Hello Snowcat ntas and thank you for your contribution to the article First please note that I have re inserted information that I assume you do not have a problem with Second rather than getting into an edit war with you I would like to propose that we come to consensus about what we re each talking about in reference to this dispute The article content I believe you are disputing is the information about the wolf siting Is that correct Can we agree on that I would suggest that since the information you have repeatedly deleted is verifiable by reliable sources it is legitimate for inclusion The fact that it is testimony from the US Senate makes it notable to the article s topic no matter what the topic is You are correct that it should be included in the other article however it is notable to this one as well A way to resolve what you state is clearly biased and politically motivated to reflect an anti environmental view is to provide a reliably sourced counter perspective I look forward to your response and to working out a solution to this dispute Thanks Freechild sup