Help desk
< August 12	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 13

Want to upload a picture to add to page. Standard account Can you upload for me?

Want to upload a picture to add to page. Standard account Can you upload for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbaechtel (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any assistance available? Dbaechtel (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Dbaechtel[reply]

Only confirmed users can upload files. You will be a confirmed user after you've had your account for four days and made at least 10 edits. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM for more on this. Once you're confirmed, you can go to WP:UPLOAD to upload the file. For more help with images in general, see WP:IMAGES. Dismas|^(talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't change title!

Hi,

I created a page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riqiv23

but the TITLE is "User:Riqiv23"

I didn't realize "saving" the page in my personal sandbox would make it appear online!

It appears I don't have enough "edits" to move the page myself.

From: "User:Riqiv23" > "Richie Vitale"

Can I somehow change the TITLE to: Richie Vitale

That is preferred . . . otherwise if should be deleted.

Thank you! Riqiv23 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. Your article is not ready to be moved to the main article space. It could be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richie Vitale, where you can work on it more and then submit it for review. Howicus (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll work on it, thank you! Riqiv23 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Verification disclaimer

Hi!

I'm new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if this question has already posted:

On my biography page there's a disclaimer from 2010 that reads as follows:

! This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (March 2010)

Very recently I added numerous citations for verification -- one for each statement of fact -- so can the disclaimer now be removed? If so it would be much appreciated. Here is the link to the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Hornaday

Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh3777 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been answered at the Teahouse. Please don't post the same question in several places. RudolfRed (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY

Wikipedia's responsibility to society

Whenever a serial killer is arrested , media gives huge coverage to the killer than doctors who treat poor patients for red cross. Whenever a shooter massacres innocent people in USA,he gets more coverage than Nobel prize winning scientists. Wikipedia is popular website. Killing innocent people is nothing great , only because media turns killers,rapists and 1940's mafia into cult figure , there is no need to keep pages dedicated to bad guys. The victims are forgotten and movies are made on the life of serial killers.Why should media decide who should get more coverage.Nobel prize winner for medicine or Monica Lewinsky who had no contribution to humanity. Those who own Wikipedia should honour great people like google doodle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TECHWIZARDEYT (talk • contribs) 03:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Once we start supplanting the judgement of reliable sources about whats important with our own, where do we stop? What other things will we not cover because they are bad, or we disagree with them? How could anyone take our articles seriously if, as a matter of policy, we said we are only going to cover things we want to encourage? Monty ₈₄₅ 04:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Check

Spell check is not working when I type text using wiki mark-up or Visual Editor. It works on any other website/software application on my computer but not Wikipedia. I am using Windows Vista. Does anyone know what the problem is and how to fix it?--Dom497 (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried WP:VPT?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My article deleted from wikipedia

Yesterday i posted article of Biomed Dispose It and it is deleted from wikipedia may i know why and i took permission from biomed for this article and they allow me to write and take content from there website if i want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paldeep (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you go through the process for donating copyrighted materials? There are a number of other useful links in the warnings on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion criteria for Biomed Dispose It, I see that it was deleted not only for the copyright violation but also for being written in a promotional manner. If you copy material from a subject's own website, it is quite likely that it will be written in a manner which is too promotional for Wikipedia, so (independently of the copyright problem) it is better to write in your own words. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paldeep. Please read WP:Your first article. Wikipedia contains neutral articles about notable subjects. The txt of somebody's own website is almost never appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile page format

Will mobile logged in users be provided links on the sidebar menu to their User and User talk pages and to Notifications.
SBaker43 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried WP:VPT?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

We created this Wiki for DJ Martin Garrix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Garrix We added a lot of reliable sources in it, but still get the note about 'adding sources'. How many sources do we need to use to get rid of this note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaNanny020 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — MediaNanny020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who is "we"? (And you didn't create this Wiki, Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales created this Wiki; what you created was an article in this, the English-language Wikipedia, which is a well-known wiki.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still get the warning (or rather, the article still shows the warning) because nobody has removed it. If you are confident that you have addressed the problem, you may remove the warning. (From a quick look, I think you have addressed the problem. Many of the sources you have added are not substantial enough to contribute to notability, but they are fine for supporting the particular details about awards; but I think there are enough substantial sources to remove the warning. But to echo OrangeMike's question: your use of 'we' and your username suggests that you might be several people sharing an account (which is forbidden - see WP:ROLE) and/or have a conflict of interest.--ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine! Helped me out a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaNanny020 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — MediaNanny020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"The Media Nanny is a full service media &pr agency specialized in providing extensive and advanced publicity, digital & print marketing and promotion for individual music artists, events, record labels and all other companies inside the music industry." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importing a script to my /.js or /.css or whatevs

Hello all. I'm trying to import a script to my profile thingumy whatsit and I'm demmed if I can work out how to do it. It's from User:Ale jrb/Scripts, the "CSDH (CSD Helper)". There are instructions but I'm a bit lost following them. Your help greatly appreciated. Pete aka "What the? This guy is supposedly a sysop and he doesn't even know how to import simple scripts?" aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add the code

importScript('User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/csdhelper.js');  //User:Ale_jrb/Scripts

to Special:MyPage/common.js to load it in all skins. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rule Broadcast Systems

The company is just "Rule Boston Camera". Rule Broadcast Systems is extremely outdated. Can this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.79.175.81 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I can see no reason why the company (regardless of how it is named) should meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) criteria, and on that basis, the article should probably be deleted. I will however look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article to the new title. A quick search shows little to indicate that the subject meets our notability criteria though - if this can't be shown, the article will have to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Determining first version equal to the current version.

If there is an article that has had a number of changes and reversions/rollbacks is there an easy way to find the first version which is equal to the given version? I can look back at the history and (fairly) easily see what the first revision was with that *size*, but then I need to check to see if the two are equal. Is there a tool that would do that for me?Naraht (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of two versions that are the same size, why not just use the radio buttons beside those revisions to directly compare them? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. Dismas|^(talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons, one, I may have made a mistake as to what was the first one at that size and secondly, to automate the concept. I'd love to have a tool that would enable me to say that for Article Blank, there hasn't been any changes other than changes and reverts for a given amount of time (and the number of cycles if possible). It seems useful in determining whether an article should be semi-protected.Naraht (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domena_magnetyczna

Hi,

I discovered that the above page referenced one of my inventions, namely my ‘Large Area Domain Viewer’ but I can’t seem to find my reference in the English version. You may wish to add my invention to your English page as it is a very useful device for visualizing larger magnetic domains in Silicon Steels and has become something of an industry standard.

I would point out however that the Polish page has got my name slightly wrong – it refers to me as ‘R.A. Taylor’ when I am in fact R.J. Taylor (reference 17).

Dr Robert J. Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.46.186 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your points, firstly there is no guarantee that an article in one language will exactly match another, in this case it apparently doesn't. Since you have a conflict of interest, asking here was a good start. I'd suggest writing a note on Talk:Magnetic domain and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. In regards to the entry on the Polish page, I think you can change it yourself, but that needs to be in done in the text that contains the reference (not down in where the references are all shown).

Probably the easiest way to make sure that everything for it is shown correctly is if there is a doi for the article, if you have that, there are "bot"s that will look up everything and that should make sure everything is correct including your middle initial.Naraht (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Icon next to username

Hi I am seeing a red numeral 1, next to my username on the top of the page, have not seen it in the past, anyone has any idea what this means or signifies ? Injun Gone Loco (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click on it - it's a notification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking is not leading to anything, nor is it going away, tried all that before posting :-) Injun Gone Loco (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bug then. I've seen the notification system do odd things sometimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notifications for how it's supposed to work. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Page

The page “John W. Drake” (about me) contains many boring and numerous inaccurate statements, apparently misinformed but not malignant. In any case, a “John W. Drake” page is not needed, I am now retired, and I do not want to replace this entry with one of my own making. How can I delete the entry altogether? 157.98.66.27 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to go to the talk page of the article and point out the parts that are unsourced or objectionable. For such a short article there is always AfD where you can apply to have the article deleted. It would, however be deleted according to procedure if it is excessively poorly sourced or you lack notability. It would not be deleted on your request because you don't want an article for some reason. Britmax (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all the sources are self-published (e.g., the website of the group he chaired a committee for) or non-independent primary sources (the famous paper). Dr Drake may not actually qualify for a separate article, if people haven't been writing about him rather than his work. User:KenBailey wrote the initial article and might know more about the possibility for finding independent, secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of an article

Yesterday I was watching the New pages feed on Wikipedia, and happened to see one that intrigued me. It was named Alen Ghouliance, and was tagged for speedy deletion as an A7: No explanation of significance. I did not agree with this assessment as the article clearly laid out reasons showing significance, so I contested the deletion nomination by clicking the designated button and explaining why I did not agree with the assessment.

I watched the article for a while and noticed that the tag was changed to: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, so I removed all content from the article that would lead someone to conclude that the article was promotional. I also added categories to help guide other editors to similar articles, and again contested the proposed speedy deletion.

This morning I was disheartened to see that the article had vanished. How can I find out why it was deleted despite my efforts?

Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the red link that you have provided above, and you should get a pink box headed "A page with this title has previously been deleted." In that will be the deletion log entry, which shows who deleted it, when and why. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the deleted article, I don't believe it qualified for G11. It wasn't neutral, but doesn't mean it met the criteria for speedy deletion for promotion (especially after your editing, Ottawa). I'm not entirely convinced by the A7 rationale either; their was a credible claim of notability, where the article stated that the subject "has received many awards for his contributions to Los Angeles County's legal services". Obviously, without knowing what awards and without reliable sources, this wouldn't stand up at AfD. However, that's not what the CSD covers; the claim (however unverified) is all that is sufficient. I'd suggest you contact User:Anthony Bradbury, the administrator who deleted the article. matt (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to Redrose64 and to matt. I have contacted the deleting admin on their talkpage and will be waiting patiently for a response. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaguchi arson and murders

Why can't Kozei Homi be named in the article as the prime suspect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japanesehelper (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better off at the talk page of the article. The main reason is usually lack of reliable sources, or BLP concerns. Britmax (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to racist edits

Although I'm an experienced editor, I have a question about response to vandalism. An IP editor made an antisemitic edit to Thermonuclear weapon, implying that thermonuclear weapons were a Jewish plot (the intent is clear from the edit comment). I reverted it. I'd like to put a warning template on his Talk page so if he continues his bigoted edits he can be blocked, but I'm not quite sure what template I should use. Vandalism doesn't seem specific enough; his intent was not to vandalize per se. In fact his statement was even literally true, it was just the implication that was racist. Defamation doesn't seem to apply, because the subjects of his attack are dead. What should I put on his talk page? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I'm not clear on how WP regards racist theories and hate speech in articles. There doesn't seem to be any explicit prohibition against these things, so I guess if they don't libel or defame living persons and are sourced, they could be included in WP articles as fringe theories? --Chetvorno^TALK 19:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That implication is a little too mild to be called "hate speech", in my eyes, but not exactly appropriate. I'd recommend just letting him know how you feel on his talk page, without a tag. Might be enough. If he continues, you might go with the disruptive editing one. ~~But, like you say, the statement is true, so I don't know. Maybe compromise and word the info into the article in a more neutral way. But if he insists on the implication, seems disruptive.~~ InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking it over, I can't see how it would be included in this context without being undue weight and POV. We have warnings for those, under "Adding promotions of objects or ideologies (also spam)", if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I took your wise advice and just left him a note explaining why his edit was inappropriate. Hopefully it will get through. Thanks again. Cheers, Chetvorno^TALK 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to show which page is which when using a footnote more than once?

For example on the page Themes_in_Nazi_propaganda in the References section:

^ a b Koonz, Claudia (2003). The Nazi Conscience. Harvard University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-674-01172-4.

How do you know if a or b is on page 20 and is it possible to make say one to be one page and one another so you know which reference is which to say which page?

I'm aware of sfn but there is no option to on this as there is no Notes and References separation just References.--Smashton Pumpkin (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the question...it seems to me that if a and b are both pointing to that citation than both should be on page 20. Otherwise there should be a separate citation for a different page number. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a few ways to combat this problem. You can simply add the full citation 2 times by changing the REF TAG name parameter name="Koonz2003a ...This is the format used on the page already. There are other ways but they get more complicated. Not a big deal to list the same ref many times ...not harming anyone.

<ref name="Koonz2003a">{{cite book|author=Claudia Koonz|title=The Nazi Conscience|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jASbCpN1CC8C&pg=PA20|year=2003|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-01172-4|page=20}}</ref>

<ref name="Koonz2003b">{{cite book|author=Claudia Koonz|title=The Nazi Conscience|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jASbCpN1CC8C&pg=PA35|year=2003|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-01172-4|page=35}}</ref>

References

^ Claudia Koonz (2003). The Nazi Conscience. Harvard University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-674-01172-4.
^ Claudia Koonz (2003). The Nazi Conscience. Harvard University Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-674-01172-4.

You may find the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books handy on a side note. -- Moxy (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say in terms of the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books, *squeeeeeeeee*. I am *so* using this.Naraht (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the Google books tool now and its really good, I thought you were not allowed to use the same source in two separate references, I've not seen this anywhere before. Could another option be just just short reference it and don't put any pages on just the book?--Smashton Pumpkin (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way of doing this without creating duplicate references is to use the {{Rp}} template, which adds the page number after the footnote number. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian genocide

Hey,

In the article Armenian genocide, and under the tag Turkish nationalism, words like massacre and genocide were used without proper proof. They are such, such strong words that unless the events can be proven with factual and undeniable proof, I find it harassing. Unless you can give me convincing evidence of the Armenian genocide, I want the page removed, or at least edited in a less Euro-centric way that also takes into account the possibility of no genocide. I have been trying to write for that part, and all of my attempts were removed during editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.125.164 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The systematic mass murder of Armenians carried out by the Ottoman Empire is a well-documented historical fact. If you find reality 'harassing', tough. That is your problem, not ours. Wikipedia does not distort historical fact to pander to the sensitivities of Turkish nationalism, or indeed to any other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy,

I'd like to see those "good documents" from some other media perhaps, as this is not the place. All in all, I'd like the right to write about the possibility of no genocide with proper references under the title Armenian Genocide. If Wikipedia is the sort of online volunteer-based encyclopedia that welcomes all sorts of information without bias, so should my hypothesis be included. I won't be leaving this very easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.125.164 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(note - I have moved this to the relevant section - please reply by clicking on 'edit' in the section header, rather than starting a new section) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article cites the necessary sources. Articles are based on appropriate published material (in this case, largely academic scholarship), and not on 'hypotheses' of contributors. Publishing the historical facts regarding the matter is not 'bias'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP editor, please also note the guidance at WP:FRINGE Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

created a new page directly from the person I wrote it about, how do I show proof

I just created the wikipedia page for Oncue, a well known rapper from the northeast. Everything I wrote was in a letter from the head of his management team. I basically emailed his team volunteering to make his wikipedia page cause I saw that he didn't have one, and they were like ya here is what you can write down. So the information I wrote about him is basically directly from him. This is the most reliable information I could possibly have, but the site is still at risk of deletion because there is no way to adequately have a proper citation for this, or is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.47.32 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles need to cite published reliable sources. So no, you can't use such material. If the rapper is sufficiently notable, such material will already exist - and if it doesn't exist, he doesn't meet our notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Plus

Evening! Here in the UK, some news websites have recently been putting up pay-walls to block free access to their content. The newest paper to join this The Sun, which has affected a large number of sources here. As I couldn't think of a more suitable place for this discussion, I thought I'd bring the discussion here for now. My first question is whether or not a location currently exists that lists Wikipedians who have access to pay-walled news sites to allow for source verification? For instance, if a user adds a Sun page as a source (still allowed according to WP:PAYWALL), do we have a directory of other editors who could verify this? If not, would setting such a WikiProject/directory up for this sort of thing a viable plan? I'm more than willing to help out with any legwork this may cause, and please do inform me if there's a more appropriate location for, or an ongoing discussion about, this subject. Thanks! drewmunn talk 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:PAYWALL states, the best place to ask for help accessing paywalled material is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Frankly though, there are relatively few circumstances where a tabloid source like The Sun should be cited anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is an excellent source for.... soccer scores. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I literally can't see why I didn't notice that, I read the whole page… Anyway, thanks! As far as the validity of The Sun as a reference, I too try and steer clear of it. It's only because I blundered across an article including a reference to it already, and the status got me thinking. There are a few more reliable sources that are pay-walled now, such as The Times, and The Sun acted as more of a catalyst for thought that a genuine article of concern for me. drewmunn talk 09:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rect and Poly

I'm not exactly sure how to work those two commands listed above as part of a picture. Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.131.23 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to image maps. See mw:Extension:ImageMap. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page was deleted

Hi,

I had edited sources for Greg Ammon's Wikipedia page. It seems that it has been deleted though. Someone made a comment about his notability, and I brought up that the source I posted(being on the board for the Donaldon Adoption Institute) validated Mr Ammon's notability. Could you please advise on how I might create Mr Ammon's page in the future so that it is not deleted?

Thanks,

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms348911 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Ammon (2nd nomination), and previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Ammon. The conclusions were that the subject is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Koonz2003a-1] Claudia Koonz (2003). The Nazi Conscience. Harvard University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-674-01172-4.

[Koonz2003b-2] Claudia Koonz (2003). The Nazi Conscience. Harvard University Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-674-01172-4.