Talk:2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

RFC to establish consensus on reverted edit.
Should this edit have been reverted by postdlf in accordance with Wikipedia policy and your best judgment? Please answer with support if you agree with its removal and an oppose if you want it reinstated. Within 7 days I'll request a random admin to close this in favor of the side who they believe have the best arguments. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without, so far as I can tell, trying any of the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because as far as I can tell, none of those things are objectively required to start an rfc. They are merely suggestions. And perhaps there is thirty-day formal rfc on this talk page somewhere that I don't see, but this rfc will close in 7 days as I said here: Within 7 days I'll request a random admin to close this in favor of the side who they believe have the best arguments. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your description was not accurate nor encyclopedic. It was not an improvement to the page. postdlf (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly was inaccurate about my edit? What did I say that was a lie or even something that was vaguely not unequally true. Surely even you'd concede that weather something was an improvement or encyclopedic is excessively subjective and the exact type of thing consensus is necessary for. Shouldn't other editors determine exactly what counts as such, and what doesn't? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)