This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
The recent edits are problematic per WP:IMPARTIAL as well as UNDUE. Starting with the material that was restored without following BRD, [[1]], reads as promotional material. The material reads in a way that suggests the actions of Bollier couldn't possibly be questioned and that the opponents are acting in a way that indefensible. Phrasing like, " Bollier continued to fight along with moderate state legislative Republicans for Medicaid expansion..." include value laded phrases "continued to fight along with" and are not encyclopedic. The Bollier quote again has no encyclopedic value and acts as an appeal to emotion rather than a factual statement. The newly added material reads like it came from the campaign itself. The discussion of a particular add is UNDUE. In general a policy position statement may be due but commentary on an opponent's add is almost never DUE in an article. This is especially true when the material fails WP:IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in my edits that are not based in what's in the sources. What is clear is that you think you need to Wikihound me. Your behavior, and not hardly just with me, is intolerable. Activist (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being in a source means the material passes WP:V. That does not mean the material is DUE nor does it mean its presentation is WP:IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are often pure hokum. By relying on wholly subjective criteria, especially without elaborating at all, you're simply substituting your purported opinion for mine. Were you not doggedly Wiki Hounding me, your edits might have more weight, but you go from article to article that I've painstakingly edited, articles which you've never edited before, probably frequently about officeholders of whom you are entirely unfamiliar, where I've often made scores of edits over the period of years. You have been simply erasing considerable careful and thoughtful editing that I've done. It's editing often which has taken me hours, which accurately honors the RSS I've cited, and you've scrubbed it with a few seconds worth of keystrokes. It is not possible to continue to "assume good faith" when your actions seem to be essentially pure vandalism, meant either to protect right wing officeholders from their own consciously and frequently deliberately controversial behavior, usually the subjects of considerable media attention, or conversely to tarnish or detract from the those officeholders with whom you disagree. These are BLP issues, not just some of your chronic sparring over arcane issues such as the placement of Ford Pinto gas tanks, or suspension on a Corvette, where you have virulent disagreements with other car buffs, when they have been similarly carefully editing Wikipedia articles. You're stalking me, and this has got to cease. 21:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I note that in the last 1,000 edits Springee has made, 187 of them have involved noticeboards. 18% of his revisions involve contentiousness with other editors. This behavior should be unacceptable on the part of any Wikipedian and I would hazard a guess he may possibly have involved himself in more disputes with other editor than any since person editing the encyclopedia. The reason for that behavior, and the nature of he behavior should be examined. He seems to have no respect for the work of any other editor that does not comport with his world view. Activist (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't to responded to my question about why you feel it necessary to Wikihound me? How long will it take you to get around to that? Activist (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an appropriate question for an article talk page per WP:TPG#YES. Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.. Springee (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This question seems to have been put by an SPA editor. The picture in question was provided by editor "Howdy..." and was helpfully cropped by a subsequent editor. It appears to be one taken by her campaign. I don't know how old the photo was that was replaced with the current version. I replaced an earlier edit by me that had been partially haphazardly deleted by another SPA likely editor. My deleted edit was sound and did not depart from the source, the state's largest print media publisher. Activist (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
