User talk:Ndugu

Welcome!

Hello, Ndugu, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

The Chicago Tribune article is not substantial coverage. It's just a two sentence mention, which is certainly not enough to carry a whole article. Nor is it an assertation of notability that they interview artists. Lots of sites do that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Songfacts logo.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

1. Whether a source is reliable is a matter of community debate. There's no final arbiter, but there are several good ways to check what the community consensus is (and why). The first (as you've already worked out) is to look at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Another is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article you're working on. A third is to talk directly (and politely) to editors who are removing your references as unreliable.
2. The editor you've come up against here is TenPoundHammer. He's an experienced Wikipedian and I've always found him to be intelligent and reasonable so it's safe to assume he's not acting in ignorance or bad faith when he says your source is unreliable. He's also open to polite discussion.
3. With regard to the specific source, Songfacts, the relevant discussion can be found
   policy on reliable sources because (a) it sources content from users with no editorial oversight, and (b) it specifically disclaims the accuracy of its information. (See their legal page
   , which reads: "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors.") There's some suggestion at the discussion that parts of the site may be reliable and others not, but there's no clear rationale established for deciding which are which, and in the absence of such a rationale the whole site has to be considered unreliable.
4. For a source to be reliable, it generally needs to feature content by named individuals, be oversighted by named editors, claim that its content is accurate, and have a reputation for accuracy.

Although your Songfacts-sourced contributions have been removed, Wikipedia is really glad to have your input and I hope you go on to keep working on articles such as Dar Williams and others. Don't be discouraged by an initial setback! I hope this information has been helpful. Let me know if you have other questions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,