This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to
Supreme Court cases and the
Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States federal courts,
courthouses, and
United States federal judges 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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
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 Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Lack of activity and lack of care for this specific rfc. I still stand with my belief that
postdlf removal was outright incorrect and his reason for removal was too vague and subjective to justify it, but it's time to end this rfc and move on.
GreenFrogsGoRibbit (
talk) 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)reply
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? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Your description was not accurate nor encyclopedic. It was not an improvement to the page. postdlf (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.