![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
Earlier "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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 no longer unavailable in Germany, although new mail addresses are still @googlemail.com -- 130.83.244.131 ( talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Currently I am not making any change in the article. Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
In the article I have included Background Send in Labs section. Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Gmailmobileviewgoogle.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Gmail Mobile View.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC) |
I looked at gmail.pl this morning, hoping to see what is described in the section on Poland, but I found just a notice that the domain is registered. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. 140.180.9.188 ( talk) 15:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added in this edition a reference to a video by Microsoft where Google is criticized for privacy issues in Gmail. Yet, that edit was eliminated from the article by User:Ahunt in this edition which had the follwoing description: "Competitor's videos don't belong here, removed". Is this right? -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I really question the value of having a list (now a table) of Gmail service outages in this encyclopedia article. All cloud-based services are going to have periods when they are unavailable. It is analogous to adding a list of flat tires users have experienced to the Ford Mustang article. I think this is really a case of WP:NOTNEWS and I propose that it should be removed from the article. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it has been a week with no other inputs. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove the outages, but I think we have a consensus to clean it up and only report the ones that are notable and reported in third party sources. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Google has increased the storage space to 10GB: http://gmailblog.blogspot.pt/2012/04/gmail-now-with-10-gb-of-storage-and.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.143.130 ( talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
While this section has very little content, I don't think it should be removed without good reason.
This feature is notable enough to have been mentioned by multiple prominent international news organizations, e.g.:
The political ramifications of such a feature are interesting by themselves, even if the feature is less interesting. The governments of China, Syria, Iran, and others who like to censor the internet probably aren't too happy about its introduction. Google's clashes with China and fallout from things like Buzz in regard to dissidents in such countries have been in the news on multiple occasions, and are well documented on Wikipedia (see Google China, for example).
-- Fritzophrenic ( talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to add 2 Step Verification as Gmail's feature! -- Tito Dutta Message Contribution Email 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Google has renewed its product help center (FAQ) and product support forums.
There are always users who say, "I've deleted my account and lost all my mail and contacts, can I get it all back?", or "I've forgotten my password / My account has been hacked, what can I do?"
Up until now it seems that the attitude of all webmail providers was, "This is a free service; it's not our responsibility to protect idiot users from themselves".
This new official forum support from Google to help users recover their accounts seems to me to be unique and notable — but has anybody heard of other major free webmail services like Yahoo! and Hotmail planning to do the same in future, or offering such a service now?
I propose to add a section on Support like:
Google offers a free Gmail Help Center FAQ, and a Google Groups Official Gmail product forum for official Gmail product support. Google will help recover your account if it is accidentally deleted.
LittleBen ( talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
So far it looks like we have one person in favour of including this as notable and two who think it isn't notable enough to include. What we need here is more input from other editors to come to a consensus. Normally we let these sorts of discussions run for seven days to give everyone interested a chance to look the issue over and add a comment to get to a consensus, so I suggest we do that here as well and let this run until 28 July. - Ahunt ( talk) 10:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In August 2012 Google announced that a trial had been started allowing Gmail to be included in Google search results. Because this is just a trial I don't see any reason to include it in the article at this point in time. If it becomes a permanent feature than it can be mentioned. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This requirement to associate a unique recovery email and/or phone number with an account makes it difficult for would-be spammers to set up multiple accounts. – How does it make it difficult to set up multiple accounts? And what is "unique phone number". I am using my (one) phone number with 4 accounts! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Um.... why is this? Have we just won the game? 184.98.125.248 ( talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is commercial, not non-commercial like the article stated, if you prove me wrong, I'll leave it as it is, if I'm right, I'll change it. -- The ChampionMan 1234 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should include a section about how Google in many cases, without warning and user consent, terminate Gmail accounts. For instance if Google "suspects" that the user of an account, EVEN when the account belongs to a company, is under 13 they lock the account and demand money or a copy of national ID from the user in order to unlock it. To withhold or confiscate mail in that manner is illegal in many countries and a measure no other e-mail provider would ever take. It is quite extraordinary that a company like Google does this and I consider it the most severe set backs of the Gmail service. ( 217.209.12.190 ( talk) 07:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC))
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)
Gmail: one account, all the world to choose from.
Unknown (
talk) 13.23, 24 Dec 2013 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.152.182.2 (
talk)
13:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was just tagged as outdated. What needs updating? - Ahunt ( talk) 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There's been a "fact" floating around that gmail was originally a domain for Garfield.com as part of their free email service.
http://www.knowledgesalad.com/culture/gmail-com-was-originally-owned-by-garfield-com/
Sources for this point back to this wiki page under "Domain Name History". Was there an explicit reference to Garfield here that was removed? UpgradeTech ( talk) 08:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Every April 1st Google does some prank and we dutifully add it to this article. This section is getting too long and well into WP:UNDUE. I also think this is WP:TRIVIA, basically off-topic, non-encyclopedic and should be removed. Objections? - Ahunt ( talk) 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The content from sub-sections Extra security features and Security warnings should be moved into a new section called Security. 59.177.70.4 ( talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the growing length of this article, surely it wouldn't be a bad idea to move 'Trademark disputes' section to History of Gmail. Objections? 120.59.44.41 ( talk) 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Gmail interface should be merged with Gmail since it does contain useful information that needs to be kept but should probably be moved into 'technical' or 'UX' sections of Gmail because this article would not be seen easily or come across with its current title. -24 Talk 17:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Gmail interface includes sections like Browser support, Language support, Applications and Google Apps provider branding, topics which have little or nothing to do with Gmail's interface. So I propose moving these four sections to the main article. - SD0001 ( talk) 10:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why this is a 'criticism'. Google may terminate a Gmail account after nine months of inactivity.[120] Other webmail services have different, often shorter, times for marking an account as inactive. Yahoo! Mail deactivates dormant accounts after four months.[121][122] This should be removed, or added to another section. Right? - SD0001 ( talk) 10:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The entire sub-section is based upon a single, primary source – the Gmail help page. The listed reasons for lockdowns are copy-pasted from the source. The language used indicates this more like a feature and the primary source, of course, doesn't call this a criticism either. Unless we are able to find a third-party source criticising it, this cannot be placed in the Criticisms section. I propose moving this into the Security section. - SD0001 ( talk) 04:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
With foreign individuals account access being given to the US FBI in secret can we have that added to the security section. I think it is quite appropriate to list the events which affect users security and privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.31.18 ( talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to list the new Gmail tool that allows users to revoke access to an email. Time Magazine says "users can set a specific time when the message will self-destruct, ranging anywhere from an hour to a week. And even emails without a specific self-destruct timer can still be recalled by the sender at an time, making them unviewable to the recipient." Here are two articles from Time Magazine http://time.com/3971509/gmail-dmail-google-chrome/ and TechCrunch.com: http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/dmail-makes-your-gmail-messages-self-destruct/ Any opinions on the topic? Cheers, Some of everything ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gmail. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has changed the Gmail website from the actual website of mail.google.com to the redirect of gmail.com and changed the Alex rank from 89 to 4,928, which pretty must establishes the comparable notability. The editor's edit summary indicates that other articles use the redirect and not the actual URL, but that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I propose that the article be changed back to indicate the URL as mail.google.com and not a redirect to that URL. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Is "gmail.com" a part of an IP domain or an email domain? The two naming systems are treated separately on DNS servers. E.G. query a DNS about where the message "bob@gmail.com" gets sent to and it returns the relevant IP address. If do a reverse query on that IP, the DNS server returns FQDN "mail55.google.com". Advertizing!! The article is short on a good explanation. Are ads inserted directly inline in the email, or just displayed during webmail access? If I POP download to my local machine do the ads get stripped out? 203.194.37.61 ( talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask here first, to see if there are any opposing views to this before I make the edit. I want to change the "Device support" section header to "Platforms". "Device support" makes it sound specific to individual devices, whereas "Platforms" is a much more general term used for the entirety of operating systems. Thoughts? LocalNet ( talk) 10:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everybody! So, I am looking at the lead section, and thinking "This would look so good without all the numbers". This is subjective to me of course, but does anyone else agree that the lead section would be better without the references? After all, WP:LEADCITE specifies that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". It's really not difficult to find information in the article for what is written in the lead. On a personal level, I just find lead sections without citations cleaner and prettier. I am kind of hoping people agree, because I feel really tempted to remove them, but if people here want them to stay, I will respect that. Thoughts? :) LocalNet ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions numerous lawsuits against Google/Gmail for privacy violations. But what was the result of those lawsuits? How did they turn out? The article doesn't say. Captain Quirk ( talk) 05:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"During early development, the project was kept secret from most of Google's own engineers." - technically correct but misleading as written. From the reference: "the first useful thing Buchheit built was a search engine for his own email ... When he sought feedback from other engineers, their main input was that it should search their mail, too.". Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This may be noteworthy. [1] It was a controversial point in the past. Power~enwiki ( talk) 04:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! There is currently a disagreement over the contents of this article. This was the original edit, done by Checkingfax, followed by a reversion by me, repeated with reversions again. As per WP:BRD, I'd like to have a civil discussion about the edits rather than engaging in edit wars, and to mention the problems I see:
Hopefully we can use this discussion to reach a consensus :) LocalNet ( talk) 11:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have such a crippling urge to revert the page. It is currently spreading fake news in the lead with the 1.2 billion number. Doesn't matter if "better reference" tags are in the article, I searched and there was no information and the source is unreliable, so it should be removed. But I've been down the path of reverting before. The page is fine, and most importantly correct, with this edit here. I just think it's a shame how there are so few Wikipedians I've met who understand discuss and finish discussing before reverting back to their edits. You didn't even ask me if I had any last objections, merely writing "ping me if you propose any changes". It was in the middle of the night for me, so I had no way to grab your attention while you were here. Above, there are two items in the list that have yet to be even mentioned by you (questionable material and "research it" statement) and yet you reverted to your edit. Gosh it's frustrating to me, who really cares about this article as I spent a whole day fixing it a few months back. But I will try to keep my editing finger under control, because there is no pleasant thing happening when edit wars take place... LocalNet ( talk) 08:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm facing a difficult situation in this discussion, so here is probably my last comment. As explained earlier, I originally tried to restore the default version of this page, and was repeatedly reverted despite WP:BRD. In this conversation, the other user has yet to properly answer my original concerns, and is alleging incorrectly that my edit was the bold one. If I were to continue reverting now, I would most likely be reported for 3RR despite trying to keep the default version, and even if I wasn't, it wouldn't solve the core problem of the disagreement. I try not to let Wikipedia influence my daily life, but since pages like Gmail are viewed by a high number of users every day, it does affect me, and today, it has affected me significantly negatively. I see no good way out of this as my efforts to revert and then discuss haven't solved the issues. This is unfortunately part of a bigger pattern of problems at Wikipedia, in which anyone has the authority to revert continuously rather than being forced to stick to a discussion. Having been one of the main contributors on this page for a long time, the fact that a single day can potentially change the entire outcome of an article is not something I personally like and it takes its toll on me. I will take a break from Wikipedia, but for anyone reading this, note that, officially and unconditionally, I strongly object and do not concede to the current version of the page. The fact that there even is a citation needed tag in the lead when it is completely unnecessary is actually hurtful to someone who has spent hours fixing this page. Nevertheless, this is part of how Wikipedia works, and it's something I don't agree with. So I need to step back. For anyone else watching this article, I invite you to look at the logs and continue the discussion. Goodbye. LocalNet ( talk) 17:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a mention of the new Gmail update? I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I would not be sure about how to further proceed. -- DeeM28 ( talk) 07:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
183.171.19.12 ( talk) 18:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m very surprised to see no mention of PRISM and alleged NSA monitoring of Gmail. Has this ever been included in the article? There’s also the case of Tony Fullman who had his Gmail account exfiltrated by the NSA who sent many details to New Zealand’s intelligence agency — despite neither having any strong evidence against him (he was later acquitted of the dubious terrorism charges). — SimonEast ( talk) 00:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeemale. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename G Suite to Google Workspace. SuperEditingMachine ( talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that it's Workspace as per my previous edits. Just made a mistake with the capitalisation here. I've now corrected it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperEditingMachine ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "By 2018, Gmail had 1.5 billion active users worldwide" to "By 2019, Gmail had 1.5 billion active users worldwide" (the source is from 2019) Kevinishere12 ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change 2018 to 2019 on the sidebar too. Kevinishere12 ( talk) 18:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
How can I send compos mail to gmail.
rajdeoroy75gmail.com
Rajdeoroy19 (
talk)
20:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ummm Hey. Why doesn't this article discuss the pre-launch period at all? There was an invite-only beta period of several years, and I'm pretty sure I had my account before the year 2000. Simply saying it launched in 2004 is a bit misleading. Gallomimia ( talk) 06:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
En/googlemail and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#En/googlemail until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs)
20:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to know how to get a different gmail email without making a whole new Google account I want my contacts and emails to be transferred but I need a new email due to spam and I don’t want to lose my Google accounts information
![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 |
Earlier "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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 no longer unavailable in Germany, although new mail addresses are still @googlemail.com -- 130.83.244.131 ( talk) 10:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Currently I am not making any change in the article. Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
In the article I have included Background Send in Labs section. Thanks! -- Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Gmailmobileviewgoogle.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Gmail Mobile View.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC) |
I looked at gmail.pl this morning, hoping to see what is described in the section on Poland, but I found just a notice that the domain is registered. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. 140.180.9.188 ( talk) 15:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added in this edition a reference to a video by Microsoft where Google is criticized for privacy issues in Gmail. Yet, that edit was eliminated from the article by User:Ahunt in this edition which had the follwoing description: "Competitor's videos don't belong here, removed". Is this right? -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I really question the value of having a list (now a table) of Gmail service outages in this encyclopedia article. All cloud-based services are going to have periods when they are unavailable. It is analogous to adding a list of flat tires users have experienced to the Ford Mustang article. I think this is really a case of WP:NOTNEWS and I propose that it should be removed from the article. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well it has been a week with no other inputs. There doesn't seem to be a consensus to remove the outages, but I think we have a consensus to clean it up and only report the ones that are notable and reported in third party sources. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Google has increased the storage space to 10GB: http://gmailblog.blogspot.pt/2012/04/gmail-now-with-10-gb-of-storage-and.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.143.130 ( talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
While this section has very little content, I don't think it should be removed without good reason.
This feature is notable enough to have been mentioned by multiple prominent international news organizations, e.g.:
The political ramifications of such a feature are interesting by themselves, even if the feature is less interesting. The governments of China, Syria, Iran, and others who like to censor the internet probably aren't too happy about its introduction. Google's clashes with China and fallout from things like Buzz in regard to dissidents in such countries have been in the news on multiple occasions, and are well documented on Wikipedia (see Google China, for example).
-- Fritzophrenic ( talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to add 2 Step Verification as Gmail's feature! -- Tito Dutta Message Contribution Email 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Google has renewed its product help center (FAQ) and product support forums.
There are always users who say, "I've deleted my account and lost all my mail and contacts, can I get it all back?", or "I've forgotten my password / My account has been hacked, what can I do?"
Up until now it seems that the attitude of all webmail providers was, "This is a free service; it's not our responsibility to protect idiot users from themselves".
This new official forum support from Google to help users recover their accounts seems to me to be unique and notable — but has anybody heard of other major free webmail services like Yahoo! and Hotmail planning to do the same in future, or offering such a service now?
I propose to add a section on Support like:
Google offers a free Gmail Help Center FAQ, and a Google Groups Official Gmail product forum for official Gmail product support. Google will help recover your account if it is accidentally deleted.
LittleBen ( talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
So far it looks like we have one person in favour of including this as notable and two who think it isn't notable enough to include. What we need here is more input from other editors to come to a consensus. Normally we let these sorts of discussions run for seven days to give everyone interested a chance to look the issue over and add a comment to get to a consensus, so I suggest we do that here as well and let this run until 28 July. - Ahunt ( talk) 10:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In August 2012 Google announced that a trial had been started allowing Gmail to be included in Google search results. Because this is just a trial I don't see any reason to include it in the article at this point in time. If it becomes a permanent feature than it can be mentioned. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This requirement to associate a unique recovery email and/or phone number with an account makes it difficult for would-be spammers to set up multiple accounts. – How does it make it difficult to set up multiple accounts? And what is "unique phone number". I am using my (one) phone number with 4 accounts! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 16:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Um.... why is this? Have we just won the game? 184.98.125.248 ( talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is commercial, not non-commercial like the article stated, if you prove me wrong, I'll leave it as it is, if I'm right, I'll change it. -- The ChampionMan 1234 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this article should include a section about how Google in many cases, without warning and user consent, terminate Gmail accounts. For instance if Google "suspects" that the user of an account, EVEN when the account belongs to a company, is under 13 they lock the account and demand money or a copy of national ID from the user in order to unlock it. To withhold or confiscate mail in that manner is illegal in many countries and a measure no other e-mail provider would ever take. It is quite extraordinary that a company like Google does this and I consider it the most severe set backs of the Gmail service. ( 217.209.12.190 ( talk) 07:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC))
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)
Gmail: one account, all the world to choose from.
Unknown (
talk) 13.23, 24 Dec 2013 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.152.182.2 (
talk)
13:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was just tagged as outdated. What needs updating? - Ahunt ( talk) 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There's been a "fact" floating around that gmail was originally a domain for Garfield.com as part of their free email service.
http://www.knowledgesalad.com/culture/gmail-com-was-originally-owned-by-garfield-com/
Sources for this point back to this wiki page under "Domain Name History". Was there an explicit reference to Garfield here that was removed? UpgradeTech ( talk) 08:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Every April 1st Google does some prank and we dutifully add it to this article. This section is getting too long and well into WP:UNDUE. I also think this is WP:TRIVIA, basically off-topic, non-encyclopedic and should be removed. Objections? - Ahunt ( talk) 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The content from sub-sections Extra security features and Security warnings should be moved into a new section called Security. 59.177.70.4 ( talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Given the growing length of this article, surely it wouldn't be a bad idea to move 'Trademark disputes' section to History of Gmail. Objections? 120.59.44.41 ( talk) 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Gmail interface should be merged with Gmail since it does contain useful information that needs to be kept but should probably be moved into 'technical' or 'UX' sections of Gmail because this article would not be seen easily or come across with its current title. -24 Talk 17:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Gmail interface includes sections like Browser support, Language support, Applications and Google Apps provider branding, topics which have little or nothing to do with Gmail's interface. So I propose moving these four sections to the main article. - SD0001 ( talk) 10:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why this is a 'criticism'. Google may terminate a Gmail account after nine months of inactivity.[120] Other webmail services have different, often shorter, times for marking an account as inactive. Yahoo! Mail deactivates dormant accounts after four months.[121][122] This should be removed, or added to another section. Right? - SD0001 ( talk) 10:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The entire sub-section is based upon a single, primary source – the Gmail help page. The listed reasons for lockdowns are copy-pasted from the source. The language used indicates this more like a feature and the primary source, of course, doesn't call this a criticism either. Unless we are able to find a third-party source criticising it, this cannot be placed in the Criticisms section. I propose moving this into the Security section. - SD0001 ( talk) 04:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
With foreign individuals account access being given to the US FBI in secret can we have that added to the security section. I think it is quite appropriate to list the events which affect users security and privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.31.18 ( talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to list the new Gmail tool that allows users to revoke access to an email. Time Magazine says "users can set a specific time when the message will self-destruct, ranging anywhere from an hour to a week. And even emails without a specific self-destruct timer can still be recalled by the sender at an time, making them unviewable to the recipient." Here are two articles from Time Magazine http://time.com/3971509/gmail-dmail-google-chrome/ and TechCrunch.com: http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/dmail-makes-your-gmail-messages-self-destruct/ Any opinions on the topic? Cheers, Some of everything ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gmail. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has changed the Gmail website from the actual website of mail.google.com to the redirect of gmail.com and changed the Alex rank from 89 to 4,928, which pretty must establishes the comparable notability. The editor's edit summary indicates that other articles use the redirect and not the actual URL, but that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I propose that the article be changed back to indicate the URL as mail.google.com and not a redirect to that URL. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Is "gmail.com" a part of an IP domain or an email domain? The two naming systems are treated separately on DNS servers. E.G. query a DNS about where the message "bob@gmail.com" gets sent to and it returns the relevant IP address. If do a reverse query on that IP, the DNS server returns FQDN "mail55.google.com". Advertizing!! The article is short on a good explanation. Are ads inserted directly inline in the email, or just displayed during webmail access? If I POP download to my local machine do the ads get stripped out? 203.194.37.61 ( talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask here first, to see if there are any opposing views to this before I make the edit. I want to change the "Device support" section header to "Platforms". "Device support" makes it sound specific to individual devices, whereas "Platforms" is a much more general term used for the entirety of operating systems. Thoughts? LocalNet ( talk) 10:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everybody! So, I am looking at the lead section, and thinking "This would look so good without all the numbers". This is subjective to me of course, but does anyone else agree that the lead section would be better without the references? After all, WP:LEADCITE specifies that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". It's really not difficult to find information in the article for what is written in the lead. On a personal level, I just find lead sections without citations cleaner and prettier. I am kind of hoping people agree, because I feel really tempted to remove them, but if people here want them to stay, I will respect that. Thoughts? :) LocalNet ( talk) 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The article mentions numerous lawsuits against Google/Gmail for privacy violations. But what was the result of those lawsuits? How did they turn out? The article doesn't say. Captain Quirk ( talk) 05:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
"During early development, the project was kept secret from most of Google's own engineers." - technically correct but misleading as written. From the reference: "the first useful thing Buchheit built was a search engine for his own email ... When he sought feedback from other engineers, their main input was that it should search their mail, too.". Power~enwiki ( talk) 21:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This may be noteworthy. [1] It was a controversial point in the past. Power~enwiki ( talk) 04:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone! There is currently a disagreement over the contents of this article. This was the original edit, done by Checkingfax, followed by a reversion by me, repeated with reversions again. As per WP:BRD, I'd like to have a civil discussion about the edits rather than engaging in edit wars, and to mention the problems I see:
Hopefully we can use this discussion to reach a consensus :) LocalNet ( talk) 11:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have such a crippling urge to revert the page. It is currently spreading fake news in the lead with the 1.2 billion number. Doesn't matter if "better reference" tags are in the article, I searched and there was no information and the source is unreliable, so it should be removed. But I've been down the path of reverting before. The page is fine, and most importantly correct, with this edit here. I just think it's a shame how there are so few Wikipedians I've met who understand discuss and finish discussing before reverting back to their edits. You didn't even ask me if I had any last objections, merely writing "ping me if you propose any changes". It was in the middle of the night for me, so I had no way to grab your attention while you were here. Above, there are two items in the list that have yet to be even mentioned by you (questionable material and "research it" statement) and yet you reverted to your edit. Gosh it's frustrating to me, who really cares about this article as I spent a whole day fixing it a few months back. But I will try to keep my editing finger under control, because there is no pleasant thing happening when edit wars take place... LocalNet ( talk) 08:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm facing a difficult situation in this discussion, so here is probably my last comment. As explained earlier, I originally tried to restore the default version of this page, and was repeatedly reverted despite WP:BRD. In this conversation, the other user has yet to properly answer my original concerns, and is alleging incorrectly that my edit was the bold one. If I were to continue reverting now, I would most likely be reported for 3RR despite trying to keep the default version, and even if I wasn't, it wouldn't solve the core problem of the disagreement. I try not to let Wikipedia influence my daily life, but since pages like Gmail are viewed by a high number of users every day, it does affect me, and today, it has affected me significantly negatively. I see no good way out of this as my efforts to revert and then discuss haven't solved the issues. This is unfortunately part of a bigger pattern of problems at Wikipedia, in which anyone has the authority to revert continuously rather than being forced to stick to a discussion. Having been one of the main contributors on this page for a long time, the fact that a single day can potentially change the entire outcome of an article is not something I personally like and it takes its toll on me. I will take a break from Wikipedia, but for anyone reading this, note that, officially and unconditionally, I strongly object and do not concede to the current version of the page. The fact that there even is a citation needed tag in the lead when it is completely unnecessary is actually hurtful to someone who has spent hours fixing this page. Nevertheless, this is part of how Wikipedia works, and it's something I don't agree with. So I need to step back. For anyone else watching this article, I invite you to look at the logs and continue the discussion. Goodbye. LocalNet ( talk) 17:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a mention of the new Gmail update? I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I would not be sure about how to further proceed. -- DeeM28 ( talk) 07:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
183.171.19.12 ( talk) 18:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m very surprised to see no mention of PRISM and alleged NSA monitoring of Gmail. Has this ever been included in the article? There’s also the case of Tony Fullman who had his Gmail account exfiltrated by the NSA who sent many details to New Zealand’s intelligence agency — despite neither having any strong evidence against him (he was later acquitted of the dubious terrorism charges). — SimonEast ( talk) 00:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeemale. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rename G Suite to Google Workspace. SuperEditingMachine ( talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that it's Workspace as per my previous edits. Just made a mistake with the capitalisation here. I've now corrected it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperEditingMachine ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "By 2018, Gmail had 1.5 billion active users worldwide" to "By 2019, Gmail had 1.5 billion active users worldwide" (the source is from 2019) Kevinishere12 ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change 2018 to 2019 on the sidebar too. Kevinishere12 ( talk) 18:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
How can I send compos mail to gmail.
rajdeoroy75gmail.com
Rajdeoroy19 (
talk)
20:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ummm Hey. Why doesn't this article discuss the pre-launch period at all? There was an invite-only beta period of several years, and I'm pretty sure I had my account before the year 2000. Simply saying it launched in 2004 is a bit misleading. Gallomimia ( talk) 06:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
En/googlemail and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#En/googlemail until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs)
20:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Gmail has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to know how to get a different gmail email without making a whole new Google account I want my contacts and emails to be transferred but I need a new email due to spam and I don’t want to lose my Google accounts information