Template talk:RFCUlist

Broadcasting accusations as fact

I am not sure it is appropriate to repeat the accusation of every RFC/U in this template, without the signature of the accuser or any other framing. Most of the accusations are phrased as statements of fact, and not all of them are true, even in the case of a certified RFC/U. But I am also not sure how to solve this problem. Ideally it would just ben additional word or sentence for clarification. Hans Adler 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please remove

| 1 = [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chelo61]] Chelo61 has a habit of ignoring other editors and persists in recreating deleted pages. 27-05-2010

from this template and put the information in the right place, editing it for neutrality at the same time. Thanks. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peter 19:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"read" consensus? (not "reach")?

I found (an instance of) this template at w:Problem_users. There is a section that ends with the phrase, "[concerns about edit warring and] failure to read consensus". Whoa! Hello! Was it intentional to say "read" consensus? (not "reach" consensus)? Is it me, or is this a bogus TYPO? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]