User talk:PBS/Archive 10

No quarter

Thank you for the work you did regarding this topic. I left a response at MILHIST. --Gwguffey (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...I did some clean up to No quarter (disambiguation) earlier to get it more in line with MOS:DAB. I removed the entry for the Waxhaw massacre as it does not directly mention the dab subject of "no quarter" currently. You might swing by that article relative to "no quarter"/"Tarleton's Quarter!" should you feel some variant of that entry should be returned to the dab page. A bit of TLC might be all that it needs. Thanks, again, for you assistance with these topics. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pocket vs cauldron

Hi Philip. I noticed you changed kassel into pocket. I'm sure you are aware that although "pocket" may be a more common word in English to refer to the surrounded troops, the translation is in this case cauldron, and this is not an unusual word to find in English in reference to the encirclements either. In fact it gives a further way to distinguish between small and large encirclements, i.e. "division was caught in a pocket", and "the Army was in a cauldron". I would rather the full range of English vocabulary be used to describe the actual size of the encirclements, but if these have to be used in titles, then why not a pocket and a cauldron as appropriate?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Soviet/Russian understanding of the pocket in Salients, re-entrants and pockets. Its unfortunate that past military historians in English failed to make greater use of the English language--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

message received, cheers mate :-) (EOM, delete)

Jonathanmills (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

touch rugby

hi i see that you deleted my additions to the touch rugby page such as the official rules, history and information about the teams. i see that your reasoning is because you think the rules relate to rugby league? well they are official touch rules and it would be great if you could tell me why you removed my information added when i think it is appropriate for people who wish to learn about the sport touch rugby. sharnita woodman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skw11 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

reverting Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles to old version of User:Grandy Grandy

Hi, two questions relating to the Bosnian mujahideen and the Bosnia section of the Mujahideen article

1. both are being continuously reverted back to the version of User:Grandy Grandy. Does my revert limit (recently extended for two weeks) apply to reverts of this version?
2. we/I have already gone through a very long and arduous mediation process (which I requested) for both of these articles. They are now being reverted back to the old version on what I believe are spurious grounds. I feel that should there be changes to them it is those who wish to make these changes who should convince the consensus rather than the other way around. Since these types of articles are obviously going to attract quite a few what I would call 'Bosniak nationalists' allowing people to revert back and forth is not really an option. Also, simply protecting the page with their preferred version doesn't seem fair either, given that I believe the onus is on them to justify the changes, rather than the other way around.

I realize this must be taking quite a bit of time from other articles you may be interested in. However, your assistance/attention to these articles is much appreciated and I would be grateful if you could look into the matter, perhaps consulting other administrators as well. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Osli73

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to a user talk page, you admonished the user for using a different variety of English than what was already in use at the article in question. I think it is important when doing so, to explain the exceptions to what you said, so I added the following to the section:

I would like to add my $0.02.... except if the subject of the article is inherantly more appropriate to a specific variety of English other than what the article was first written in. For example, in an article about Prince William, it would be acceptable to brittishize the article, and in an article about Richard Nixon, it would be acceptable to merkinize it. Also, when adding direct quotes to any article, the variety of English should not be changed from the actual quoted source, regardless of the variety used in the Wikipedia article. Otherwise, for non-nation-specific topics, the first variety of English should be maintained for future edits to the article. No reasonable person would expect you to be familiar with all the nutty little ways another variety of English spells everything, so if you add some text in your variety of English it is usually okay, although subject to correction by others; but in no case should somebody else's previous edits be modified to your preferred variety in an article that is already using a different variety of English. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Effect and affect, please change it back

The word you use has a completely different meaning from the one originally used. The Avalon source you use has a transcription error. See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_July_27#Partition_of_Germany Please change it back to effect.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Mujahideen

Hi, I have now made a request for mediation on the Mujahideen article (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-28 Mujahideen). However, in the meantime, I think it would be good if the article were protected to avoid continued edit warring over content. I have made a request for this. Would appreciate if you could look into it since you have already protected the Bosnian mujahideen article for the same content disputes/edit warring. CheersOsli73 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused I am

we've had a few discussions as I have ever so slowly revised the french invasion of russia. He wanted me to start pointing out Russian military successes, and you know me well enough that I don't like pointing out anything to anyone that isn't just the fact as they are stated. Sure seem a waste of breath on this subject though. Tirronan (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'Strategic Offensive Operations'

This is now being discussed on the main MILHIST talk page Operation naming (cont.) if you wish to contribute. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Battles or campaigns...who knows - The Eastern Front: Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin (Campaigns of World War II) (The Campaigns of World War II) (Hardcover)

by Duncan Andersen (Author), Stanley Rogers (Author) Zenith Press, 2001 --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination

Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Nominations. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. Anyway, here's hoping... -Kieran (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that...

"Dank55 are there any specific parts to my second part that you object to. I am willing to include examples (indeed would encourage their use) of foreign accent..." I missed this question, I'll look at the relevant pages later today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dern it, I forgot to tell you that I did that and had no problem with your suggestions; in fact, I really like your addition. (I was sick earlier this week.) I just did a quick copyedit on it; I didn't intend to change any meaning (except for "encyclopedia"), and feel free to revert me if I said something different than what you wanted. By changing "reliable sources" to "dictionaries and encyclopedias", I think I was changing it to be closer to what I understand you want...that is, you don't want people to be able to pick any name with hard-to-understand diacritics just because that's in a source somewhere. I hope I understood correctly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (disambiguation)

The Historical revisionism (disambiguation) page is under AfD. Click the "this article's entry" on the tag atop the dab page and you'll be at the discussion. B.Wind (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal: Genocide

Hi, I just noticed that you tried to prod Portal: Genocide. Unfortunately, only articles, user pages and user talk pages can be prodded; for a portal, you need to through the procedure at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (I'd list this there myself, only I'm unsure why exactly this should be deleted, so it will probably be better if you list it). Scog (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Zigic

The problem is, Philip, that this common name policy applies to where there is variation in name form. By simply taking someone's name and removing diacritics, it does not mean to say that this is how that person's name is in English. If it were considered important to English speakers, the language would by its very nature transcribe the sounds, or ammend pronunciation so as to Anglicise. This is not the case here, the reason that your sources do not use the diacritics is because they opt not to, and would not do so with any subject; therefore the same needs to be done across the entire English Wikipedia where there are diacritics. In cases such as Serbian (pronominal here) where there is a primary non-Latinic based alphabet, the romanised form could be otherwise redundant if not adopted by foreign languages which in turn take a name from its local form. This is the argument I will use as I hope to start a full debate, not just regarding Žigić but all other articles. Evlekis (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar protection

• Please see Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Name has been changed and the rationale behind it where an earlier admin action of yours is mentioned. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism and Negationism

Hi, I replied on the talk page.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations

Philip, I will wait for an RFC since I have no stomach for comments being directed at me. The books are full of statements about occupations well before 1907, and your splitting of hairs on when exactly the said term entered the English language may belong in the court room, but does not belong in a reference work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to win friends Philip. If I wanted to do that, I'd be at the pub. I'm here pretty much to contribute with whatever little knowledge and understanding I have towards that of others. However, if you do want to be friends with me, please offer logical arguments and good sources, and I assure you that you will find me most genial and gentlemanly.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sartor Resartus

Have you ever read Sartor Resartus? It's among my favorite novels, and I get the vague sense that you might enjoy reading it sometime if you ever get the chance, at least certainly the philosophical bits. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation style is a side show

Hi. I've responded on my talkpage. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nikola Žigić

See by response to both of you on PMAnderson's talk page, to which I refer you. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well you'll need to complain somewhere else then, 'cause I don't agree with your reasoning and you don't appear to have followed mine. Good luck though and all the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Humourous

Philip, I saw your note at Talk:Sarah777 and, while I agree with the substantive point you make there, I thought I would alert you to the fact that the word is spelled as 'humorous' in all varieties of English. It is a common error to assume that the adjective follows the spelling variation that the noun does, but an error it is nonetheless. See User:Spellmaster for chapter and verse on this if you're interested. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Football (word) mistake

Hey, I figured out thankfully what I did because it was bugging me. I wanted to undo the edit by 85.233.228.63 (Talk) at 23:11, 16 May 2008 but the edit could not be undone. So what I did was click the last button next to his entry to copy and paste the sentence he deleted. Then I simply went to the top of the page and clicked 'edit this page' which caused me to be editing the old version by him and I dumbly didn't notice. So I meant to just add that one sentence in but instead reverted to an old version. I just wanted to point out my mistake, cheers. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

Philip, while I think that posting the historical tag is wrong for mutliple reasons, I strongly object to the custom tag being used at Wikipedia:Attribution. Historical should only be used for that which was once approved but no longer is pertiennt or no longer represents consensus. A proposal which is not adopted should be marked as "failed" (the new term for "rejected") or marked as an "essay". Typically, I find the latter to be a true definition since it remains an opinion of at least one editor, but the language should be softened to not appear as guidance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: VII Corps d'Armee / Armee des Alpes 1815 and Swiss Forces at Huningue in 1815

Hello Philip!

I'm glad I can be of some help.

I have a number of sources which state that the Armee des Alpes was the VII Corps. Here are a few:

Waterloo: Battle of Three Armies (Edited by Lord Chalfont) (1979)

Memoires pour Servir a l'Histoire de France En 1815 (Barry Edward O'Meara) (1820)

Histoire des Campagnes de 1814 et 1815 en France (General Vaudoncourt) (1826)

My source for the two Swiss brigades that laid siege to the fortress of Huningue is:

Der Weg zur Neutralitat und Unabhangigfeit 1814 und 1815 (Edouard Chapuisat)(1921)

If you have any further queries about the War of the Seventh Coalition (it's armies, details of the 'other fronts' etc.) please do not hesitate to ask away. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent policy edits at WP:V

Your edit summary here sounds like you believe details like page numbers should only be in the guidelines, but you only removed one instance of the instructions about page numers. Could you weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#page_numbers_and_quoted_material so that there is no confusion over what you are advocating? I am pushing more discussion and less edit-warring since the protection didn't lead to a great improvement.--BirgitteSB 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Sorry, I don't follow. Also, probably best to post it on talk so that others can join in. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT

You know Philip, I don't follow Wikipedia nearly so blindly as some. Notes are what people use to annotate. References are what people do to reference. The template used for the references is {{reflist}}, not {{notelist}}, so I title these section ==References== because they are linked to ==Sources== thate are the subject of the policy on Wikipedia:Citing sources, and not Wikipedia:Citing references. Now, there is no particular policy or even guideline or convention to add footnotes that "expands on a specific portion of the text", but there is a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that demands citation of sources, and their correct referencing.

So, I am staggered to understand why you would undo my renaming of the relevant sections as Sources and References in preference to References and Notes, even though the first is really a list of books the references in the second refer to, there being only 4-5 actual notes? Had this been done properly, it would not take me to fix what the two of you tried to fix, that neither of you would have known had I not come around and actually looked at the mess that it was.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Campaigns of 1815 - Danish and Portuguese

Hi Philip!

Just thought I'd give a quick mention that Sorensen says NOTHING about the Portuguese Contingent.

The sources consulted for the Portuguese Contingent are Wellington's Despatches and the Supplementary Despatches of the Duke of Wellington.

Sorensen forms part of my Danish sources, showing that the Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps joined Wellington's Army in July. Its Order of battle can be found in Plotho. Thanks --Assisting Wiki (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgement

"we do not judge who is right or wrong we merely report what the sources say"

This is very true. However I do have this to say...

I make particular reference to the Portuguese Contingent and the Army of Naples:

To report that the Portuguese mobilised a contingent for the coalition is simply untrue.

To report that the Army of Naples was commanded by Onasco and was composed of Neapolitans is also untrue.

I consider it irresponsible to state such things as fact when one knows better simply because one or more sources state them as being so and incase one appears as judgemental to other Wikipedians by addressing this. This is afterall an encyclopedia and correct information is paramount!

I have not challenged the opinions of any authors or given my own opinion, what I have done is corrected the 'facts' that some authors have given as they are incorrect and are proven to be so.

In no way do I judge the sources or the authors of the sources (infact I love Chandler, Barbero and Adkins' work) but I do state the common misunderstandings that are commonly believed through such popular works, and offer citations mentioning the works which offer the correct facts backing up my claims (as citations are always needed), in this case collected and published Primary Sources.

Simply stating the facts without addressing the myths and why the myths are what they are, would result in facts being edited in favour of popular myths. Let's face it, more people will have read Chandler's and Barbero's work than those who will have browsed through Wellington's Despatches.

By addressing both (stating the belief then stating the fact) people can see the truth for themselves thus preventing the oh so familiar "That's wrong" EDIT, "Actually it's right" COUNTER-EDIT, "No, I tell you it's wrong" EDIT, "And I tell you its right" COUNTER-EDIT 'battle'.

--Assisting Wiki (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove archiving

If you look at User talk:Koavf, you'll see many people complaining about his pagemove archiving. As bots use the cut and paste method, it's become a de facto standard. I also don't see why pagemove archiving should ever be preferred, having the talk page history all over the place is far from optimal. xenocidic (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving. xenocidic (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Per your concern, I've moved the discussion - though I'm not sure how much visibility that help talk page has. How much longer would you like the discussion to run? xenocidic (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT

I changed the supporting sections heading on purpose. The editors are supposed to reference the article text to specific pages of the sources used to create the article. They often do not. Notes are those things that are added to expand on the text, and need not be referenced or sourced....just nice to know. Sources are mandatory. I add the following structure as a matter of course because anyone can look for sources and they need to understand that having notes to the article is not enough. The references need also be added citing the page numbers.

==See also==

==References and notes==

{{reflist}}

==Sources==

{{find}}

==Further reading==

==External links==

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. A thank you would have been nice for the Hundred Days Sources sorting out.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Days

I'm embarrassed that you had so much clean-up to do after I inserted a condensed version of that new sub-article. I simply thought the material had to be represented somehow. --Wetman (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

May wish to comment

Hi Philip, you may (or may not) wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Block_of_Mrg3105. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Military occupations

Hiya, just as a friendly reminder, when someone removes unsourced information from a page, they do have WP:V behind them, even if their removal appears to be disruptive. In such cases, if you're going to add information back,[1] it's usually going to be a good idea to include a source. Just offering you a heads-up, --Elonka 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Be specific

What is it that you want me to see Philip when you say in Zieten Hussars‎; 20:26 . . (-11) . . Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs) (See WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES- Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days

Les Cent Jours en Vendee: Le General Lamarque et l'Insurrection Royaliste by Bertrand Lasserre 1906.

Wellington and Wellesley (I've never refered to it as the latter myself) refers to the Supplementary Despatches of Wellington. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hundred days

Opps I sure did Phillip! I'll add it in a few hours, sorry buddy. Tirronan (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder the references came from book 1 of the 2 book series. Tirronan (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great power third opinion

Hi Philip Baird Shearer, I found you removed the Talk:Great power listing at WP:3O. As you know, the two editor guideline is not a strict one. And in this case, the third editor commented only once, at the start of the discussion. It doesn't seem to influence the complexity of the situation. Would it be allright with you if I list it again? Or can you perhaps provide the third opinion, since you may have read everything already, and given it some thought? =Species8473= ^(talk) 11:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Official names

I meant that the municipality of Sint-Genesius-Rode only has one official name and that there was no need for the French exonym the anonymous user had added. That's what I meant by official in this case.--Hooiwind (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For your attention

Dear Philip, just discovered that you are interested in Peace and International Law and related subject matters. Perhaps you wish to consider the messages that I have placed here: [2]. In this connection, you may also consider to read the following piece in today's The Observer, if you have not done it already: [3]. With thanks in advance, Yours sincerely, --BF 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

Holocaust denial‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Holocaust denial‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM on irregularly raised Soviet troops

(Trying desperately not to use either of the two contested terms!) You may wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

negativity

Let's move on, and maybe there's a better basis to build trust. The Spanish speaker seems not to understand some linguistic issues. I'm kind of annoyed that my time is being taken up having to defend the castle where there's no improvement in the articles. See what others say.

How do you feel about the steam that's building up at MOSNUM about actively discouraging the use of the autoformatting system for full dates? There's a lot on MOSNUM's talk page. Off to bed now. TONY (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion?

Could you have a look at the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Along_the_same_lines? Tony is denouncintg me as a deceiver, an underminer, and so on, in his usual agreeable fashion; but the only really substantive change he concurs with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Genocide definitions

Shouldn't an article that uses the terms of "race" and "ethnic group" frequently link to the respective articles? I preferred a "see also" section because I'm not top fond of placing links inside of quotes. -- 790 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

What do you think about recent renaming of article North Korean human experimentation by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus? I am not quite sure, so a third opinion would be very welcome. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Great power and potential powers

Since you have visited the Great power page before I was wondering if you could take a glimpse at Talk:Great power#India Dispute Resolution. I think I have been very clear and concise how I believe that by creating different levels for countries that might become a Great Power in the 21^st century violates Wikipedia:No original research, Synthesis of published material, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Some input would be great before more edits occour. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica

OK, thanks for info. I am not going to edit article in the next few hours... Historičar (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk that this User put at another user's page instead of at the discussion(s) for the specific pages Mugs2109 (talk)

dehousing

The Article dehousing is about the dehousing paper which is by far the most common usage of this term -- it is not a dictionary word.

There are already far too many general articles about Aerial bombing of cities and related subjects (see Talk:Strategic_bombing#Redundancies) without turning the dehousing article into another one. I think a far more constructive effort than adding a Timeline regarding WWII City Bombing to dehousing would be for you to look through the Talk:Strategic_bombing#Redundancies and consider ways in which the articles in this area could be integrated to remove redundancy. Something I would be willing to help do, but not something I wish to take a lead in doing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References

In many of the article I deal with there is a Notes" (or Footnotes) section which contains a list of citations and notes created using the ref tag pair and listed with {{reflist}}. If there is also am alphabetic list of References in a separate "References" section, those two should not be combined. It is often a good idea not to put full references into the text as it makes it difficult to edit instead just include author and page and put the full book references at the bottom sorted by author in the References section (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Shortened notes and WP:LAYOUT) Also please note that changing from one style of references to another to or from templates is discouraged (see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates). The reason for this is that not everyone likes the other style but more to the point it can cause to very big diffs in the article that mask the edit history, and make it difficult to check for changes to the text. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)