Thinker78

:::::::3RR is a pretty specific policy section and an abbreviation of "three revert rule",* so the 3RR example does work. I agree that this can't be generalized to include any policy link and that just pointing to a big policy page (or even just a large section) may lead to confusion. What I was trying to demonstrate is an approach that doesn't assume the recipient needs to be educated about the policy content or (worse) its entire existence, while still getting the point across <em>and</em> having something to refer to as a given warning in case it's ignored.

:::::::But what happened at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acroterion&oldid=1216241674#Assume_good_faith] two days ago, for example, doesn't really seem to be justifiable by productivity or avoiding confusing the recipient. Your approach there, for example, was patronizing from a non-existent position above {{u|Acroterion}}'s. That's doubly weird. Raising concerns the way done there is almost a civility issue by itself. I say "almost" because you may be tempted to quote policy sections to disprove this statement and I'm not interested in discussing endlessly about whether it was a civility issue or not. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 20:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

:::::::<small>* Of course you know this; my point is that in this specific case, the rule is already in its name, and it's already explained by three words. I'd say that's the reason why the example works. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)</small>

::::: I think that's a very uncharitable reading of HN's advice. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)