![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Information about the Lavabit email service, supposedly created as a privacy sensitive service "in response to Gmail", has been added to and removed from the article. I note there was no description or discussion about it before either addition or removal. I have just removed an anon-inserted "See also" link to the Lavabit article (as AGF), and would like to get opinions on whether or not the service is related. Personally, I had never heard of it until the paragraph was put in the article, and then forgot about the service after the information's removal until tonight, when the link was inserted. It seems to me that the see also section should be limited to Google-related things, or at least very notable subjects. Tuvok T @ lk/ Improve me] 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I set up an archive bot for this page? It seems to be growing out of controle. To start conservatively, archive threads older than 14 days since it has been last posted on? Martijn Hoekstra 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this template:
![]() | This article's
"criticism" or "controversy" section may compromise the article's
neutrality. |
I believe most of the criticism in the section should be integrated in the relevant parts of the article. All (sourced) interface criticism should be moved to the interface section, integrated in the text, and all service criticism should go to whatever section is most relevant for it. The privacy criticism should in my oppion remain, as a base level section Privacy. As this kind of moves tend to be controversial, I'd like some oppinions here first. Martijn Hoekstra 13:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Gmail does not yet have 3.5 GB storage. Take a breath (or cite your sources). My log in page says about 3502 MB which translates to 3.42 GB. Please cite your sources if you are making controversial edits. [1] -- Kushal t 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Or lets update it every minute! -- Kushal t 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am almost at 4950 MB so I expect another edit soon saying Gmail has 5 GB of free storage space. I wonder who it will be. (drops cleenex to show that the race has started) -- Kushal t 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved this to it's own section, because it doesn't really fit in "not yet!", which was getting overly long anyway (it starts around the problems with 3.5GB). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as Gmail reports that it is over 5000 MB (as it is presently), I agree with saying that it is "over 5000 MB", even if it goes above 5 GiB (5120 MiB). I don't think it would then need updating until after it hits 5500 MB. ~~ [Jam] [talk] 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu
What ways can be devised for forwarding a week of received messages from the gmail inbox to yahoo email all at once?...
This Gmail article listed several sites in an "External sites" section that linked to "Tips" sites that provided tips and additional information about the Gmail. These sites were included for well over a year, and now have been summarily removed. Reasons given include:
and
While I do understand the intent of the removal, I fail to see how listing these sites goes against the guidelines specified in the External links Help page. The links point to Web sites that provide more in-depth information that is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but expands extensively upon the Wikipedia content.
In fact, the inclusion of Tips sites and similar sites is completely consistent with the content of other "validated" Wikipedia articles, notably Featured Articles that have gone through extensive and rigorous Wikipedia validation. For example:
So what makes the Gmail article so different from other "featured articles" that include similar links, and can these linkes be reverted back in?
Further, as a point of consistency, if some Tips sites are removed, then in fairness, all other Tip site links must be removed. I tend to lean toward the side of "inclusion" instead of "exclusion" where appropriate, so I would encourage that legitimate Tips sites to be listed.
hi
I have extra capacity in Gmail, 9030MB (8.8GB) Anyone else getting this? As well as more storage space for all the other Google features. I know other people have here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewys ( talk • contribs) 22:46, August 9, 2007
See also the above discussion. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Information about the Lavabit email service, supposedly created as a privacy sensitive service "in response to Gmail", has been added to and removed from the article. I note there was no description or discussion about it before either addition or removal. I have just removed an anon-inserted "See also" link to the Lavabit article (as AGF), and would like to get opinions on whether or not the service is related. Personally, I had never heard of it until the paragraph was put in the article, and then forgot about the service after the information's removal until tonight, when the link was inserted. It seems to me that the see also section should be limited to Google-related things, or at least very notable subjects. Tuvok T @ lk/ Improve me] 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I set up an archive bot for this page? It seems to be growing out of controle. To start conservatively, archive threads older than 14 days since it has been last posted on? Martijn Hoekstra 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Per this template:
![]() | This article's
"criticism" or "controversy" section may compromise the article's
neutrality. |
I believe most of the criticism in the section should be integrated in the relevant parts of the article. All (sourced) interface criticism should be moved to the interface section, integrated in the text, and all service criticism should go to whatever section is most relevant for it. The privacy criticism should in my oppion remain, as a base level section Privacy. As this kind of moves tend to be controversial, I'd like some oppinions here first. Martijn Hoekstra 13:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Gmail does not yet have 3.5 GB storage. Take a breath (or cite your sources). My log in page says about 3502 MB which translates to 3.42 GB. Please cite your sources if you are making controversial edits. [1] -- Kushal t 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Or lets update it every minute! -- Kushal t 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am almost at 4950 MB so I expect another edit soon saying Gmail has 5 GB of free storage space. I wonder who it will be. (drops cleenex to show that the race has started) -- Kushal t 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved this to it's own section, because it doesn't really fit in "not yet!", which was getting overly long anyway (it starts around the problems with 3.5GB). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as Gmail reports that it is over 5000 MB (as it is presently), I agree with saying that it is "over 5000 MB", even if it goes above 5 GiB (5120 MiB). I don't think it would then need updating until after it hits 5500 MB. ~~ [Jam] [talk] 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu
What ways can be devised for forwarding a week of received messages from the gmail inbox to yahoo email all at once?...
This Gmail article listed several sites in an "External sites" section that linked to "Tips" sites that provided tips and additional information about the Gmail. These sites were included for well over a year, and now have been summarily removed. Reasons given include:
and
While I do understand the intent of the removal, I fail to see how listing these sites goes against the guidelines specified in the External links Help page. The links point to Web sites that provide more in-depth information that is not appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but expands extensively upon the Wikipedia content.
In fact, the inclusion of Tips sites and similar sites is completely consistent with the content of other "validated" Wikipedia articles, notably Featured Articles that have gone through extensive and rigorous Wikipedia validation. For example:
So what makes the Gmail article so different from other "featured articles" that include similar links, and can these linkes be reverted back in?
Further, as a point of consistency, if some Tips sites are removed, then in fairness, all other Tip site links must be removed. I tend to lean toward the side of "inclusion" instead of "exclusion" where appropriate, so I would encourage that legitimate Tips sites to be listed.
hi
I have extra capacity in Gmail, 9030MB (8.8GB) Anyone else getting this? As well as more storage space for all the other Google features. I know other people have here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewys ( talk • contribs) 22:46, August 9, 2007
See also the above discussion. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)