# Talk:Michael IV the Paphlagonian

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 Keith-264. 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)
@Keith-264: 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)
@Gog the Mild: 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)
@Keith-264: 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)