I used to have some boilerplates. My feeling was, you can link to this or that, really, in many cases the target links are not sufficient because they lack the immediacy and visibility of a boilerplate. Also my previous boilerplates were a set. Each one targeted a different problem. They did contain the same links sometimes, like the "how to get the best out of this forum", and others. They became awkward to maintain because of changes to content on the forum. Also the sentiments behind them changed, and ideas about what kind of statements are the most effective. So I mainly stopped using them, except for some "tiny tutorials" and code examples.
It is a difficult thing to explain a general problem, "you have not provided enough information". Of all the posts I've seen to address that, I found Stephan's to be the most explanatory (and entertaining!). 
IIRC, those have usually only been posted in egregious examples of vagueness, and only after the post count has gotten quite large.
I have been constructing corrective replies for those situations on the fly, because as I said, I feel that it's often more effective to target certain aspects. But suprisingly often, a comprehensive list like Stephan's, proves to address multiple problems in the original post all at once. This is because the origin of the omissions is systematic, the poster has a style or outlook that permeates all their communication, that is grossly ineffective.
Some questions might seem immaterial at first, "do you have a scope". But consider frequent bald statements like, "the output glitches" and you wonder, how did they arrive at that conclusion? In a normal technically competent environment, you could more or less accept that, and move on to what might cause it. But now we see all kinds of pretentious people (or shy people that are simply too embarrassed about their skill level), propping up their descriptions with conflated technical descriptions. So we need to start asking, "well how did you determine that", in a way that can't be deflected into nonsense - maybe, "because the X-909 THR_enable line is low" or such.
Here is one of my (really old) boilerplates:
You have not posted a real schematic. Schematics are the written language of electronics. The reason that is so, is because they are designed to clearly convey the functional aspects of the circuit, as opposed to the physical layout which has not so much to do with how the circuit actually works. The layout of a schematic usually follows certain patterns, which can be quickly recognized and compared with other circuits. This aids immensely in the understanding of the circuit. The labeling of components and conductors may include labels which also exist in a physical diagram, but also explicitly and implicitly includes additional information which helps to explain the functionality of the circuit, and is not visible in the physical layout. Lack of a proper schematic creates work for anyone that works on a circuit. For this reason, anyone that designs a circuit should make one. If you expect other people to work with your circuit, the lack of a schematic usually places a huge burden on them, as they have to do the work of creating their own schematic, either in their mind, or on paper. This discourages people from helping you.
Consider, the difference between reading that in a thread, and as part of a body of general instructions. One is a stop sign. The other is a driver's manual.
