:Got your message.  Thanks for the note; as it happens, I have the Fairfield article on my watchlist, so I'd have seen your comments and edits anyhow.  (If you're not familiar with the watchlist, it's a good way to monitor pages for changes; you can add and remove pages from it manually, or you can set "My preferences" so that every page you edit is automatically added to it.) 

 :And, while I'm dispensing advice: Notice how this comment is indented from the one above it.  That's done by putting a colon at the beginning of each paragraph (you can see it in this case if you switch into edit mode).  Additional colons produce additional indentation, and that makes it easier to keep track of who's saying what in a talk-page discussion.  (I've edited the talk page for Fairfield to indent your response from my original comment; if I add something further, I'll put two colons in front of it to indent it even further.) 

 :Now, to your remarks re. the Fairfield photos.  I'm afraid I have to chide you a bit on your assumption that I was vandalizing the article.  One of the core tenets of Wikipedia is "Assume good faith".  Of course, there are situations that're clearly vandalism, but if there's any room for doubt, WP:FAITH.  That goes double if the editor in question has a record of non-vandalism.  If you'd checked my user contributions (click on "Ammodramus", then find "User contributions" under "Toolbox" at left), you'd have seen that I've contributed a great deal of non-vandalizing content to articles on Nebraska, including adding photos to the articles on several hundred Nebraska towns.  Moreover, from my first reversion of your edit, I added an edit summary, which isn't the usual practice among vandals.  When I saw your removal of the photo without an edit summary, I was inclined to suspect vandalism on your part; however, when I checked your user contributions, I saw that you'd made useful contributions in the past, so were probably not engaging in deliberate vandalism this time. 

 :I have to disagree with "it is not good etiquette to remove someone else's photo and replace it with your own. ADDING a photo to the page is one thing, but removing my photo was inappropriate. In the future, please refrain from removing other people's images from Wikipedia entries."  From the standpoint of Wikietiquette, changing or removing a photo is no different than changing or removing text.  As with text edits, one should add an edit summary, and the change is of course subject to discussion, reversion, further changes, etc.; but there's no presumption that the original photo is necessarily the best one. 

 :I'll justify my photo change at the article's talk page.  Thanks again for the note letting me know about your comment there.  I hope you don't mind my offering you advice; my hope was to help and encourage you, since we need more editors working on Nebraska, especially outstate Nebraska, subjects. 

 :