Talk:Elizabeth Hirsh Fleisher

Replacement of a good photo with a bad one
, your obsession with eradicating every trace of is blinding you to the purpose for which you're supposed to be here, which is improving the content of the encyclopedia.

Here's the photograph you want removed, and your replacement for it.



Your photograph is blurry, lacking in contrast with a washed out sky, obscured in the foreground by a fence, and badly cropped. Viewing each at full resolution reveals a wealth of detail in the original, while yours is a soup of pixel mud. It looks like it was taken on a cheap webcam. You're a terrible photographer, and by inserting this image into the article you've actually made it worse.

Find something useful to do on Wikipedia. Preferably not involving you and a camera. —  Scott  •  talk  17:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * that comment is way out of line. Jonathunder (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Far further out of line is edit warring to replace a decent picture with a terrible one in pursuit of a personal vendetta. But I guess one man's "out of line" is another man's "wikipedia."Dan Murphy (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For posterity's sake, it may be worth noting this public discussion of which of the two photos is the "better" one for this article. Looks like the blue-sky photo by the banned Wikipedia editor won by a landslide over the gray-sky photo by the Wikipedian in good standing. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:D2E:AAEB:FA46:AAD4 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)