Good for you, but you're the exception rather than the rule.
On the contrary, it explains exactly what they did wrong, where they did it, and when. They made an edit that looks like discussion in the main article. If they did something other than that, then you should be sending a more personalized PM anyway. In fact, the lack of messages for other things is exactly what spurned me to make this request.
Although I do check edit history, because someone who is a frequent natter-er is going to get an edit suspension so we can chat a bit before he or she touches another article rather than a stock PM for sporadic or one-time natter.
edited 6th Aug '12 1:21:40 PM by ccoa
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.My objection is when I get a private message notification, and it turns out to be a natter-fy notification. I just find it a little patronizing and distracting, even if the person did not intend it as such. Not to mention I had just gotten one from Mag Bas, a person I have crossed paths with on This Very Wiki more than a few times.
And yes, natter is natter, but some people, including those who delete and/or would press the button for that purpose, have different views on what constitutes natter.
edited 6th Aug '12 5:30:33 PM by azul120
It's rather silly to consider it distracting. I once sent a natterfier to a person who was new. They didn't exactly understand the issue, so they sent me a polite reply asking me to explain what they did wrong. I sent back a PM full of tips and a detailed explanation. That person thanked me and is now editing fine.
And natter is pretty clear cut most of the time.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerI always make sure that after sending an natterfier, I remove the natter, fix indentation, and axe word cruft so that there's a good example if they go back to the page upon receiving the natterfier.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.@azul 120: The biggest problem with the Natter-fy button is its inflexibility, which is why having an assortment of standard messages would be a huge improvement.
Would it make sense to also give message senders the option to add a line of comment of their own choosing? So you can cover or clarify anything that may not be unambiguously clear from the standard messages, without having to write up a full PM.
@lu127: But you're talking about something completely different: a person who doesn't know what natter is. That can be done by viewing their edit history.
A natterfication to someone aware of what natter is, but had a faux pas moment (or on the sender's part, erroneously considered the post natter) is a little more like an assumption that they don't know. It would be a little like me P Ming another troper just because I don't agree with the content of their edits.
@Lord Gro: I think a little more flexibility would go a long way. At the same time, so would a little discretion. In other words, use it when habit dictates.
edited 7th Aug '12 11:14:18 AM by azul120
I have seen plenty of examples of tropers that should know better adding natter. Between taking the time to PM them individually and clicking the natterfy button, I am far more likely to do the latter. I just don't have time to compose individual messages when I have a watchlist to cover.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Azul, you're operating under the assumption that the majority of natterfiers are sent to people who make a one time mistake because someone else erroneously assumed their edit is natter. They are not. They are sent to people who make natter-y edits, because 80% of the time, they forget this isn't a forum and don't know better. The times the natter-fy tool is used properly far outweighs the potential for abuse.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerIf someone knows better, and adds natter anyway, then I'm having trouble dredging up sympathy for the "inconvenience" of getting a natterfy PM. Especially when they just inconvenienced someone else who had to clean up their mess.
edited 7th Aug '12 12:17:20 PM by ccoa
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.If it's a page the troper frequents anyways and is likely to catch any edits of, then it's not really necessary to natter-fy them, because they'll catch the edit anyways.
On top of all this though, natter is a little vaguely defined. Someone may consider something to constitute natter because they specifically don't see the significance of something. It is important to be succinct, but not at the expense of clarifying or differentiating details.
If someone thinks that something is not natter, they can reply. I've hold some discussions like this and we resolved it amicably and civilly.
You cannot see whether some page is a page which the troper frequents anyways without wasting time for a check of the histories. It's worse than a PM discussion.
And lastly, this thread is to suggest new messages not to complain about (or even change) the current messages.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThey might catch the edit, if they know it's not a good edit to begin with, if they're capable of admitting they were wrong, and if they return to the page. Assuming that all three will happen would be foolish given common editing patterns and human nature in general.
You're shifting a bunch of work onto another person (check all the editor's edits, see if they frequent the page, etc) in order to prevent the (at worst) minor inconvenience of an unwanted PM.
If your edits are being frequently mistaken for Natter, then you may be using incorrect Example Indentation and/or Word Cruft in them that leads them to look like natter.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.I see there's no PM about botching the formatting. Think we need one with a link to Text Formatting Rules?
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerI'm for adding editability to the PMs. There's at least half a dozen I haven't sent out because what I wanted and needed to say didn't fit the form and... eh, I'll admit it, sometimes I'm too lazy to take the time to write a fresh one.
@azul 120 At this point, it sounds to me like you've been offended by a "false positive" and are just trying to justify your own natter habits. Everyone has been hit by a false positive once or twice. Heck, I had one that hit me a year after I made the edit, and it wasn't even my post. I noticed one word spelled wrong and fixed it. It didn't take me more than thirty seconds to write back to the person and explain to them the proper use of the button.
@lu 127 I'd say it's a good idea to write one up and add it. I still see people trying to put a fourth bullet point in things.
edited 15th Aug '12 2:28:13 AM by Sheora
A fourth indented bullet point would probably be covered under the Example Indentation one. I think she means more like a Wikipedia Syntaxer.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.Yeah, I see people repeatedly trying to get the formatting right. It can be very frustrating to get the hang of it at first.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerThere's having difficult understanding the syntax and then there's turning articles into gibberish. We do have links to the text formatting rules on every editing screen.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^ That's because it's not actually an HTML link, it just expands/collapses a block on the Edit page itself that has only the "cliff's notes" version.
... It doesn't even link to the full page. :|
edited 17th Sep '12 9:49:35 PM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Natter is natter. I don't see what your objection is.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman