Talk:Michael IV the Paphlagonian

CE
Did a cheeky little ce, rm the odd typo, tidied prose, auto ed and dupe wlink check. I'm surprised at the assiduous citing, is the article that contentious? I would have been content with one cite per source per paragraph (unless one source is used in the middle) and wonder if using a page range 123–124 might be more efficient than citing the same author and page several times in succession? It's been a few decades since I read Psellus and Norwich and I enjoyed the nostalgia; alas J J Norwich died the other day. Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Many thanks. The citing is what happens when a lot of editors play around with the article over 10+ years. The one thing that never gets deleted is a cite - if it is accurate, why should you. And frankly, I can't be bothered to go through removing accurate cites, even if the article is not how I would want it if I had written it from scratch.
 * I was going to GAN this once I had done what you have just done. Any comments for me before I do?
 * Norwich. I didn't know that. He's given me a number of hours of quiet contentment; may he rest in peace. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I realised that it was already a C so not one of your new ones; I'd tidy the references section first. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Any better? And thanks again for your earlier edits; I have just had a proper look. Appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, I don't like assessing articles so I try to make up for it by being a fresh pair of eyes when someone has submitted an article. do you have a copy of Psellus? I think that it would be better to link the source to an edition, even though it isn't cited in the text. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can access an online version. But I try not to: he is a "primary source" and he has/had his own agenda. Even when directly quoting him - not in this article - I prefer to go through professional historians who can put him in context. If you think that is not an appropriate way to go, please say so.


 * PS You have caught me at my bad habit of GANing an article partially as a way of spurring me to really concentrate on sorting out the niggly bits. It is a bad habit, but it seems to work, and it's not as if GANs are getting picked up too rapidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Psst! Don't tell anyone but that was why I started requesting assessments. ;O) At first I vastly overestimated the interest other eds would have in the articles I worked on and used it as a wheeze to get them copy-edited. Now I've been doing it for a while it's much easier to sort out the ce, referencing, etc but I'm still learning. Template:Cite book is a great help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do a fair bit of copy editing for GOCE, but seem to have dreadful blind-spots for my own articles. Or perhaps they are all that bad, but people are too polite to complain. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)