Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rafida	New	Albertatiran (t)	29 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	5 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours
TAI TF Kaan	Closed	FoxtAl (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Eritrea

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Richard0048 on 16:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Eritrea (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Richard0048 (talk · contribs)
• Soupforone (talk · contribs)
• Otakrem (talk · contribs)
• AcidSnow (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• SilkTork (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue involves what term is prefered to describe the location of the country Eritrea in the lede and the geographic section of the article. I have argumented for restoring the use of the term East Africa or Eastern Africa which used by international organization such as United Nations, African Union and African development bank to mention a few, East Africa was also recently used in the article until the other part in the dispute Soupforone (talk · contribs) changed it to Horn of Africa. I have suggested using both since Eritrea is part of both East Africa and Horn of Africa, even though the latter being less recognized region and a less used term to describe the country's location by international organizations. At the moment it only mentions Horn of Africa. Opinions and comments in resolving this issue would be appricated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the matter on the talk page and provided suggestions to resolve the issue

How do you think we can help?

Comments and opinions on what term should be used and opinions why both can't be mentioned

Talk:Eritrea discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the article talk page, which is one of the conditions to open a case here. The filing editor has notified the main other editor. An administrator also took part in the talk page discussion and has not been notified. Although they may not be interested in participating because they were neutral, they should be notified anyway. We are waiting for the administrator to be notified, and for the other editor to reply as to whether they are willing to participate in moderated discussion. (Moderated discussion is voluntary but encouraged.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Basically, Richard0048 changed the geographical location of Eritrea from Horn of Africa to East Africa without any apparent justification [1]. While tidying up some unlicensed files, I rolled to the original toponym. He subsequently objected for the reasons above. After some fruitless discussion on the talk page, I contacted the administrator SilkTork to facilitate dialogue. SilkTork then suggested noting the three primary locations for Eritrea (Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa) [2]. However, Richard0048 objected to all geographical phrasings that gave equal weight to Northeast Africa. I pointed out that the Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that Eritrea is situated in the Horn [3]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [4], but apparently not with North East Africa [5], and it doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. CMD then explained that both Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa were unnecessary regional qualifiers since it is already geographically implicit that the Horn of Africa is located within these areas. Otakrem, AcidSnow and myself agreed with this reasoning; especially since the country policy stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular rather locations in the plural. However, this rough consensus was apparently not satisfactory for Richard0048. Soupforone (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. AcidSnow (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Horn of Africa is used in the lead for Ethiopia, Djbouti, and Somalia,therefore either implement Richard's suggestion for all the Three countries or keep Eritrea as the same as those 3 countries. Richard only wanted to apply this to Eritrea only. I asked Why? No convincing argument was given. I agree with Soupforone and AcidSnow on keeping only Horn of Africa.Otakrem (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I see that one editor has added some other editors. The other editors should be notified of this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I did even suggest to include all three geographic namings, several times. Some of the editors that have been added besides soupforone and silkTork has not been engaged in the discussion from start. I did change it in January as you mentioned but nobody objected to it at that time. Richard0048 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• I consider myself notified in that my name was linked, so I have been alerted by the system. I'd be quite happy for discussion to take place here. I have limited time on Wikipedia these days, and so am unable to monitor and respond in a timely manner; it is appropriate for others to now take over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I did suggest and accepted the suggestion to also add for other countries in the horn of Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I will accept this case. All parties in this case, make your statements below. After this, please discuss. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made my statement by opening the case. The other partiets may provide their statementsRichard0048 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

References Talk:Eritrea

References

Expulsion of Cham Albanians

– New discussion.

Filed by DevilWearsBrioni on 19:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Balkan Wars - OR .2F POV (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs)
• Resnjari (talk · contribs)
• SilentResident (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There's disagreement whether a section of the Expulsion of Cham Albanians constitutes as original research or not. The part in question is: "Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result, hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've posted on the NOR noticeboard. See discussion here.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully a neutral editor can steer the discussion in the right way.

Summary of dispute by DevilWearsBrioni

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I believe the contentious part is OR as it attempts to justify the Greek army's treatment of Muslim Chams by synthesizing two sources. Link to section: Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Balkan Wars (1912-1913). The Wikipedia entry essentially states that "Muslim Chams raided villages; they were thus treated as enemies by the Greek state", but neither of the two sources state that the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies as a consequence of the raids by Muslim bands (quite the contrary, one of the sources states that Muslim Chams were reluctant to fight on the side of the Ottomans, but were nonetheless treated as enemies). Moreover, in the same section it's also stated that Athens had approached Muslim Chams as soon as the Balkan wars broke out, but the latter had already "formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements". This is a distortion of the source (see here). Intentional or not, it's clearly leads the reader to believe that the treatment of Muslim Chams was justified. At the very least, it's misrepresents one of the cited scholars, for example see section situation prior to annexation. Although the author doesn't explicitly state why the Greek army treated Muslim Chams as enemies, the situation prior to annexation certainly suggests that there were other factors at play.

Summary of dispute by Resnjari

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by SilentResident

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I do not understand why this dispute continues, and I do not intend to keep myself involved in it forever, hence I have ceased replying to this on the NOR noticeboard for a while now. The historical event in question, has already been well-sourced, quoted and dated. And, pardon me, but unless I missed something, no concrete and reliable sources opposing it have been provided, so far. No sources explicitly stating that the bands were not formed yet and the atrocities didn't happen at that time, so I can't help but find the argument for its removal unreasonable. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The historical event that is questioned is well sourced with a full quote (i.e. Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia.) , thus I can't understand what's the argument for its removal (also responded here [[6]], and made a minor edit to clarify DWB's concern about when the attrocities exactly started[[7]]).Alexikoua (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Expulsion of Cham Albanians discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Endgame: Singularity

– New discussion.

Filed by 67.14.236.50 on 23:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Endgame: Singularity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 67.14.236.50 (talk · contribs)
• Shaddim (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We disagree over the necessity of reliable sources and avoiding original research in describing this game’s gameplay. We also disagree over the definitions of these terms. I say the claims contain new information not included in the sources, derived from his own experiential knowledge; he says putting minor formulation sharpenings based on research is NOT OR.

There’s also debate over whether a mobile app-store listing of an unaffiliated third-party adaptation is a sufficient source for inclusion in the main subject’s article, or whether it gives the apps undue weight. Likewise for a software repository release for the Linux-powered Pandora console (long after the game’s initial Linux release), supported by a forum post on the official Pandora site, currently WP:HIDDEN in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talkpage. Extensive discussion on the user’s talkpage. Discussion on Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 28#Is reliability necessary for verifiability?, of which we disagree about the consensus.

How do you think we can help?

• Determine whether [8] and/or [9] directly support the claims made in [10].
  • If not, clarify how WP:V and WP:NOR do or do not apply to this situation.
• Determine whether an app-store listing is a sufficient source to make claims about the nature of an app.

Summary of dispute by Shaddim

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Endgame: Singularity discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other party. Discussion here is voluntary, and the next step is for the other party to reply indicating that they are willing to discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Ethnic_slurs

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ChronoFrog on 21:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:Ethnic slurs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ChronoFrog (talk · contribs) Electoralist (talk · contribs) Jeffgr9 (talk · contribs) musashiaharon (talk · contribs) The Human Trumpet Solo (talk · contribs) PA Math Prof (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A number of editors on one side of the dispute are not satisfied with the way the recent RfC ended, and I believe that a breach of Wikipedia policy (notably WP:CONSENSUS) has occurred. The RfC discussion was extensive and lasted for a few weeks, but a decision was recently made by an administrator on the basis of majority vote, rather than the strength of arguments, which is inconsistent with how consensus is supposed to be achieved per Wikipedia policy. None of the concerns raised by the opposing parties were sufficiently addressed by the arguments presented on the talk page or by the administrator who made the final decision. As for the dispute itself, it was about whether or not Jews should be categorized as West Asian/Middle Eastern. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries and C) genetic admixture with foreign populations. Others argued, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are a national group with collective ties to the Levant, as well as the anthropological criteria (notably Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), that Jews belong under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were refuted on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to that particular territory; rather, this is defined through ethnogenesis, and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, and Jews are no exception. None of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. To Human Trumpet Solo and musashiaharon, the reason I included you both is because you provided many of the arguments and sources alluded above, which I feel were more or less ignored. I apologize if I did so without your consent. I assumed you would want to take part in this as well. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Mediation was suggested two times, but was rejected twice. User:ChronoFrog fails to mention that he, in fact, rejected the offer of mediation when it was made during the RFC. Electoralist (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC) And you rejected it afterwards.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC) After the RFC had concluded with a definitive decision. Electoralist (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Because the decision gave you what you wanted, without effectively taking into account the concerns that were raised.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC) How do you think we can help? Sufficiently addressing the concerns articulated above, or suggesting alternative proposals. Summary of dispute by Electoralist Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This looks to me like an attempt at Forum shopping. The complainant is simply, a priori, rejecting the validity of any arguments he disagrees with and therefore assumes that the fact that the closing admin concluded differently from him means the admin must have made some mistake but he does not explain what that breach of policy is other than to assert his arguments were the correct ones therefore rejection of those arguments is somehow a policy breach. @Deryck Chan: whom ChronoFrog has not seen fit to contact, closed the RFC with the following comments: "The conclusion of the debate is, by a thin margin of opinion and argument, that Jews should form a standalone category. A significant minority of editors argued for Jews to be included under Asian alongside Arabs, but there is a stronger majority opinion who prefer not to put them under Asian because the Jews' strong African and European affiliation means they don't fit neatly into the categorisation used by this template. An alternative proposal, to move slurs against Jews into a separate category for religious slurs, did not gain support either. Deryck C. 13:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)" - IMHO, User:ChronoFrog has not said anything that disproves anything Deryck C found. Electoralist (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Except no counter-arguments were presented whatsoever, other than repeated assertions of your initial claims. "Oh, but I just disagree with you" is not enough in light of obvious negation of facts and WP:RS. And I did explain what that breach of policy was. He used majority votes to make a decision, which goes against WP:CONSENSUS. This is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) "IMHO, User:ChronoFrog has not said anything that disproves anything Deryck C found." We did. Several times, in fact. Some of these counter-points can be seen in the main DRN posting.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC) You claimed the breach of policy was that Deryck C went by majority vote "rather than the strength of arguments". Frankly, that is a subjective claim since it assumes your argument was stronger than those you disagreed with, which takes us back to my initial statement which is that ChronoFrong is "rejecting the validity of any arguments he disagrees with" and therefore concludes that a closing admin who finds opposing arguments to be stronger than his must have made a mistake and therefore breached policy. Electoralist (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC) You are correct that I should have informed Deryk, though.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jeffgr9 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As I have noted and cited many times, Jews, for the most part, are a Diasporic, Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, etc.), Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious, Tribe/People of Color. So I suggest we list both Jews, Arabs, and any other Levantine groups and their correlating slurs, under a section called "West Asians/North Africans" in the template — either as a separate group from the other umbrella sections, or alongside them under Asians, depending where you consider the Levant/Middle East. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by musashiaharon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by The Human Trumpet Solo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'll try and make this brief as I have no desire to be involved in another long-winded argument. I think my counter-proposal to remove all geographic categories would have been the best solution. As for the previous dispute, I believe that User: Electoralist's behavior throughout the whole thing has been highly WP:DISRUPTIVE. He made numerous bids both to remove me from the discussion via accusations of WP:sockpuppeting and to keep the conversation going via WP:Forum shopping. I also provided a list of credible sources, many of them culled from other well-developed articles relating to the same topic. The response amounted to little more than "I disagree".The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC) There was probable cause to think you and ChronoFrog were the same user which I detailed at WP:SPI and it was dealt with there. There were not "numerous bids" or "accusations" (plural), there was a single request for an investigation which I did not belabour. I posted, there were responses, I did not reply to the responses or post any other SPI requests or bring the matter up anywhere else and it was dealt with in a day or so. Your saying that there were "numerous bids" is an embellishment. As for "Forum Shopping", I filed an RFC and when temperatures rose during it I proposed mediation, a proposal that was rejected. That conduct isn't forum shopping. Electoralist (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Template talk:Ethnic_slurs discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hinkley Point_C_nuclear_power_station

– New discussion.

Filed by Lancastle on 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lancastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lklundin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Absolutelypuremilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beagel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dispute overview

Two users, Absolutelypuremilk and Beagel, are deleting material from this page. They are working together, and have deleted key dates and references. It is taking a lot of effort to untangle what are potentially useful edits from what appears to be vandalism. The current dispute centres on their deletion of information that explains energy 'strike prices' that are used by various expert commentators to compare the 'Cost to consumers' of the Hinkley Point C project versus other nuclear and non-nuclear energy sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have proposed a way to improve the section on the Talk page. However, Absolutelypuremilk and Beagel are working together to delete and distort the page, which is making this difficult to do without useful information.

How do you think we can help?

By arbitrating on a way forwards, in particular the claims by Absolutelypuremilk and Beagel that they can delete multiple chunks of material without proposing a way forwards, and on their claims that there is original research and Synthesis of published material in the section explaining strike prices.

Hinkley Point_C_nuclear_power_station discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - The filing party has failed to list the other parties (two of whom are identified in the above statement, but another party who took part in discussion is not identified at all). The filing party has failed to notify the other parties of this filing. Leaving this open to provide the filing party an opportunity to list and identify the other editors. It should be noted that this noticeboard does not "arbitrate" a way forward but facilitates discussion between parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for you guidance, Robert McClenon. I have included all four parties in the listing. Lancastle (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing party listed the other parties (incorrectly, but that has been fixed). The filing party has not notified the other parties. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other parties. By the way, describe the dispute in terms of content, that is, that there is a question about whether certain information should be included, not in terms of contributors, that is, do not say that users are deleting material. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)