Talk:Mailbox provider

Creation of this page

Having mailbox provider in its own page avoids confusion with email service provider.

Other small articles, like premium email, could be merged here.

ale (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Email service provider for more details. ale (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC) they should merge the free mail line with web mail servers — Preceding unsigned comment added by FockeWulf FW 190 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for the picture and the caption

I never saw an email address written on somebody's passport or other "official" certificate. Yet, the email address is probably the most frequently used means of establishing someone's identity. By official, above, I mean a certificate issued by a government or similar civil authority. That state of affairs matches the lack of a democratically established political arbitration, which is portrayed by many of Costner's doomsday movies. In the caption, I tried to convey that feeling for those who didn't see the movie.

I concede that engendering a feeling is somewhat unusual for a technical page. However, trying to explain the same issue in politically correct, juridical terms would be lengthy and boring. Please, let's discuss a possible alternative before removing that part.

ale (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The image is pure whimsy. The allegories you're implying exist between the film and the subject may indeed hold some water (though I'm going to stick my neck out and say that they are completely unintentional) but unless we have some cast-iron reliable secondary sources pointing them out then it's definitely not appropriate to include them here. I'm yet to see a case where whimsy is of genuine benefit to an article here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see why an article's image need to be approved by some sort of authority. The point is that it just happens to render the idea. Yes, it was probably not Costner's intention to illustrate email; in fact the movie doesn't seem to refer to the Internet, nor to imply that transferring meat world communications to a globally connected, digital space is akin to an apocalypse that we need to recover from. For another example of "whimsy" image/caption, see Intuition (psychology). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images just says that Intangible concepts can be illustrated. Perhaps there is a better image or better words to convey that concept, but removing them altogether doesn't seem to be much of an improvement to me. ale (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2014‎ (UTC)

the image should be removed as purely decorative, and off-topic. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: The Postman (film) poster used to point out a problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

File:Postman ver3.jpg

The Postman seems to imply that the restoring of a nation could hinge on mail services. It won the 18th Golden Raspberry Awards for the worst picture, worst screenplay, worst actor, and more. If there is an award for the worst spam, email services must be nominated at least. Nevertheless, global communications in the Information Age hinge on self-appointed mailbox providers.

On the right, the image which was removed. I'm not completely decorticated yet, so, yes, I can understand that it looks strange. Since three people, User:MatthewBurton, User:Thumperward, and User:Frietjes, felt the need to remove it, it probably deserves that destiny and this RfC is going to be resolved quickly.

There is something in the conduct of those three users I don't understand. It is their inclination to remove anything which might look questionable, acting quickly, without taking the time to try and understand any reason why it was there. That's not only for the image, but also for WP:NOTETHAT, WP:PROCON, and similar directives whereby some passages need to be removed no matter what. I understand that articles have to be evened out, but that should be done without altering their meaning. This page, in particular, was problematic since the beginning. Is it always possible to even out articles, or are there topics that are inherently wrinkled?

For a minor curiosity, it is odd that those three editors arrived in close succession independently of one another. For more than one year nobody felt the need to remove that image...

If the image is strange, spam is strange too. So strange that many organizations give up any attempt at finding their own way through scaring judgments (see Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.), overcomplicated software settings, and controversial specifications (e.g. DMARC). 99% of spam is overwhelming (if you don't see it, your mailbox provider is doing a good job at filtering it out). By comparison, setting up a company web site is straightforward. I keep considering that a temporary situation, even if it has endured for decades and there is no sign of improvement. The current state of affairs seems to be rooted in economic and social traits rather than due to technological constraints. So the eventual improvement can be seen as part of the transition to that Information Age mentioned in the caption. Thus, I found that Costner's landscape, as well as the unfair fate of that movie, render the idea better than a ranting section on "the pains of being a mailbox provider". An alternative image, albeit less compelling, is the Tristero Horn symbol, after The Crying of Lot 49. Omitting to point out that a problem exists looks like a violation of WP:NPOV, doesn't it?

ale (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In amongst the personalisation of the dispute, the whataboutery, and the veiled insinuation of a conspiracy, I don't see any substantive rebuttal to the core argument in favour of removal, which is that image is pure whimsy and the subject has absolutely nothing to do with email. If you're not able to accept that then there's little point in continuing to respond to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

so, I need to copy and paste my comments from above here ("the image should be removed as purely decorative, and off-topic")? since you seem to be very interested in how people found this page, I arrived here after following a thread you started on Chris's talk page. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Remove image Relevance too much of a stretch IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• comment I don't know why we even need an RFC when the non-free use rationale for the image does not include this article. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Per Frietjes the image use policy overrides any editors preference or straw poll based on it. remove if you want a !vote but speedy/snow close based on policy.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support WP:SNOWBALL close to this RfC. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Google account

Trying to recover password from My account williamtolley0@gmail.com 67.234.14.5 (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)