Wikipedia talk:Emailing users

message: I'm closing this, based on the fact that AutomaticStrikeout said he jumped the gun on this RfC, which I think we can take as a withdrawal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment - it is easy to do this anyway. Just frequent WP Indic caste articles then take a look at discussions on Orkut etc. The co-ordination is obvious and frequent. So, do we ask Orkut to shut down? - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have even given such a ridiculous objection a response as USEFUL is advice for content discussions and has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Keep Upon giving it further thought, I can see that I jumped the gun here. AutomaticStrikeout 02:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: From their 2007 decision: 
"2. In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights."
"6. Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee."
As if the latter is not a violation of copyrights. Pirating something just for your friends is still piracy. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusing ArbCom self-aggrandizement  

message: Can the contents of a email be published on-wiki? Where is the policy documented? Nobody Ent 23:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * These indicate they are Nobody Ent 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

text: **(1) indicates copyrighting a business letter and then putting it into a mail.  That was what I was indicating above, inserting copyrighted material inside an email; (2) talks about copyrighting your email (if it were automatically copyrighted) you would not to get it copyrighted. (3) seems to indicate that all material published over the internet is copyrighted.  Copyright protection is a process you have to go through on your website.  You have to apply for a copyright first, then your information, including emails faxes or any information that comes from that copyrighted website is copyrighted and (4) I did not log in to answer the question. Mugginsx (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not seeing any evidence you've done any research on this. "Copyright is itself an automatic international right" Nobody Ent 13:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I looked at your references and gave my opinion.  If I am wrong, I'm wrong.  My impression was that you have to petition the copyright office or go thru a copyright lawyer to get something copyrighted.  Electronic communication must be an exception but I do not see it in the examples you gave which I did read.  Yes, according to the information in the Wiki article, and of my own knowledge, if for instance, someone was writing a book, or an article, etc., one could put a "c" on the bottom of each page and it is considered copyrighted, however, until the official petition is returned, someone could conceivably usurp that information and have it printed with no protection unless that you could prove that your work is dated prior to the printing of theirs.  What some people would do is send it to yourself and kept it unsealed with registered mail receipt. Mugginsx (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your conflating the practical issue of proving your case with the legal issue of whether a work is subject to copyright. Basically any writing that is sufficiently original is subject to copyright on creation. Monty845 16:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "My impression was that you have to petition the copyright office or go thru a copyright lawyer to get something copyrighted".  That is not correct.  Under the Berne Convention (which almost all countries are party to), everything is copyrighted as soon as it is put in a fixed/tangible form.  Neither registration nor a copyright notice are required.  In some countries, registration provides certain benefits, such as statutory damages. Superm401 - Talk 04:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  email privacy 

message: Is there a way to have user defined edit notices appear on the "Email this user" function?  I ask because I've gotten probably 20 emails over the past few days of editors who are trying to get feedback via using the email function.  I'm very hesitant to reveal my email address to random users who found the email button so I attempt to reply on the user's talk page.  The problem is I can only refer tangentally to the contents of the email (as it's expected that there is some privacy when a user uses the email function).  I'd like to get to a point where the users whose AfCs I decline bring the issue to my talk page instead of using the "Email this user" function. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can set up a message to be displayed below the usual edit notice; see for example User:John of Reading/Emailnotice. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Email this user" edit notice 

message: Is there anything that's happened on the technical end recently that might be preventing e-mail from working properly? I've had my e-mail address confirmed since 2006 and in the past have been able to e-mail other users with no problem through the "Email this user" feature, but lately everything I send with that tool gets kicked back (even if the user's address itself is perfectly functional and can be reached through a normal e-mail process). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you use Yahoo! email? See the next section below. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for pinging me. I do use Yahoo. Is this something that might eventually be fixed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows, but I sure hope so. I'm on Yahoo as well, so this effects me too. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender 

message: sent me an e-mail regarding a magazine source he has that pertains to an article I am working on. He sent the e-mail twice and I have not received them, I checked my spam folder and nothing. I do get frequent e-mails regarding changes on my talk page. My e-mail is enabled and was confirmed back in September 2012, so I'm not sure what's going on. Best, .jonatalk 20:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If Magiciandude's email provider is Yahoo or one of the others mentioned in this bug report then at present he won't be able to send any Wikipedia emails. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying John. Erick if this is true, can you send me the date of the source and I'll look it up (if that's possible). Best, .jonatalk 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not receiving e-mail 

message: I must not have clicked 'send copy to self' when I emailed some folks, am wondering if there's a log anywhere that I can look at to see what the email said.  (Long story.) valereee (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that you would be able to access, no - logs aren't public, and as far as I know no log would record the email contents anyway. Is it possible for you to ask the recipient(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Oh, sure!  It's just embarrassing.  "Um, I see I have your user talk on my watchlist because apparently I emailed you back in June about something.  Do you know what that was about?  Just wondering if I can go ahead and take you off my watchlist or whether I'm still awaiting followup."  :D Thanks anyway! valereee (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are my emails to others logged anywhere? 

message: This contradicts the statement two sections up, as well as WP:POSTEMAIL, to which it links, that there is no consensus regarding the appropriateness of this activity. The majority of POSTEMAIL is taken up with quoting two isolated ArbCom principles, which strongly suggests that this is not a strong policy point but something ArbCom determined was inappropriate in those specific cases.
If there is no consensus, should we be telling users explicitly not to do it?
Another problem is that WP:POSTEMAIL is a section of the policy on "harassment", whereas the above quote appears in this pages guidelines for dealing with abuse of the email system. If I receive a harassing email from a blocked user, and post its contents on the talk page of the blocking admin, my posting the contents of the email is not an attempt by me to intimidate or harass the user -- in fact it's the opposite.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealing with harassment while handling joe jobs and clueless users is tricky. For example, you might send someone an email saying they made a mistake in an edit and you didn't want to embarass them by posting on their talk, but they might like to fix it. What if the recipient posted the full email at ANI, including headers with your email address and any other personal information you included, and (falsely) said you were harassing them? That's why the rule is "do not post an email". The approved method of reporting harassment would be to email an active admin with the details, or to report the situation at ANI with a general statement outlining the situation but without posting the email, and wait for advice. The "there is no consensus" text just means you might get indeffed if you post an email without permission, and you might not, depending on who responds and the circumstances. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in-line, and possibly inappropriate link to unrelated policy 

message: An editor has suggested adding "and you haven't been blocked from using it for sockpuppetry" to the the "Enabling and disabling user email" section, thus giving:
:
I dunno if this is necessary or helpful, but anyway its unclear: is it "you have been blocked from using email, because you engaged in sockpuppetry", or "you have been blocked from using email for the purpose of sockpuppetry". Not a big fan of anon IP editing rules and info pages (get an account if you want to do that), so rolled back and the editor is invited to clarify and make his case here. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is just having fun. Ignore it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2017 

message: Can we please get rid of the default "Wikipedia email" subject fill-in and force editors to enter their own subject. My inbox will thank you. --NeilN talk to me 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default subject 

message: It might be a useful additional feature of the software if it was possible for users to opt in to allow other users to send them email without the sender having to register an email address.  Any such email could come from a "no-reply" address, but still contain the username of the sender.  
A reasonably obvious use case is Wikipedia:Oversight. Although the content of the message to the team would need to be private, it is probably sufficient for them to reply via a user talk page (or not at all).
In more detail, I suggest the following behaviour:
                               	Sender HAS registered email address                                           	Sender HAS NOT registered email address  	Sender is not logged in
Recipient HAS opted in         	Sender selects whether to send email from OWN address or from NO-REPLY address	Can send email from NO-REPLY address only	Cannot send email
Recipient HAS NOT opted in     	Can send email from OWN address only                                          	Cannot send email                        	Cannot send email
Recipient does not accept email	Cannot send email                                                             	Cannot send email                        	Cannot send email
Regards, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of Oversight I cannot think of any circumstance where we would reply on-wiki (or elsewhere that is public) regarding an email requesting oversight, regardless of the response. This is for the same reasons requests for oversight should not be posted on-wiki, principally the Streisand effect. This means that a user emailing us from a no-reply address would never get a response from us - this would be potentially problematic if we need more information - e.g. the requester isn't clear about what they feel needs oversight or we need some more background to fully understand the issue. We also sometimes get requests that are outside the scope of the oversight team (e.g. requests for oversight on other projects, requests for checkuser, or other matters not related to oversight), sometimes we can simply forward these on but other times they need to be referred back to the requester and/or they need to be copied in. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, for pretty much all of the listed reasons; this isn't a great idea. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thank you for your input. I guess that this conversation can be archived -- unless anyone has anything to add? --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  allowing no-reply email 

message: How can I enable some features like disable email or enable it or such globally, for all Wikimedia accounts? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Preferences --> Global preferences --> Set global preferences I guess? :-) Lotje (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global email preferences? 

message: I messaged a user and I fear he has no email --GeometryDashFan12 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If the person has no email set you will not be able to message them - Special:EmailUser will give you a "user has not specified a valid email address". You can post a  message on the person's talk page if you're not sure whether they've seen the email. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I know if someone has an email 

message: Given some of the discussions at various WP:AC boards, I wondered if this idea was worth floating (perhaps at some WP:VP board)
As it stands now there is the last line in the email this user edit notice:
* Wikipedia makes no guarantee of confidentiality for messages sent by this system. Do not send information by email that you would not want published on the internet.
and I wondered if perhaps we should bold that ...
* Wikipedia makes no guarantee of confidentiality for messages sent by this system. Do not send information by email that you would not want published on the internet.
thoughts? — Ched (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  informal question. 

message: Please see discussion at  Graham (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of email