User talk:Angrysusan

You're clearly not a new user, but...

Welcome!

Hello, Angrysusan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation

I don't think you did a CSD there, just the prod and AfD. Either way, I think the matter's resolved as the AfD tag should stay for now. I directed Igor to the AfD discussion for the merits of the article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildthing, read this. here under User:128.36.147.198 before he created his user id.

ONCE AGAIN, that is an edit of YOU deleting one of MY messages from your talk page. if you look at the contributions from that IP address, YOU WILL NOT FIND ANY CSD TEMPLATE BEING ADDED TO ANY ARTICLE Angrysusan (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, Angrysusan. He made a mistake. It really doesn't matter if he realizes it or feels like admitting it... Please just let it drop. Is it important at this point? --Onorem ♠Dil 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. just bugs be he's going around claiming I did somethign and calling me a troll, etc Angrysusan (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems to be just a bit of confusion that got out of hand. It looks like everyone who's taken the time to comment agrees that you weren't trying to have the article speedily deleted. For future reference though, Prod tags shouldn't be re-added once they've been removed. They're for non-controversial deletions, and even if the reason for removal wasn't clear, it was clear that Igor didn't agree that the page should be deleted. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok Angrysusan (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apology to you, for making some mistakes. I thought it was a CSD, but you PROD it, which I still objected and requested you to AFD it. After you AFD it I did not realize that you have done so. We are all just following policy the best we know how, and make mistakes from time to time. Please enjoy your editing at Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and read the tags and messages next time. Angrysusan (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation in Social network service

Hi. Whilst you are probably right in guessing the likely outcome of the AfD on the above article, it is imprudent to start removing instances of its use before the event (a kind of WP:CRYSTAL editing almost). The deletion review has not yet been closed. Once the article has gone, then carry out removal of what would be a redlink. For now, I have reverted your removal of an existing bluelink which validly pertains to the subject via the See also section. Ditto in Social network. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Network edits

Hello, I'm not sure I understand your recent edits to the Social network article. Could you explain? Bellagio99 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what don't you understand? there are too many "See Also" wikilnks, most of which (especially the people) are alrady linked to above. And one of them was merely a redirect to another "see also" link. Angrysusan (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angry, Thanks for your explanation. I understand now. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation edits

Re the multiple networks and your deletion of my "hence ..." addition. I think the existence of multiple, partial networks is the basis of the need for social network aggregation. I also wanted to make the point to parochial software people that these ideas existed well before social software. Indeed, I had intended to add Mark Granovetter's 1973 "The Strength of Weak Ties" but your deletion beat me to it. Granovetter is clear on how individuals bridge multiple, partial networks -- in other words, aggregate them in their own lives.

I hope that my comments will persuade you -- or other readers -- to revert. If not, so be it, as life is too short for an edit war on this. But why are you "Angry"? Bellagio99 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHile the notion of having multiple personae across different social networks predates the Web, and while SImmel and others noted that, that doesn't extend to the statement "hence there is a need to aggregate". That's an assertion, since aggregation is NOT the only way to deal with such a situation. You ahve not persuaded me. Angrysusan (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]