Talk:Scott Allie

message: Which of these photos is better for the Infobox?
File:10.16.11ScottAllieByLuigiNovi1.jpg |A
File:Scott Allie 4 Mar 2013 version.jpg |B March 4 version
File:Scott Allie.jpg |C March 8 version
File:Scott Allie 9 Mar 2013 version.jpg |D March 9 version
*I've never heard of Scott Allie before, and I haven't read the above discussion, but since I was asked to participate, I think the photo on the left right is a far better photo.  I have no expertise in photography, and I can promise you that, whichever I choose, my wife will maintain it was the wrong choice.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing the newly photoshopped right photo done by Amadscientist, I would support the right photo even more for the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked the uploader if I could photoshop the image to improve its quality. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: --Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added the original March 4 version ("B" above), to preserve the sense of "left-right" discussion above. --Lexein (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: My apologies, I've revised your comment to match the image placement. You and I edit-conflicted while I was adding back the Mar 4 version as I've commented above. --Lexein (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not at all concerned about the crop at the top cutting of a portion of the figure's head. If this were a feature image nom I would, but for lack of anything else right now, I prefer C. of course I am the one who modified it but it does look better than the darker version and the shiny version (A) to me at least.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Arriving here in response to a request on my talk page from March 9 by Nightscream, I'd agree that D is a good choice of the options here. --Pine✉ 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox consensus discussion

message: It got messy and stalled because new images came along midway. Can we try again?
*Talk:Rick Remender#Lead image selection - Redux
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rick Remender]]: Lead image selection - Redux 

message: Allie is getting some coverage in the comics press about allegations of misconduct. This has to be handled very carefully for bios of living persons reasons, but should not be removed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since both Allie and Dark Horse publisher Mike Richardson issued statements acknowledging and apologizing for the incident, I believe we're safe to include this pertinent passage; I've reworded it more neutrally after restoring the undiscussed removal in July under the false edit-summary that it was "rumor." Now that it's been restored, with yet an additional citation quoting Allie himself, I would ask the seemingly WP:COI redlink editor who removed it not to edit-war and revert, but rather, per WP:BRD, discuss the issue here as two other editors already are doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations 

message: Hi Tenebrae - can you point me towards the manual of style you're referencing when you removed "Io9 reported that"? In many critical reception & controversy sections, I've seen specific outlets referenced when quoted because it gives context on who is doing the coverage. My intent with the quote was to highlight Io9's report that Dark Horse's Mike Richardson said they were going to take action and then didn't take action. On a different note, at what point should we suggest page protection due to vandalism? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the news site that reported it doesn't seem relevant to me, since the cited fact is a simple matter of these things happened. Unless there's some particular bias, conflict of interest, or other credibility issue, the source is just a form of verification, and as long as it's reliable, it doesn't matter much for the text of the article which one it is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Sariel Xilo. I think Jason A. Quest said it as well as can be said -- it's not a matter of Wikipedia MOS but a matter of good, non-repetitive writing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  HiTenebrae & Jason A. Quest. Thanks for following up. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a style preference set out by WikiProject Comics. I mostly edit in the RPG space and including the media outlet in the text of the article is something I've seen done a bunch (I think that's a result of all the debates on what is & isn't a reliable/notable source in RPG AfDs). I probably over cite as well due to the AfD debates. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to help. Quick note: Seeing things done a particular way when they could be done better isn't really a precedent. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cheers, mate! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations - 2020 Update