Talk:Lucy Koh

Latest comment: 2 years ago by MIAJudges in topic Picture
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lucy H. Koh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lucy H. Koh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Picture

edit

Helo @Snickers2686

I see you changed the profile picture for Lucy Koh. I believe the original picture was a better picture then the new one. Are you sure the new picture is better? I did not put the picture on her page, but looking at it independently, I'm not sure the second picture improves the page. What do you think? 

MIAJudges (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@MIAJudges: How is this not an improvement since this is an updated photo? The other one is seven years old. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ Snickers2686

The new picture doesn’t come out as clear as the original picture. When I clicked on the picture I actually thought something had happened to my computer screen. I went back to the old picture & it looks crystal clear. I didn’t see anything wrong with the original picture at all personally. Plus the older picture seems more professional.

MIAJudges (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

What effect does a professional picture have on the article? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Snickers2686

I posted an updated picture for another nominee earlier this year & was told a newer picture does not replace a better quality older picture. I was also told I had to gain consensus if there was a dispute to change the picture & it was reverted back to the original. Plus as I said the second picture does not seem to have as good of quality as the original. Now I am not trying to take that route, just asking if you could take a look at the original picture & if you do not see anything wrong with it, perhaps we can just stick with that picture. I would be more than happy to add the picture you posted in her article if you like under the newer section for her being a circuit court nominee so both pictures can be on her page. What do you think about that?

MIAJudges (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply