User talk:Matt rodgers2

Hi Matt! I am excited to have two classes in which to mingle with you. Nucomm23 (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt! You rock. Never change. Shannclark (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

stopping by to say hi!! so hey! -Shannclark (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clarence "Jeep" Jones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clarence "Jeep" Jones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence "Jeep" Jones until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444^Talk 23:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the deletion discussion (I decided that this sort of dialogue belongs here rather than there):

Matt, you have responded to my deletion request with grace and maturity uncommon in these discussions, especially over the creation of one's first article, and I applaud it mightily. Well done. I hope you do not feel "bitten" (for which I would deserve a round slapping, which I so dislike though perhaps sometimes have earned!). You have only 44 edits to your Wikipedia edit history (Welcome!!!), but you seem to understand the need for multiple reliable secondary sources in order to demonstrate the notability of your topic, whatever or whomever it may be (along those lines, let me slip in a strong recommendation for the extremely useful tool located here which turns Google book search results directly into formatted Wikipedia citations— it has been a godsend for me). It sounds like you have some reliable sources already at hand, which is very encouraging— you have jumped the gun just a bit by creating your article in its current namespace rather than in your own WP:SANDBOX first, where you could have added citations at your leisure and avoided run-ins with crusty old nay-sayers like me, and then moved the article into the main Wikipedia namespace when it was ready for proper scrutiny. That would have shut me up right quick! As it is, we now have a deletion discussion on our hands, and though I have started it, I am not in a position to close it. You have suggested you have reliable evidence of "Jeep's" notability— well, come on, let's have it in the article! You know how to format a proper citation perhaps, yes? If not, there are LOTS of resources here on Wikipedia to help you (I guess I am one of those resources). We just need to see (ideally) TWO citations in reliable, non-primary-source, published format which discuss Jeep in some depth (more than just a mention of his name or a sentence saying he exists). If you can do this, which it sounds to me like you have the materials in front of you to do, then this deletion discussion will come to a grinding halt the minute you have [correctly] inserted them in to the article. So let's do it! Consider me at your service in this regard, an offer I do not make lightly or often. But I am making it now, to you, Matt. Welcome to the sometimes tricky business of being a Wikipedia editor! You are handling this first bump like a pro, and I look forward to seeing many more contributions from you in the future (and do not think I won't be checking up on you from time to time, now that I have a sense of what you are about and am pleased by it). Anyhow, let's get some citations in here and put this deletion discussion to rest. You have at least seven days. Go! KDS4444^Talk 01:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my congratulations - it's a very well written article. I took the liberty of adding a couple of references to the article - items from newspapers which are Independent Reliable Sources. I know you are going to add more, but I thought it would help to preserve the article at AfD if it had a few more sources right now. Don't be surprised that I worked on "your" article. Here at Wikipedia, collaboration on articles is part of the culture, and nobody owns the articles they write. Anyhow, I look forward to seeing a lot more contributions from you. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseburgers

Shannclark (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

Your first barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Allow me to give you your very first barnstar, in acknowledgement of your good faith creation of the article on Clarence "Jeep" Jones and your intentions to follow through on the subject's notability. Barnstars are uncommon, but I think this one is going to be well-placed. KDS4444^Talk 01:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources still needed

Matt, where are you? The deletion discussion just got extended for another week, which gives you more time. But the article still needs information from those additional sources you said you have. I want to see this article kept, so I hope you will find time in the next few days to work on it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, Matt... What gives here, my friend? MelanieN and I are here offering you and your article some support, and so far you are not responding to that offer with much enthusiasm or, more importantly, action. Deletion discussions do not last forever— they work in seven-day cycles, and while leaving your article for others to clean up might mean it does not get deleted, it is very poor form to wash your hands of the business and go radio-silent the way you now seem to have done. I don't get it. Unless maybe your account was some kind of spoof to begin with (?) which would be really strange but hey, I've seen weirder things happen on the Internet. Please convince me I am wrong... If I am, in fact, wrong... The clock is ticking here (tick-tock, tick-tock) and it isn't getting any quieter while it ticks. I hope we will hear from you soon, yes?? --KDS4444^Talk 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh hi guys! KDS4444 I sincerely apologize - I haven't forgotten about the page at all! I've been super busy with school and work but the article will be completely polished within 3 weeks at the absolute latest! I've been doing some more research online but still need to get to get to the library and check out the sources in text. I have some edits that I'm thinking of adding but like I said, I got the sources via google books and still want to read up a little more. I'm going to post the potential edits on the talk page for the article as a sandbox of sorts (I'm not sure if this is the proper method of doing things) so feel free to provide any comments prior to. Also, thank you for the barn star!! MelanieN I appreciate the addition of the recognition section, I'm planning on taking a photograph of the park myself so I won't have any copyright concerns and using that to add a little more sustenance to the page. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to find a photo of him. Again, I'm sorry for being slow in my edits and responses, I'm still a newbie! Matt rodgers2 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matt, welcome back. You don't seem to understand the time frame here. You don't have three weeks. The deletion discussion has another five days to run. If the notability of the subject hasn't been established by then, the article could get deleted. You need to get at least some of these sources of yours cited into the article, to assure the survival of the article here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither MelanieN nor I controls the time frame for deletion discussions. That is set by policy way out of our hands. You do not have three more weeks to fix the sourcing issue of your article, you have only a number of days now. We can't be any clearer about that. Good luck. KDS4444^Talk 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, the discussion was closed as "keep" so the time pressure is off. But I still want to see your promised improvements to the article! --MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing that now, I must thank you specifically Melanie, you've been a great help! I'll be working on adding some more sources and editing the page this week! Thanks KDS, too! Matt rodgers2 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and congratulations. KDS4444^Talk 07:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]