@kdnavrat Ah whoops that’s a subtlety of my system at work here. 
In the note title you will notice the suffix (E.2102150921) which denotes it as an evergreen note of my own thinking.
In the reference section at the end of the note is a link to another note with the suffix (L.2102150922) which denotes it as a literature note capturing a single concept from a single source.
Here’s what that note looks like:
Notice the source link at the bottom. Literature notes in my system by definition have a single source, not a “sources” or “references” section.
That source note (with the S... suffix) in turn looks like this: (zoomed out a bit to be more visible in the screenshot)
These “source notes” are where I take my rough notes from a source, then compile them together and turn them into those individual literature notes capturing specific concepts. (yes this is a different use of the term “literature note” than many people)
Here’s an example of a source note that is partially complete, for Wozniak’s 20 rules of knowledge formulation:
As I (gradually – incremental reading!) process the source I extract information and chunk it together into those phrase-titled literature notes, each tied back to their source.
I will admit I’m not 100% happy with the L. and E. distinction because the line between them gets very blurry fairly often. Creating this distinction really helped me when I was dealing with a rapid explosion of my notes in the early days but now I’m starting to question the utility. It may be that I convert most/all of my L. notes to E. notes in the near future. TBD.