-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, John Doe wrote: Hi guys. Please consider that the two of you might be in the group that should be checking that page. Top-posting isn't the best way, and relying upon Gmail to handle things is definitely not the best way. Instead of blindly assuming what you already do is ideal, please be open to the suggestion that it isn't. Thanks, - -Mike

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: We don't all use gmail. And if you're relying on people's mail clients hiding the original text, why don't you just remove it so that it goes away for everyone? -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Svip <svippy(a)gmail.com> wrote: I feel compelled to weigh in and admit that while there's no Official Rule[tm] against top-posting on Foundation-l, and I'm not going to ban you for it, DBAD[1] is very much a guiding principle here. Inconveniencing other people because you're lazy is just antisocial behavior. I've seen the "just use [poster's particular e-mail solution]" as justification for a lot of stuff, from minor things like top-posting to major things like replying to all 500 messages a month. I honestly don't know where else in life that people have found this attitude to be well-received, but I can tell you that it isn't here. I do use gmail, obviously, so top-posters don't create a great deal of personal angst for me. That hasn't always been the case, though, and a lot of people still use traditional e-mail clients. The polite thing to do, especially given that we're a supposedly savvier-than-average tech community, is to quote in context, only reproducing what's needed to understand your reply. I've seen a few replies to this thread which make it clear that the posters haven't actually read the document MZMcBride linked to. Seriously, just go read it. It's not that long. Everyone's life can be so much happier if we just spend a minute or two thoughtfully deleting unneeded text and putting new text where it makes logical sense. And even if I won't moderate you for top-posting, I will moderate you for being a dick. Thanks, Austin [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: I am often in "outback" Australia, with only dialup or very slow mobile broadband available. It is very annoying to need to download many copies of the same "crap" because people top post. Of course I can read my email via gmail.com, which hides the "crap", however that is not ideal when I want to read my email and compose responses while I am offline. The best practise is to not assume that everyone has unlimited broadband and access to these adv. web 2.0 gadgets - there are a lot of pockets in the world which are not so fortunate. -- John Vandenberg

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for the tip. I missed this. http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-in-labs-offline-gmail.html However the availability of a gmail experimental feature doesn't mean that the age-old email etiquette can be thrown out the window. -- John Vandenberg

Gerard Meijssen wrote: No. Writing an inline reply and cutting out the cruft is supported by every client, everywhere, always. You're suggesting using a specific, proprietary client (that has all sorts of privacy issues) in order to combat what is, at its core, laziness. People often read this list (and other lists) in the online archives, on mobile platforms, and elsewhere. Simply because you can pollute messages with a copious amount of crap does not mean you should. It takes a matter of seconds to delete the extra information and makes the entire list more readable for everyone. MZMcBride

Hi, I prefer to write emails following rules similar to what MZMcBride pointed at the beginning of this topic, mainly because it is how I like to read other people emails - tho unfortunately a few people do so. I use gmail, because I like its features and I don't care about privacy issues, but I believe people should have the choise to worry about this, i. e., people should be allowed to not use *a* specific client. There are places where Internet access is very expensive, mainly poor countries. [1] Fortunately, even paying too much for Internet access, as compared to (the so called) developed countries, I can easily follow these discussions. But I know there are (a *lot* of) people who cannot (a few years a go I couldn't). Then, in my humble opinion, a minimum effort could make possible more people to have access to discussions at WMF mainling list. Unless most of us already have a well formed opinion on the uselfulness of most discussions held here. Hugs, Tom [1] Are poor countries subsidizing the rich? http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2005&is… (A few research can show more data and comparisons on that.)

Chad wrote: Life's full of annoyances. After seeing this[1] clusterfuck of a reply, I felt compelled to point out that the current sloppy and rude practice exhibited by some people on this mailing list does annoy others. (Looking at Marcus' other replies, this particular reply seems to be outside the norm, but it was his reply that sparked my opening post.) Alternately, in the interest of assuming good faith, it's also conceivable that some people on this list are simply ignorant of inline replies and clean start replies, and don't intend to be rude or sloppy. If people want to continue to leave whatever the hell they please in their replies, it's their prerogative and Austin has said he's not going to regulate the bad behavior. But awareness often leads to change. The reply from you, Chad, was unusually cleaned up and concise. I'll consider that a minor victory. :-) Tim Starling wrote: I wasn't aware of those posts, though it's not surprising to read them. Still, I think it's a point that bears repeating. MZMcBride [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-March/057393.html

Was that supposed to be an example of a terrible use of inline posting? If so, ha, great job, I couldn't even figure out what was written by you and what was written by Mr. McBride. BTW, this is supposed to be an example of a good use of top posting. But in the end, you're just not going to forcibly change the posting habits of others, so I've found it best to just learn to deal with them. Or ignore them depending on how bad it is. This post below, I've pretty much ignored because it wasn't worth trying to sort through who said what. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:58 AM, teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 31 March 2010 14:43, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: I am still uncertain whether his comment that it was an example of a 'good toppost' was a joke, because I am getting that feeling.