Talk:Erich Rieger

Why should this article fail to conform to WP:MOS?
reverted MOS-based changes, including spacing of initials, MOS:REFPUNCT fixes, dash fixes, and more. Thank you for creating this article; it looks like you are relatively new to the English Wikipedia, so welcome! Is there a reason that this article should fail to conform to the basic guideline prescribed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style? I know it's a long set of documents; I'll be happy to link to specific sections if you like. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If had taken time to read the edit summary for that reversal, he would have seen this discussion. Yreuq (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I read that discussion. It did not provide a justification for ignoring MOS in this, or any, article. Also, a mass revert of all of the MOS-related changes that I made was even more unjustified. If you want a reference before a closing full stop, place it in the middle of a sentence, immediately following the claim that the reference is supporting. MOS:REFPUNCT should still be observed; let me know if there is some part of it that is unclear to you or that you believe supports your desire to place references before full stops. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not that you implement the MOS. The problem is that you also remove the  tags recognized by bots as exclusion flags.Yreuq (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The usual way to exclude a bot from a page is to put nobots at the top of the page, with botname added to exclude that particular bot. Before doing that, though, it is best to try to work with the bot's owner to understand why the bot is causing a problem on the page and how the bot owner might fix that problem. In this case, the bot appears to have been fixing clear MOS:REFPUNCT errors, and there is no consensus here or at any WikiProject related to this article, AFAIK, to make an exception to that section of MOS for this article. What is your goal, exactly? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Had you really read the discussion, you would have seen what the goal here is and that the bot owner suggested using that tag to accomplish that goal. Yreuq (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I read every word of it. What is your goal? Please cite a specific sentence that seems ambiguous to you. I'm here to help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from accusing others of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs.Yreuq (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)