Hello. You should review the section "Unrest among workers, soldiers, and peasants," and clear up the grammatical errors. Otherwise, the content is good. Max Rowe-Sutton (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Verb tense

The timeline under the "Outcome" section is all over the place with regard to verb tense. Anyone feel like clearing that up? Jessicapierce (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Done! Kirbykarpan (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on October Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201134229/http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/037647-000/1917-la-revolution-russe to http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/037647-000/1917-la-revolution-russe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hyphen after "democratically"

@Dhtwiki: In the edit summary I referenced WP:HYPHEN, which says "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ..." Please observe Wikipedia's style. Chris the speller ^yack 16:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that the examples given by the guideline are simpler than "democratically elected local councils" where the hyphen helps to show that the first two attributes are closer to each other, forming a single attribute, and is helpful when there is another adjective – "local" – present. The guideline makes an exception – "unless part of a larger compound" – that I think applies here, although the example given there doesn't deal with the same construction. Also, another of the guideline's items – "A hyphen can help to disambiguate" – would seem to allow my usage, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: You are reading things into the MoS that are simply not there, apparently to twist it to agree with your personal tastes. This case is clearly not a "larger compound"; it is a simple case of a compound modifier. The MoS was not written by one editor; it has been refined by many editors over many years, and is the result of a consensus. And it's not just Wikipedia that dislikes hyphens in these cases; this discussion about the Chicago Manual of Style shows that there is general agreement to leave ly compounds open, not hyphenated. Also see this discussion about the AP Stylebook and CMoS. Please stop adding unneeded hyphens. Chris the speller ^yack 00:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, those examples given are when the adverb-modifying-an-adjective-or-a-participle-compounds are by themselves modifying a noun, not when they exist alongside another adjective and need to be bound together more tightly so as not to cause confusion. Also, you are vaguely impugning my ability to comprehend these things rather than addressing the specific problem, which you evidently don't understand very well. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I will not continue this discussion with an abusive editor. I have recast the sentence. Chris the speller ^yack 14:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)