User talk:CaroleHenson

Paul Signac, Lighthouse at Groix, 1925, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

He who breathes deepest lives most. - Elizabeth Barrett Browning Once we recognize what it is we are feeling, once we recognize we can feel deeply, love deeply, can feel joy, then we will demand that all parts of our lives produce that kind of joy. - Audre Lorde

Archives

• Archive English-Welsh History talk
• Archive Van Gogh‎
• Archive other discussions
• User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive late 2012
• User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 2013

David Harding (finance)

Hello Carole, thank you so much for making those edits based on my suggestions. I've just followed up with a reply hoping to make a few modifications; would you mind taking a look at it again? (Here's a link back to that discussion thread.) Thanks again! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! I've agreed with your changes and took care of them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! By the way, if you might have any more time, I've just posted a follow-up note relating to apparent typos and small factual errors. If you might have a chance to look at those, I'd be very appreciative—but you've been helpful enough, so if busy, I can ask around! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I added comments to the talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks very much. Let me see what I can do about finding answers to your two questions, and I'll follow up early next week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on research for the current discussion, although I just realized one of my suggestions from the last round didn't quite go in right. I've explained briefly in that previous thread; no big rush, but when you have a moment to look at that, let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Carole! Just posted a response to your two open questions on the Harding Talk page, here. Let me know if you have any other questions, and I'll keep an eye on that page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tremendous. On first glance, looks good. On Monday I'll pull out the fine-toothed comb, but regardless I really appreciate your help on this. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carole! As promised I've looked carefully over the changes and everything looks good, except for one small typo in the introduction that I had overlooked until now. Can you take a look at my latest reply on the Harding Talk page when you have a little time? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Medicinema

Hi. Thank you for your assistance in the page of Medicinema. I like your ideas. We'll work on it together and some of the other pages if you like. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimationWhiz133 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it would be my pleasure! It was fun getting to know about MediCinema. Thanks so much for bringing it to Wikipedia.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any other ideas for either Medicinema or any other page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimationWhiz133 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I put down all the ideas I could think of in the Medicinema article -- and added some sources to take a look at as a starting point. Do any of those sound interesting to you to explore?

Psycho cinema might be an interesting topic to explore - that could be linked to the MediCinema and Cinematherapy articles. Here's a link that shows how they identify helpful movies based upon individual's situations http://www.fit.edu/caps/cinema.php#domestic. Does that sound of interest?

One tip for you, if you would add: --~~~~ after your posting, Wikipedia will add your name and timestamp. That way we know who posted a message and when (without someone having to come behind and add the signature back in).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I would love to look at Pyscho cinema. --AnimationWhiz133 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hunting for embedded outlines

While you are reading or browsing Wikipedia articles, please...

...keep a lookout for outlines embedded in articles.

I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.

If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).

Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "Outline of" or "List of" being in the article's title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.

Happy hunting.

I look forward to "hearing" from you (on my talk page). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Cinema therapy

Hello, CaroleHenson, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Cinema therapy, appears to be directly copied from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cinema+Therapy. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Cinema therapy if necessary.Template:Z120 MadmanBot (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page and the article's talk page. It's not a copyright violation if it's quoted.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bindy Johal

Just saw your cite fixes....could you please review the contents of the infobox; I think some are spurious, and it needs reformatting anyway? I'm swamped, but did post a notice about this on the WP:BIO talkpage a moment ago.Skookum1 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I saw your comments on the WP:Bio page - and I thought I'd start with citations first and then start working on content from there. I will definitely check out all the info in the article. Thanks for the heads up about it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Karkoc

Hello CH. Did you delete the birth date point unintentionally? You said "copy edit" in your summary, but in actuality deleted the item sourced from the video report. Surely if you think the birthplace thing should go in there, so should the birth date thing? -- Y not? 22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the comments, the print material just mentions year of birth. Videos are not generally considered a reliable source, print is much better. I am trying to edit what you've put in to ensure that it matches the source material, but thanks for taking out "village" for Lutsk. That was an accident.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I was also confused by the entry of one month and day - and an update to another month and day.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a brainfart about the dates Videos are perfectly fine sources. The video thing didn't stop you from pointing out Horodok! I also didn't like edit about his notable subordinates. It feels like you're intentionally trying to cast doubt on his Naziness and suppress as many elements of the article as you can. Why? -- Y not? 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments are posted at Talk:Michael Karkoc--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For all your help on David Harding (finance), especially fielding my detailed follow-ups with amity and aplomb, thank you so much! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thank you for making sure the information was correct!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Alex Castellanos

Hi Carole, thanks again for looking at my draft for Alex Castellanos. I've been working through your comments and before I update the draft I have just a few questions for you. I've replied to your feedback on the draft's Talk page but just wanted to ping you here in case it's not on your watchlist. Can you take a look when you have a moment? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, will do. And, I can start moving over the sections that are already reviewed and good to go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carole, sorry I wasn't able to respond yesterday and thanks so much for your help on this article. It looks really great and I appreciate the work you put in checking the sources. For the couple of pieces of info tagged "citation needed" I've found sources, and given the full citation details on the draft's Talk page, following your last comments there. Once those are added, I'll be all set and think that the article is in fantastic shape! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done My pleasure! Thanks for doing such a great, thorough job!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! The article looks wonderful. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Carole, I am so sorry to be back to ask another favor of you: Mr. Castellanos has just pointed out that I made an error in the introduction of the article, he is still a partner at National Media, however I had written "former partner". As there are no sources that he left National Media Inc (this was my incorrect inference based on him founding Purple Strategies), would you mind removing "former" from the intro? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I didn't catch that either.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edit, and apologies again for not having caught that earlier. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Booth

Hi. Just wanted to comment on your work on the Kevin Booth article. A text book example of how to bring an article up to scratch. I wish I was as thorough. Only thing I'd question would be the IMDb cites. I know opinion is divided, but I'm not keen on using it. But an admirable job! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see your point on IMdB - I have used it as a source for list of films, etc. - but I have never used it as a source for the summary information. If you'd like, I'd be happy to find a substitute source for the info that came from the summary. (I noted in the comments that it came from Kevin Booth when I edited the info to draw attention.)

I personally don't have a problem with taking lists of works from IMdB. Does that concern you?

And, thanks, that was nice to hear today!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

for your bold clean-up of the Nepotism article. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy of Architecture

Dear Carole Henson! Thank you very much for attention to the article "Philosophy of Architecture"! I am new here, and probably do not understand rules. You placed many request for citation in this article, and I'm going to add them with time. But some paragraphs already had a reference inside them. Like there:

"As noted by C. Harris (K. Harries) in the framework of classical aesthetics of Kant and Baumgarten, architecture has dubious reputation, because of its relations with technical and engineering problems, what was then considered as incongruous with the ideal of "pure art.""

in this case I almost sure that I should use a direct reference to article, though it was in a list of litreture, and I was not completly sure, now I add it!

or there

"Lyotard believes that postmodern architects have nothing to do with Postmodernism (as noted by R. Martin),[2] and, as Lyotard puts it in his article, "The answer to the question: what is postmodernism?" architectes throw away the project of Bauhaus, splashing out functionalism along with the water and the child, who there is an aesthetic experiment itself.[citation needed]"

Last case most complicated for me, because it seems, that paragraph have two reference (to the reasercher who mensioned this opinion and to a book, where anyone can find this opinion). Or there is a rule, that author should place reference in the end of a paragraph? If it so, please direct my attention towards it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk • contribs) 10:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry, I also dorget to sign Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Welcome - and congratulations for starting an ambitious topic!

Yes, the citations need to go at the end of the sentence or groups of sentences that apply. When the article says "Lyotard believes" - that could come from an article written by Lyotard, a book that discusses his beliefs, etc. The only way to tell where it actually came from is to have citations in the appropriate places. Within a paragraph there may be several citations at the end of sentences, if the material comes from different places.

I hope that helps!

I'll be around in several hours from now and can check in with you then. Glad that you're here!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much I will put a citation at the end of paragraphs!

Sorry, I was not ready for such operative response! Unfortunatly I left after sent my message.

I`m afraid that my problem with last example is a bit more complicated: not just "Lyotard believes" but "Lyotard believes that postmodern architects have nothing to do with Postmodernism (as noted by R. Martin),[2] and, as Lyotard puts it in his article, "The answer to the question: what is postmodernism? ". Now I almost sure, that an additional quotation (at the end of this paragraph) will not cause a problem. According to rules more usual for me, it will be a kind of excess. But if it is ok - I will be most eager to put it, it is not a problem!

I will add all quotations during few days (actually I already started to do this!) Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what the problem is. Is it that 2 citations are needed for the sentences?

I also don't understand "The answer to the question: what is postmodernism?".--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Name of the article is probably wrong! just realzed, that I used my own translation here, found propper variant![1] For me, problem there, that if I add a quotation to the paragraph which already had it in implicit form (or inderect quotation, like in my last example - mention of specific author`s opinion in specific article). If after inderect quotation I put direct quotation (like this: author A believes B in article C (I probably did something wrong, quotation here is: ref author A. Article C // journal D. year X /ref)) my editor in Russia will ask me to chose one of this two references.

Shortly, my question was: is it okey in Wikipedia to use such construction: author A believes B in article C (I probably did something wrong again, quotation here is: ref author A. Article C // journal D. year X /ref, I my self cant see it))? Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you don't need to add the article name, it's in the citation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So, no implicit quotation then? Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm lost on "no implicit quotation". Maybe I need to back up to your example.

Regarding: author A believes B in article C"

You may say "author A believes B"

You may say "B" - if is a fact or a common belief

Yoy may say author A believes B in article C" if you like, it just gets a little wordy and the article name will be in the citation. If it's a ground-breaking article, though, you may want to mention the article name.

I hope that helps!--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am afraid implicit quotation maybe not ideal name for this, I probably meant implicit reference (sorry!)! When author reference somethink indirectly (like in scheme author A believes B in article C - and then no reference to a concrete publication (so no year, journal, page - if author is widely known, and all knew article was published academically, just anyone can find it this article) not like - A believes B (then reference: A. Article C // Journal Z. pp. 999.) Sometime it is more usefull, not just more wordly. For example, if idea (which is quoted) is main idea of article, so, you cant help reader by sending him to concrete page. Or if name of article is enough to proof it hold such point of view. Konstantin.V.Azarov (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. I am wondering if you're used to writing scholarly or technical papers where that kind of attribution is necessary. Here you can make the point, without having to name the author or page number. I'll check the article, though, to see how this might translate.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Annery, Monkleigh

I'm not happy with your edits to this article. An estate is not "a house" as you imply in your new intro. What do you mean by "The Annery"? I despair. You've done some superficial research and waded right in! All the ISBN's are great, but your text is embarassingly awful and naive. Please tell me where Annery was mentioned in the Domesday Book. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

I have responded on the Talk:Annery, Monkleigh talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A Google scan request

Hi Carole! Regarding Heanton Satchville, etc., I'd love it if you could manage somehow to get a copy of Google's scan of The Royal Lineage of Our Noble and Gentle Families (principally Devonians) ... to me (I'm sure Lobsterthermidor would appreciate a copy too). It's clearly going to be out of copyright, but Google is particularly reticent in releasing later 19th century books to us in the UK - we only get snippet view here. I often find such books on archive.org instead, but this one isn't on there (though Vols 1, 2, and 4 are). Thanks in anticipation,  —SMALLJIM  20:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to pages inside the book: The Royal Lineage of Our Noble and Gentle Families (principally Devonians) .... Can you open this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "scan", I've downloaded the pdf (if you meant a digital version of the book), but am not sure how to get it to you. It doesn't appear that I can send documents via wiki email?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, the pdf is what I meant. If I access that link I just get the index page for the book (with the bibliographic information at the bottom) with a small input box to search, which only provides the snippets. I've emailed you.  —SMALLJIM  21:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I returned your email with the PDF. Happy researching!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Received, thanks. I'll see what use I can make of it. I'll also let Lt know I have a copy and can forward it to him if he wishes.  —SMALLJIM  21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey CaroleHenson

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For familiarising yourself with TemplateData so quickly, and spending your time helping others do the same :). Wikipedia is an educational resource, and even within the editor community, the opportunity to teach is one that should be jumped on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure!--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________

Georges Yatrides

29 june 2013

Dear Carol,

An initial response is sent you in order not to overwhelm you. The rest will follow.

1. I would first like to thank you for the changes you have made. I sincerely appreciate the tone you use for your comments. I hope the encyclopaedic style will give a correct idea of my life as a painter and scientist, because painting allows me to express what science can achieve intrinsically.
2. Concerning my career, about my fundamental research accomplished at CEA (AEC- French government Atomic Energy Commission) I demonstrated my theory on new properties of light from solid body incandescence and its influence on hydrocarbon materials (USA Patent No. 3,840,028 -08 October 1974), recalling here that the human race is hydrocarbon-like all mammals and that our Sun is variable thermonuclear incandescence like other stars. The results of my research determine the development of a second correlative theory: non interdependence of light, space and time, thus detected. If in chemistry are patentable only operations leading to innovative change of the experienced substances, they can demonstrate a specific theory. Extrapolation on an artistic plan, my theory gave me to apply on a flat surface, a painting, a new approach of light, of time (which is the case of the painting "The spiral of time pillar" 65x92cm, (1982).
3. Another added painting "Essential Vibration" 97x130cm (1982) applies a new approach of light and time. But also, it is the foreshadowing of the film Lars von Trier "Melancholia", about which background is represented by a collision with our planet the Earth. It is highlighted by Alexandre Sacha Bourmeyster (Alexandre Sacha Bourmeyster- SGDL Society of Men of Letters of France [1]).
4. Of patents in my name all exclusive claims were granted in countries with harsh examinations, honored in particular by the United States Patent Office in Washington DC" (yatrides.com> Its life> Entourage: Paul Perroud Director, Offices of Special Application of Physics, French Atomic Centre, CEA-CENG). This is what is shown in "Yatrides and his century" that you quote: On 17 January 1996, Yatrides et son siècle was established to protect the public, civil and professional interests of Yatrides works. The organization is composed of "senior officials".[15]. If this seems interesting for the understanding of my life as a researcher and painter, I will give you more specific information about my fundamental discoveries I extrapolated my painting.
5. Concerning the 8 periods of my work, I return to you: Extract from "Dictionary artists Dauphine " (Dictionnaire des Artistes du Dauphiné -ISBN: 978-2-3502-2065-9- 4ème trimestre 2008, Editions Alzieu ‘’La maison du livre’’ – 1 bis rue du Moulin, 38120 Le Fontanil, France :

I can put on the Commons page that matches the text below :

• “Six phases trace the evolution of his work:
• "Fauve" period 1945/1948 - "Abstraction" period 1948/1951;
• "Pre graphic period " 1951/1955 - "Graphics" period" 1957/1962 -
• "Graphics fundamental" US period 1963/1972 - "Apodictic period" 1973/1982 ;
• (This apodictic period was the period of generating synthesis: "Synthesis first: root1945/1988 - :* "Synthesis last": root1989/2011).
• In 1996 a constitution 1oi Association 1901
• "Yatrides and his century" Prefecture of Isère, No. 24149, Official Journal
• No. 3, 17/01/1996. " Yatrides et son siècle was established to protect the public, civil and professional interests of Yatridès's works. The organization is composed of "senior officials". On 17 January 1996".[2]

Thank you for your help

Best regards George Yatrides--Yatrides (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbering information above to facilitate responses. Will copy to article talk page Talk:Georges Yatridès to keep with article related content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the french article as well. Pleclown (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style

Following your master-class in citations, to which I have paid serious attention, I am now confused having read the above - for the first time ever it must be admitted. It seems to justify the style I have been using, that is omission of citation templates, stated to be optional, and "name attributes", also optional, and English academic citation style, apparently OK. I really want to find a form that satisfies you, WP and myself before I proceed with further editing. All I've been doing is using the style I learned in higher education institutions in England, i.e., "Vivian, Full title, place of publication, year, page no", or where already quoted, "Vivian, p.x". ISBN no's too are stated to be optional! There are reasons for my preferences, if you are interested, but I'll keep this short now. Thanks for your help. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC))

That sounds to me like you are being disingenuous, Lt. The problems, as you well know, are not related to whether or not citation templates should be used, but as has been pointed out in a friendly manner by Carole, and less so by me, by the need for you to provide clear and unambiguous references. You know perfectly well what the guidance on citations is: you discussed it with User:Motacilla here and here, and with User:Dougatwiki here. Please don't try to force Carole into defending her choice of citation style.

It is to resolving the referencing issues (advice points 2 and 3 here) towards which you should be directing your mind before making further substantial article edits. We need to see evidence of your good-faith attempts to improve in this area.  —SMALLJIM  13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates may be optional, but given how helpful they are I have no idea why anyone would omit them. When I came joined Wikipedia I disdained citation templates as clutter, fit only for folk who hadn't learnt how to format academic citations for themselves. I soon learnt to stop being so precious and appreciate how helpful citation templates are. They help to give articles a consistent appearance, without which Wikipedia would look like a collection of ill-related webpages concocted by amateurs. And the set of parameters to complete in each template helps a contributor as forgetful as myself to ensure that I haven't omitted key details. And in the years since I joined, Wikipedians more tech-savvy than I have made some templates significantly better. What's not to like? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well said, I returned to using citation templates for just those reasons. I don't always use them, if there's an article that I'm editing or expanding with well-formatted and consistently formatted citations that don't use the citation template, then I use the style in the article (Chicago, AP, etc.) I used them most when cleaning up an article with disparate citation styles. And, they are incredibly easily created using Reftag tool from google books urls and WP:ProveIt.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly may I say I'm getting a bit fed-up with Smalljim's lack of assuming good faith. I request that he retracts his above comment "sounds to me like you are being disingenuous". I am acutely aware of the problem of OR, which is why I have been studying the WP guidelines on how to make citations. Hence my question to Carole, who was my main critic in this area! As I stated above, I didn't want to make any more substantial edits until I complied with the required format, whatever that might be. You may all love citation templates, I don't, in fact I loathe them. I can give my reasons if you want. I don't find them helpful. That seems to be an acceptable position, per WP:CITEVAR. For new articles I will be creating, I intend to stick to the style I have been using, fully approved by WP guidelines, is that OK? If someone wants to change them to something else, that's a valid contribution, if they can reach consensus under the guideline. I don't care what they look like it's just I can't stand messing about with the fiddly little things myself. When done otherwise almost exactly the same result appears which enables any reader to obtain the source at a public library or on-line, which remember is the whole point. Many recent "improvements" looked great but lost the baby with the bathwater as editions, page numbers, work titles all became garbled in an impenetrable thicket of computer code. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC))