Talk:Gmail

Archive from sent mail

Earlier edit "Gmail does not allow users to archive from Sent Mail as can be done with the Inbox. Many users would like the option of a removable sent label which would allow them to clear and store sent messages as they can with received mail. This would allow users to choose a conversation in Sent Mail and remove that view without affecting the conversation in the Inbox. The only way to clear Sent Mail and not delete an entire conversation currently is to delete sent messages individually. An archivable Sent Mail would mean you would truely 'never have to delete another message'." was reverted as it's a blog-like unreferenced entry. Had to be reverted twice, so starting a discussion regarding it here, to avoid edit-war. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Has been reverted 3 times now. Warning placed on user's talk page. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of

This section needs revising. It implies that Google implemented RFC2822 incorrectly, which isn't the case. It implies that Google changed this implementation in July; it didn't, it added a separate mechanism which works differently. Emails sent via gmail's servers will still display the same way in Outlook. It implies that Google adds "on behalf of" to email messages, when this is Outlook's presentation of the information provided. See revision 307525508 for an attempt to correct this; improvements welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.210 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, there was a problem, and it has now been fixed. There are no longer comments on the message boards, and I can send emails from my own account without "on behalf of" being displayed. Get over the technicalities; the problem that users noticed can now be avoided with the new option gmail offers. This should be good enough. Timneu22 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical Issues - Sep 1, 2009 outage

Prior to today, the Technical Issues section contained information about the February 2009 outage. Today a similar outage, perhaps more serious, is affecting users, and this information has been added as well. The information was then removed with the cryptic explanation of a reference to WP:NOT. I have restored the info about the September 1, 2009 outage. Anyone who thinks it needs to be removed should explain why here. For example, what specific section of WP:NOT do you think applies here? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the page to indicate Gmail's demise. Wonder what all those masses will do for email now? Pay for it? Ha! Fat chance! 130.49.212.156 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe this is anything close to a permanent outage? I'm frustrated myself, but in the absense of such evidence, I've reverted. -- 128.205.238.130 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As usual, we require verifiability for article content, so can't include analysis or prognostication that is not explicitly supported by reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's back up now. So it must not be permanent after all. Thank god! I was beginning to think that those Socialists in the White House were taking our Googles away from us, or something. 130.49.212.156 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

209.85.223.181 as Spam

Do we have any information on the fact that some ISPs are refusing mail from Gmail's IP (209.85.223.181) on the basis that it is a spam generator? Some of my single messages to individuals have been bounced and there are questions on the Gmail Help forum, but nothing official I can find. Bielle (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

The 'Gmail Interface' section is barely 5 lines long, while the criticism section runs for serveral hundred lines. Shouldn't the summary of the interface section be given more coverage than the criticism section? EngineerFromVega (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to the huge length of the interface section in this article it was split into a new article Gmail interface. It would make no sense to then reintroduce this text back into this article, however if you think the criticism section is getting long and is dominating this article, it may be time to propose splitting it into Criticism of Gmail (which currently just redirects back to this article). - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also thinking along the same lines. Even if we have a separate article for Gmail interface, we should include a bit more content in this article, at least 10-12 lines. A satellite article should be properly summarized in the main article, giving readers a good idea about the interface even if they decide not to read the main entry. Let's expand the interface section and reduce the criticism part. I'm against making a Criticism of Gmail article as we don't have an analogous Praise of Gmail article. EngineerFromVega (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To add more to my above post, we should also expand History of Gmail section, as it poorly summarized in the current article. EngineerFromVega (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia has a large number of articles like Criticism of Windows and Criticism of Linux, but doesn't have "praise" articles. Those are usually contained in the "reception" sections of the parent article from which the "Criticism of..." article was split, which is why I suggested it. I don't think expanding the "Interface" section by a few lines would be a problem - it is just a matter of not getting carried away and duplicating what is in the Gmail interface article to any great degree. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Let's expand the Gmail interface and History of Gmail sections with proper summaries of the main articles. Also, let's propose a separate article for Criticism of Gmail with a 1-2 paragraph summary in this main article. As this article currently stands, there is more content about Gmail hoax and criticism than history, interface and features. EngineerFromVega (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me, but you may want to give it a few days here to see if there are any objections from other editors. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 1-2 day wait sounds good to me. EngineerFromVega (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed I've changed the archiving to numbered archives and renumbered all archives.--Oneiros (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

redirect from googlemail???

Why does googlemail redirect to gmail? googlemail is different from gmail - I know, because I get email sent to my name at googlemail all the time, and it's intended for another person with the same name. Wikipedia is really dropping the ball on this one! Thomas144 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is really dropping the ball on this one!" There is no such person as "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is every editor working on this article, including you. If something in the article is incorrect then you can change it provided you can cite a reliable reference to back it up. Opinions and original research don't cut it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm... well... you're wrong. I know because you get e-mail sent to your name at googlemail, which, if you have a Gmail account, would only work if the two were the same service. The e-mails intended for another person are most likely typos. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

...and that is why we don't include WP:OR! - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not an individual person; I was referring the collective community. I think I understand what is going on - someone with my name in Germany had a googlemail account and was probably forced to choose a new, distinct name, but they forget to change the the "reply to" address in some email program. I actually figured this out from reading the wikipedia article, although the current writing is a little confusing, I think... Thomas144 (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Gmail interface

Since User:75.73.21.59 tagged the Gmail interface article for merger with this one, but didn't start the discussion, so I thought I would start the discussion for him/her.

• Oppose - Gmail interface was split from this article because this article was too long to begin with. Merging content back would just make it longer yet, when it is apparent that both articles will continue to grow over time. If Gmail interface needs improving then improve it, merging will not accomplish that. - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• support yes, the current gmail interface article has more stuff than could be comfortably merged into this article. however if you look at the actual content, most of it is not appropriate for any encyclopedia article on Wikipedia, being thinly disguised "how to" and promotional advertisement claims sourced to google itself. The actual usable, encyclopedic and third party sourced material about the interface could easily, and may already be, incorporated int the parent article. 75.73.21.59 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It's definitely not a how-to. One could argue it's WP:UNDUE though. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you serious? check the "organization" and "addresses" sections for example - the sources are all google "how to" documentation. 75.73.21.59 (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • There may be Google help pages used as refs, but the article itself does not give instruction on how to do things in violation of WP:NOTMANUAL. There is no problem using Google as a ref on its own products, which is how these are being used. The article also has 13 non-Google refs cited at the present time. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay this merger proposal has now run for a week and there is clearly no consensus to merge, so I will remove the tags. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

gmail.com is available in Germany

gmail.com is no longer unavailable in Germany, although new mail addresses are still @googlemail.com --130.83.244.131 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We can add this if you can supply a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Added Gmail Labs List In Table: Needs Modification

I have added he list of current Gmail Labs. This was a heavy work. Help to modify this section. Thanks --Tito Dutta (Talk) 08:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, it was totally unsourced and thus failed to meet Wikipedia policy requirements and is essentially trivia and non-encyclopedic information, even if refs could be found for each entry. These are also experimental features and are added and removed regularly, they are not part of Gmail's core service. This list would require updating weekly to indicate which ones are still active, new ones added, etc and that is if refs were cited. It would quickly be very out of date. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

1) I am not sure of it. I am a Gmail Help Top Contributor. Of course editor's personal experience does not matter in Wikipedia, but,Gmail does not make changes in Labs so frequently that the section will be needed to update every week. The last change in Labs was done on 31st May. So, this section needs to be updated every week does not seem to be a strong point. 2)And about reference, this can be added as a verification.

Currently I am not making any change in the article. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Referenced or not I contend it is still WP:TRIVIA and thus non-encyclopedic content. You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical manual that must include every minute detail on every subject. Big lists of available features like this are outside the scope of a general encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is a trivia, then according to- Wikipedia Trivia Guidance "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section." So, I suggest integration, and if that is not possible then I am suggesting to create another article on Gmail Labs. Without Gmail Labs Gmail (both article and webmail) is not only incomplete, it is meaningless. Currently the Gmail Labs section is below standard and does not contain sufficient information. I added "2 Labs Graduate..." few days ago in that section, but, that does not make any big change. So, you can say, the topic drifts here- about the standard of Gmail Labs section... By the way... 2-3 days ago, you wrote "Welcome message" in my talk page. Thanks for that! :) --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that the existing section on Gmail Labs could be expanded and improved, but I do not think that adding a table or list of all of them available is what is needed. For instance we have an article on the Cessna 172, but don't include a list of all the different types of fasteners used to assemble one, because it would be trivia. You could start a new article on Gmail Labs, but without independent third party refs to show notability I don't think it would last long. One of the key principles is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are lots of editors watching this article (706 of them to be precise), so let's gather some more opinions as to whether this should be included or not and gain a consensus either way. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Added Background Send In Labs Section

In the article I have included Background Send in Labs section. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The .03 USD reactivation

An IP editor keeps adding this section to the article. I have removed it, but he or she reinstated it along with a bunch of external links that didn't support the text claims made. The text is at best a WP:SYNTHESIS and the section title is clearly WP:POV. Overall this seems to be an issue for the Google account article and not specifically the Gmail article as it deals with Google account administration and this doesn't belong here even if it were properly referenced. There seems to be an WP:AXE issue here as well. I propose the section be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm who add this section. Here my opinion:

1) The best reference for a gmail account is the gmail help page.

2) .30USD reactivation is an issue about both gmail and google accounts, indeed informations can be found in both gmail help and google account help pages.

3) The most important thing is that the references used are official google pages supporting the text. In particular, google explicitly claims that reactivation of a gmail account is in between few minutes if made via credid card, and can take days or a couple of weeks using other methods. This can be checked just by reading the linked references. (I cut and pasted the text from google pages!)

It is an important criticism as everybody can see surfing blogs. Blogs are not suitable references for that because they are not stable, for that reason I referred only to official google pages.

I propose section to stay here with the links to google official help pages. The information provided is correct, neutral and referenced.

The above critics of Ahunt are clearly made without even reading the references. It is not a WP:POV a text which is cut and pasted from an official gmail page. The WP:AXE here is claiming that references does not support the text or that it is not an issue of gmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.198.1.122 (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have carefully read the external links you keep posting. The external links you keep adding (against guidelines, by the way, which says "they should not normally be used in the body of an article.") do not in any way show that this has actually happened to anyone or that it has been an issue for anyone or that it is in anyway notable to this article. There is no such thing as a "Gmail account", only a "Google account". I still contend that if you have reliable third party refs that show that this is an issue then it should go in the Google account article as it is no more a Gmail issue than it is a Blogger issue or Picasa issue. Right now you have not provided any reliable third party sources to show that this is notable and therefore worth mentioning. The axe reference is that this looks like a Google account problem that one person has had and upon discovering that Wikipedia doesn't mention it thinks that it must be included. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but are other third part fonts necessary when google pages report that that problem occurred to many people? Here just a couple of random google forum pages with posts of person whose account was blocked: "page1". "page2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.149.183 (talk)

Those are forum posts and are specifically not acceptable as references under WP:SPS. In reading the forum posts though, it is clear that the issue is not one of Gmail, but of Google accounts in relation to Google+. This is the wrong article to put this in, but even then third party refs, like a published review or similar are required to show that this is a notable issue. We don't report every little complaint that anyone has about subjects from forums in Wikipedia, because it isn't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I see this section has now been moved to Google account, where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere, and can therefore be removed from this article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised by the ostination of Ahunt. I really don't understand the reason he continues to remove this section from the article. He continues claiming that this is not an issue about gmail, while the references used come from gmail help pages, he continues claiming that there are no references while full-references are added.

If some other people is watching this discussion please post your opinion. I believe in democracy of wikipedia and I think Ahunt is seriously damaging it with its perseverance in canceling what I post. In my opinion now other people should come into this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.204.135.219 (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. Comment on the issues not on people. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't normally duplicate text in different articles. I suggested this was a Google account issue, you moved it to Google account, so it doesn't need to be duplicated here. Another editor just reverted your addition of the issue back into this article. so we now have a consensus to leave it in Google account. This page is being watched by 716 editors and if anyone supported keeping this item here they would have spoken up by now. I proposed that it be removed and as per WP:SILENCE we have a consensus to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not WP:SILENCE is just ostination: one user add a section another remove it, no consensus in that. If ona user gives up and stop to trying to contribute to this wiki page because the other is more perseverant, this is not consesus. There is no consenus in a matter which involves only two users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.204.135.219 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty straightforward - two editors removed it, no one came forward to support you in re-inserting it. You have no consensus to include this. Time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ha ha ha, that's ridiculous. keep your page as you want I don't care... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.204.135.219 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes/Propaganda

No surprise a Google page is locked. There needs to be a way to make corrections. The first paragraphs makes the claim that Hotmail offered 2 MB of storage when Gmail came out, and simply sites the Hotmail Wikipedia article to "prove" this bizzare statement. Hotmail offered 2 MB in 1996 before Gmail had ever stolen the idea from the large companies that had bought theirs from little companies. There are several more problems with this article regarding pro-Google stances, but locked web pages are usually locked by the companies themselves, i.e. Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2. People hated the Microsoft monopoly but every idiot on the Earth is loving Google at the moment. In any case fix your mistakes, you fools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.173.139 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Pages are "semi-protected" to prevent IP address editing only due to excessive vandalism. Companies described in articles do not control Wikipedia pages. If you want to edit then open a Wikipedia account. It is that simple. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Update Gmail screenshot to new 2011 version of Gmail

http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/gmails-new-look.html

Google has updated Gmail's look on November 1 2011. A new screenshot is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.24.42 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

gmail storage upgrades

Is the comment in section 1.1 regarding google storage upgrades still valid? The purchase storage upgrade page linked clearly states "Additional storage will not apply to Gmail." (zzyss (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC))