Talk:Gmail/Archive 36

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)
 * 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&sdot;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. --Cyber cobra (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)

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)

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:

— 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 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)

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))

gmail.pl does not seem to be up anymore
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)

Question regarding competitors
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)


 * If this video had been covered and discussed in a neutral third party reference then the issue might be notable, but the fact that a competitor criticizes a product is not notable by itself. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, the only gripe you have with the reference is that it was posted by a competitor? That isn't a valid reason. -- Mecanismo | Talk 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Outages
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)
 * Your question is definitely a good one. See this version of the article. Date>>Outage, Date>>Outage, Date>>Outage... But what was actual problem, nothing is mentioned, what happened in these days?. How many accounts were affected? Nothing is mentioned! And I have started adding furter citation in the section, you/we can remove the table and rewrite like:
 * MM/DD/YYYY: On this day Gmail users after signing in found their Gmail inbox, contact empty. 1.5 million accounts were affected! But only "Gmail outage" does not make any sense! --Tito Dutta Message 12:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well adding more details and formatting is one solution. Spinning it off to a separate article such as List of Gmail outages could be another solution. What I am proposing here is just deleting it as "non-notable", but I am more than willing to look at other solutions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to what you have said, yes, only "Gmail outage" and "no details" does not make sense I think! Also, I am not sure what we/you have tried to do in outage section, the section is actually "PCWorld's list of Gmail's key outage. In Gmail, you'll find Gmail outage in every week
 * 2012 April 17 April 5  April 4  April 3 March 7..
 * So, I feel we should add only key outages with details of the outage, how many people affected since there are multiple Gmail outages every month,--Tito Dutta Message 13:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the outages are relatively common on Gmail, as they are with all web-based services, I think that makes this nothing more than WP:TRIVIA and that none of it should be included. It would be like including every small accident that a model of car has. It is expected and individual incidents are not really notable. Let's see what other editors have to say and see if we can come up with a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only most critical outages are (should be) included, anyway, I do not have any opinion on if we should create a list of outages, but, if we make a list, I feel, we need at least some details about those outages! --Tito Dutta Message 14:19, 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)

10 GB of space
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)


 * The article has been updated. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the second part needed to be updated too. An editor has made the change. He has heard some other things like when someone will buy 25GB, Gmail storage will be also increased to 25 GB. But, he is not sure of it, so has not mentioned anything about it.--Tito Dutta Message 17:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Added back "Security warnings" section
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.:


 * http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18335957
 * http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/tech/google-hacking-alerts/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

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)
 * bbc ref can be added and more details. one line line subsection is looking weird. every new feature of gmail is discussed in some web articles, but wikipedia is not a directory! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * hi, i have not undone it. but some clarification needed there! - Tito Dutta  ✉  20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Gmail Feature: 2 Step Verification!
I suggest to add 2 Step Verification as Gmail's feature! --Tito Dutta Message Contribution Email 07:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Added here. LittleBen (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Renewed Official Help Center and Official Product Support Forums
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)


 * Thanks for bringing this up here. I removed it because I didn't think it was all that notable. We don't include every small detail about a product in an encyclopedia article, just the main points. That said I am keen to hear what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check it here: Google Help Forums! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the "ref" tags above to links to make it more clear what I propose to add. It seems that one has to be a member to find out what recovery options Microsoft offers, but Yahoo! does not seem to offer such account recovery options according to this article. LittleBen (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gmail Help Forum is not an individual forum, over all it is Google Help Forum! Almost every product has a help forum, I don't think it should be added, it is already mentioned in the article Google Help Forums. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall using the term "individual product forum"—maybe it is used in the Google Help Forums (plural) article—but most English native speakers would understand that to mean that "each product has its own individual forum" (within the Google Help Forums), which is what you seem to be saying.
 * If you look at the Gmail forum, it seems that the "renewed" Gmail support extends even to Google undeleting accounts that users have deleted, not just helping users recover accounts that have been hacked (or whose password has been forgotten). It seems that competing services don't offer support that extends even to undeleting accounts, making it unique and notable. LittleBen (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am highly confused here. I leave it to Ahunt. Let me clear my points before that: the help section you are talking about, I am a Top Contributor (it means– highest level volunteer) of that help section since January 2011 (please read my/our interview in official Gmail Blog name: Tito Dutta), and the account recovery procedure you are talking about– I specially work/participate in that section, I know every step of it. Anyway, 1) you begin recovery procedure from https://google.com/accounts/recovery (Note the URL, it is https://google.com/accounts/recovery which is related to https://accounts.google.com and the URL is NOT https://gmail.com/recovery), that means you try to recover the Google account from Google Help section, and not particularly Gmail account from Gmail Help. 2) Do you have Paid Google Apps account or Adwords account? If you have, you can expect a better support for similar trouble 3) This account recovery procedure is not new too, I used the same procedure to recover my own account in 2009 and have been suggesting the same thing in forums for last 3 years, Over to Ahunt, who is much more gmail-Intelligent than me! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  05:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out that Gmail now seems to have quite solid account recovery even if an an account is deleted (I think I read somewhere that they keep accounts at least for one month), but Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail don't seem to offer this, so this feature is surely notable.
 * One suggestion that you might pass on to Google is that they provide a notice at the top of the forum suggesting that people with problems first check out the Help Center. There doesn't seem to be any link to the Help Center, so people (in the forum) are asking questions that are already answered in the Help Center. LittleBen (talk) 07:19, 22 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)
 * Did you read my post above? Hm? Okay, again, it is a part of your Google account recovery (longer explanation above), so, if you really want to add these information add in Google or Google account article.
 * One month– wrong, they don't mention any time, they say "recently deleted" (but it is surely much more than one month)
 * Have you checked Facebook account recovery system? it is much easier. so do you suggest it add similar section in FB article too?
 * What made you think Yahoo does not have good back up or recovery system, their recent 450,000 password hijacking? Please see Yahoo's recovery procedure (though I have not tried it personally)! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  10:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Google search to include Gmail search as a trial
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)
 * Important feature! We can mention that trial! I hate this feature and will prefer turning it off in my account! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem I have in adding it, even with a reliable ref like the one above, is that Google trials lots of things and then doesn't incorporate them. It pushes the boundaries of trivia to mention these. The only reason I even brought this up is that another editor kept trying to add some spam link on the subject all over the place. The Guardian link is a much more reliable ref, but I am still not convinced the topic is notable, at least yet. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya, I also tried to revert those. But, you were quicker..:) This sub section Gmail can be changed into a new section with Gmail search and Google search etc. But, I'll suggest not to add this right now. For example, recently Gmail has added a new feature– you can add unlimited number of back up phone numbers in your 2 Step verification setting. We have not mentioned it too. We should wait for some time, I think! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unique phone number issue
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)

EDIT AND SEMI PROTECT?
Um.... why is this? Have we just won the game?184.98.125.248 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article's history shows it is semi-protected because of persistent spamming of external links. This means that only established editors editors can edit the article. If you like you can open an account or, alternatively, you can make note here on the talk page of changes you would like to see and one of the existing editors will evaluate your proposed changes for incorporation into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

non-commercial?
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. --''TheChampionMan1234 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty obvious that Gmail is a commercial product, based on advertising revenue. I have changed it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Gmail is like Google Search——you don't have to pay to use either of them, however advertisements are displayed. Advertisement-free versions (like Google Search for company web sites) can be purchased on a subscription basis. Isn't the term for this something like "a dual-model" rather than (100%) "commercial"? (I'm thinking of some open-source software that is available in a free community version as well as in an enhanced and company-supported commercial version).
 * Just looked at the article, and like the "free, advertising-supported" in the lede. It is surely possible to leave "Commercial?" in the template blank, and perhaps add info. about the commercial version that is part of [www.google.com/intl/en/enterprise/apps/business/products.html Google Apps for Business] in the article body, if the article doesn't already mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleBenW (talk • contribs)

Terminating accounts
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))


 * If you can cite a reference from a reliable source then this can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't. Apart from numerous Google support-threads, blog posts etc, that probably can't be considered reliable enough, there are no newspaper articles about it (as far as I can see). This blog post describes a part of the problem;
 * http://sunpig.com/martin/archives/2011/07/03/google-made-my-son-cry.html
 * In this case the victim was an "underaged" boy whose Gmail account Google simply erased without giving him a chance to make any back up. Many people would probably consider that being a less severe issue.
 * But the problem is more grave since Google applies the same rule to business accounts, accounts that doesn't have a physical owner. If you can't "prove" that your company is above 13 years of age (who the F*CK can do that?) Google may simply erase all your Google accounts, Gmail, Youtube etc, which makes Google a very dangerous solution for companies. Unless all employees using the accounts at all times are willing to give up personal information about themselves (such as credit card no or a copy of their passport) to prove they are above 13, which a lot of employees won't do.
 * I think it should be put on a "to do"-list however for the Wikipedia Gmail-article and as soon there are reliable sources that one can link to it should be included since it is such a dangerous set back of the entire Gmail service. (217.209.12.190 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC))


 * Well it is noted here, all we need is find refs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (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)

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)

Tagged as outdated
The article was just tagged as outdated. What needs updating? - Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay lacking any answer to the question in more than three weeks I'll remove the banner. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Garfield Email
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)


 * Yes it was here at one time, but was removed as not properly sourced. It seems to be more of a myth than fact and many other websites carrying this story got it from here, which shows the dangers of leaving unreferenced text in articles! The biggest danger is that it gets reported elsewhere., like that article you noted, based on this Wikipedia article and then that gets used as a reference here, completing the circle of misinformation. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

April Fools' jokes
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)
 * Agreed. Unless any of the jokes got out of hand and attracted significant press coverage, List of Google hoaxes and easter eggs is the place for a dutiful list of this stuff. --McGeddon (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone just added the joke for 2010, making this even bigger. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay with no objections we have consensus to remove the section now, which I will do. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Security section
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)


 * Done. 120.56.163.31 (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Trademark disputes
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)
 * I agree, it would be better off there! - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. -120.59.41.123 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gmail interface
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. -24Talk  17:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was originally split from Gmail because the Gmail article was too long. Both have got much longer since then. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ah, I'll just add some links then. Thanks, -24Talk  13:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving sections from Gmail interface
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)
 * Good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - SD0001 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Account termination
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)
 * I agree that this should be in another section, it isn't a criticism, more like a feature. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅Okay, I have moved it to the Security section. - SD0001 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Twenty-four hour lockdowns
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)
 * Seems that would make sense since it is a security features and has nothing to do with criticism. I agree. By the way, nice work on the article so far! -24Talk  11:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have done a lot more work on the article than what you see! All those edits by IPs beginning 59. &120. that you'll see in the edit history are by me. - SD0001 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - SD0001 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks
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)
 * Reference? - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a new feature - making Gmail messages self-destruct
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)
 * It seems to be a third party service, not Gmail. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't good form to ask about including text and then put it in anyway before you have had reposnses. I have removed your addition as the ref clearly explains this is not a feature of Gmail but is a third-party browser extension for Chrome. The whole thing is pretty spammy as well. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gmail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100901110917/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/tech_guide/2010/08/27/2010-08-27_google_announces_via_twitter_1000000_gmail_calls_in_24_hours.html? to http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2010/08/27/2010-08-27_google_announces_via_twitter_1000000_gmail_calls_in_24_hours.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gmail website listed
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)
 * I agree with you. I believe this case can be determined simply by the Alexa rank difference. 89 vs almost 5,000 is a significant difference. If gmail.com should be listed in the infobox at all, it should be clearly marked as redirect link, but I don't know if that template entry exists. LocalNet (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but can see merits in at least mentioning gmail.com in the infobox, as that domain does have pretty clear notability in relation to this service, and is what is used on the user email addresses. So, I've boldly half-reverted it.  The canonical domain (mail.google.com) should certainly be listed first.  There are other domains which have historical significance, such as googlemail.com (due to a trademark issue in some countries, which was later resolved, if memory serves), but I do not think they should be listed in the infobox as they don't have the same level of notability and Google have been discouraging their continued use (but have no plans to actually deprecate them).   Murph 9000  (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I noticed that all email services redirects to other sites (such as subdomains), but only the Gmail article lists a subdomain as a main domain, so I changed the site (I have no problem listing the two). Alexa ranking to mail.google.com is fake, since Alexa has no data on subdomains. Anyway, you might have seen in the Alexa ranking that Gmail does not occupy the position 89, prior to maintain a false information.Gusthes (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair comment, but there had not been previous mention that the Alexa rank was actually fake, and 89 seemed believable for the main Gmail URL. I.e. it was not obviously fake if you are someone who doesn't care much about Alexa ranks.  If something does not seem believable, I normally do try to confirm it, but when it looks ok and not particularly contentious, I tend to just assume on good faith that the long standing content is ok when it has not been directly challenged.  In some respects, the real Alexa number for gmail.com is also fake (in terms of not usefully reflecting reality), as many users will not be using it as a web address and it's not something which attracts HTTP links on web pages proportional to its actual popularity.   Murph 9000  (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is possible see that official Gmail site is gmail.com (see the official Gmail pages on Twitter and Facebook for example, all of them they list gmail.com). There is no reference to mail.google.com in any corner of the internet, this is just a herd of subdomain without relevance. It is impossible to say that mail.google.com is somehow a "main domain". Gusthes (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Darn, why do you got to bring logic and proper reasoning into a conversation!? This is the internet, where we make up facts and use personal insults. Just kidding! Your argumentation is great and solid. I didn't even know the 89 number was false. LocalNet (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In WWW terms, mail.google.com is the canonical domain, as all the other domains for the service are redirected to it.  Murph 9000  (talk) 20:50, 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/02/HNgmailscripting_1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/webdev/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202601159
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330005708/http://www.bottomlinedesignawards.com:80/gmail.html to http://www.bottomlinedesignawards.com/gmail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Device support" to "Platforms"
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)
 * I agree. "Device support" is the wrong term used as a heading in the artivle. - Ahunt (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting. I will wait a few more hours to see if there are any other editors with thoughts before making the change. LocalNet (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Citations in the lead
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)
 * Going to assume silence means consensus and remove the citations from the lead. LocalNet (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Results of privacy lawsuits?
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)
 * Hi I don't think the results were published, or even have results yet. I am unable to find results for neither the March 2011 or July 2012 lawsuits. LocalNet (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedian with PACER (law) access in the relevant jurisdiction should be able to find out the court status. Obviously, care is needed there in terms of what can be cited.  A simple statement of fact in terms of dismissed/upheld/settled/etc might be ok, but there's the thing about not sourcing directly to court documents.   Murph 9000  (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could see if anyone at WikiProject Law has any thoughts. If there's any legal professionals there, they might be able to find sourcing in journals, etc (for notable cases).   Murph 9000  (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. Hmm. To be honest, way out of my knowledge and experience, so I can't really bring anything to the table there. :/ This is the first time I'm hearing the pacer term, if I'm being 100% honest :P I might ask on the Law WikiProject when I build up the understanding of what I am actually asking for, though :P LocalNet (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

History
"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)
 * Hi! Long time since I edited that section. I don't have immediate memory of writing that, but I'm pretty sure I did. What is your suggestion to fix the misleading info? :) LocalNet (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Will Stop Reading Your Emails for Gmail Ads
This may be noteworthy. It was a controversial point in the past. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Yep, it's already in the article :) LocalNet (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Apparently this page wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't see it go in. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about major edit
Hi everyone! There is currently a disagreement over the contents of this article. This was the original edit, done by, 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:
 * One major edit over 3,000 bytes in size differences, and one making it extremely difficult to see exactly what has changed. Incremental edits would be a major help here.
 * Addition of questionable material, such as 1.2 billion user number. That's the only one I have noticed - It's extremely difficult to find everything new.
 * "if anything is not understood, research it" - as described by Slate: "The total word count for all guidelines and essays can easily be in the magnitude of millions. It is safe to assume that no one in the world knows them all, and that Wikipedians really wallow in creating norms and regulations" - I'd like to be provided with the precise info to understand what happened, rather than having to read through every single guideline.

Hopefully we can use this discussion to reach a consensus :) LocalNet (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Go to your preferences and enable WideDiff so that you can see the changes easier.
 * There is a user script that will allow you to see errors in references - I repaired the ref errors that displayed.
 * We can work on the rest step-by-step. Having fun! Cheers!  04:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! That WideDiff change was definitely helpful, thanks! LocalNet (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Ping me if you propose any changes, or if you have any specific questions about my edits, and we can work it out. Having fun! Cheers!  00:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again I noticed that you had reverted back to your edits with the explanation that "Revert to status quo anti bellum". Please keep in mind that yours was not actually the status quo. You made the bold edit, I reverted, so it's actually your responsibility on the talk page to explain rather than my job. I'm not going to revert for now because I'm not interested in an edit war any more than I have to, I just think this is unfair. I still haven't had all my questions from my first post answered. LocalNet (talk) 05:20, 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)
 * Hi, . I reverted all the edits and then carefully smoothed in the uncontentious ones. It seems a bit unrealistic to think that there are one billion Android users, and one billion total users. That does not comport. Status quo ante bellum means that I reverted things to where it was before you reverted my mostly good edits. I am not an edit apologist. If something is not perfect, fix it. At 00:50, I did not realize that you had again reverted my edits in the middle of our discussion. Having fun! Cheers!  09:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I... I honestly have almost no idea what you meant here. What does Android have to do with this? "Status quo ante bellum means that I reverted things to where it was before you reverted my mostly good edits" - see, this is the kind of thing I mean. Your edit may or may not have been good, but it was not the status quo. Yours was the bold edit, and it would have been the status quo had I not reverted you, but I did. And now we are supposed to discuss and reach consensus, but I'm sensing hostility. "I am not an edit apologist" - what? "If something is not perfect, fix it". - I tried reverting you, but then you reverted me, and now I am trying to have a discussion that you have yet to actually participate in, but you are reverting me again. I want to restore the actual status quo, have a discussion and reach a conclusion. LocalNet (talk) 09:32, 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)

New update
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)
 * It is already there: Gmail - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020
183.171.19.12 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to actually detail what you think should be changed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PRISM and NSA monitoring of Gmail
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)
 * There is enough in that ref for the Fullman case to be added here. Any specific refs for the more general program? - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Jeemale" listed at Redirects for discussion
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2020
Rename G Suite to Google Workspace. SuperEditingMachine (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is Google Workspace, a bluelink, not Google WorkSpace a WP:REDLINK, otherwise ✅. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020
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)


 * Good catch, ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Change 2018 to 2019 on the sidebar too. Kevinishere12 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Add to gmail
How can I send compos mail to gmail. Rajdeoroy19 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you need to explain your question more completely, as it doesn't make sense like that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a usage question, then note that there's a Wikibook on using Gmail which may be a more appropriate place to go (see bottom page of the main article for the link). If it doesn't tell you and it's notable enough to add, then mentioning it on their talk page might help improve the book. NeilOnWiki (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

gMail Beta, pre-2004
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)


 * if you have references that can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"En/googlemail" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect En/googlemail and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 20:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022
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


 * Please see WP:NOTMANUAL for why we do not include this sort of information in an encyclopedia. Try a tech "how to" type site instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)