Talk:Ace of Spades HQ

message: This discussion page is just more proof of how extremely left wing and partisan the hack 'moderataters' are here...pathetic little tyrants with no life trying to exercise control where there is none...LOL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.142.66 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: My knowledge of this blog is very limited, so this stub article should be expanded by someone more knowledgeable.  A blog that's more popular than Andrew Sullivan is clearly notable and the contents of this article should reflect this!  Calbaer 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the Alexa ranking segment of the intro:
It was the 14th top political blog of 2006, as determined by Alexa Internet [2], making the list just below Wonkette and just above Andrew Sullivan...
When I emailed Ace (the site's main blogger) to show him the improved page, and he emailed me back, saying:
One error-- and I actually went on Wiki to correct it, but didn't see how, and didn't want to screw things up.
I think that Alexa rating almost certainly overstates the blog's traffic and whatever.  I think Alexa cannot separate out one mu.nu blog from the hundred others -- so that rating is an aggregate of me, MyPetJawa, Confederate Yankee, and a hundred smaller blogs.
I think that warrented removal. --Ultramontane 20:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexa Ranking

message: If this article was nominated for deletion before under another name and the decision was to delete, why is it still an article?
I have never read a more fawning, poorly written article about someone of merit, let alone a fawning, poorly written article about a nearly illiterate, certainly innumerate, angry, illogical blogger.
How do I nominate it for deletion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesGiacometti (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. An old version of this article was deleted and then apparently recreated under a slightly different title. When I came across this new article my first inclination was to put it up for deletion because it was so filled with nonsense (much more so than it is now). But I cleaned it out and posted on the talk page (see above) and eventually a couple of reliable sources were added. I think this article now probably meets our notability standards (see WP:N) in general and probably for blogs. It has been mentioned/discussed in mainstream news sources. However others might disagree and feel it should be deleted as not-notable so feel free to put it up for deletion and other editors will weigh in.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: For a good laugh, and to see what it read like before, go here (an earlier version of this article). Notability will be the main issue for the deletion debate. If the article is poorly written and too fawning that is not really a reason to delete, rather it's a reason to improve the article. Much of the content was, I believe, provided by fans of the blog (I am not at all a fan, I know very little about it). Your point that the blogger is a subject of ridicule on liberal blogs actually adds to the claim of notability--if someone is ridiculed by a number of people it can serve to make them a bit more notable (though the main claim to notability for this blog is that it has been mentioned in mainstream reliable sources like CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc.). I'll have to think about this more and I'll wait to see how other people weigh in on the AfD, but I'm leaning toward advocating that we keep this article and hopefully improve it (I tend to err on the side of inclusion, i.e. keeping articles if they are of borderline notability). Sometimes putting an article up for deletion can be just the spur needed to improve its content, so hopefully that will happen here.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles, you improperly listed this article for AfD, I think because it has been listed before (also you did not finish the last couple of steps of the process). I'm in a huge rush now and don't have time to look at/fix this. Please look again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and see if you can figure out what went wrong. If you cannot figure out what to do, place helpme (inside double brackets like this  at the bottom of your talk page and someone should be along shortly to help you.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked out what he was doing wrong, and finished the nomination process for him. The AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace of Spades HQ (2nd nomination). Terraxos 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Terraxos.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?

message: Can we be certain that the Emily Dickenson quote was from Ace, rather than from Pixy Misa as a test quote? (The commentary on Dickenson is clearly Ace's, of course.) Would someone verify that?
I agree that it's essential that (1) the actual text of the article not include jokes, and (2) the quotations from Ace that demonstrate his sense of humor be employed somewhat sparingly.
I'll add the page to my watch list and periodically check on the vandalism issue.
I'll go check on the notability guidelines for bloggers, but certainly it's legitimate to use, as references, entries by bloggers such as Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and Eugene Volokh--who blog under their own names and teach at respected academic institutions? I should think that citations such as these would be considered acceptable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Quote From the Blogspot Blog / Acceptability of Bloggers as Sources

message: There are images of "Ace" on the web. I'm not sure they are appropriate for this article, however, in keeping with his stated desire for / commitment to anonymity.Scooge (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The footnote template doesn't appear to be the one I've worked with in the past, so I'm at a loss as to how to clean them up. Certainly, there are many respected writers who have quoted Ace and/or linked to him, and they need to get into the footnotes. 
Also, it's filthy (I mean, in terms of punctuation--but I don't want to do the proofreading. At least not this late at night.
FWIW, I completely vote for killing the sections on "leaving Blogspot," "ten millionth hit," and "20 millionth hit." Would someone just set up a fan site for that kind of thing?Scooge (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofreading/formatting of references

message: Just killed the "landmark" sections, as they really didn't seem to add much. Performed light copyediting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: (This is likely in the wrong section, but it sorta pertains - I couldn't find the edit button to create a new section.)  I added a few references in the political views section, specifically the anti-semitism and Ron Paul point. I tried to select the most representative posts, but he's written probably over a hundred posts on anti-semitism, and a fair amount on Ron Paul too.  I'm not certain that the quote about black and gay readers is a direct quote, or if it is maybe Ace pulled the post - it sounds like something I recall Ace saying, but I don't recall well enough to actually quote it.  He wrote a post last month with a very similar tone, I'm not sure if what I'm recalling is this post or another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allism (talk • contribs) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't use Ace's search, you're right, it sucks - I use site: on google or bing. I couldn't find the quote at all, but I'd swear I remember reading that he said exactly those words. I'm not terribly up on how to make Wikipedia look the way it should, but I'm familiar enough with Ace's site.  Please feel free to clean up whatever messes I make, and I'll try not to hose things up too badly. It might be worth noting, too, that Ace no longer strives to be the most obscene blog on the web, as he now has advertisers. Allism (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eek. We've got the wrong template in there for footnotes, but the links work, and that's the important thing--the assertions can be followed back to the material that backs them up, so it's good for now. I should fix it, but I'm on the run today and I can't find the correct template. All that is affected by this is the list at the bottom of the page--the numbering doesn't precisely match that of the in-text references. I'll, um, be back. At some point. Scooge (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Citations, and Clarifying AoS Positions on Anti-Black, Anti-Gay, and Antisemitic "Jokes" From His Commenters

message: These tweets are certainly, um, interesting. If taken literally, they would imply that Ace of Spades is gay. Perhaps it was just an attempt at a joke that I don't really understand, "get" or find very funny. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ace is joking (or at least trying to). Media Matters is smearing. Ace is usually ...err... less un-funny. Media Matters are (in my experience) always intentionally deceptive. Cheers, CWC 17:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Tweets

message: There has been a lot of controversy surrounding "Ace", and not a word of it is mentioned in this article. I may fix it myself when I have some time.  Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article or PR puff piece?