Miscellaneous desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 22

Nosy e-mail provider

Is there any wiki content or cites on e-mail providers other than Outlook.com? Outlook is very nosey and even asked for my mobile number, which creeped me out. 78.144.252.84 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Comparison of webmail providers. Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@78.144.252.84: It may be worth noting that Outlook.com, as with most of the popular webmail providers, offers two-step authentication. It's a security measure that combines something you know (like a password) [typically] with something you possess (like a cell phone). The idea is that someone can steal your password online, but it's far less likely they'll steal your password and your phone. That's probably why they were asking for your number. I think most privacy/security experts recommend it, but it's usually optional. The old balance between privacy and security, I suppose, but our cell phones are already about the least secure things we own anyway :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they actually call, or require you to call from, the cell phone, you can just give them a fake number. I try to give as much fake info as possible to people trying to violate my privacy for no valid reason. A favorite email address of mine to give out is NOYFB@NOYFB.com (None Of Your F'n Business). RadioShack used to REQUIRE that you give them your email addresses with each purchase, then sell it to spammers. They got quite a range of fake email address from me and I have to think this policy is one reason they are in such financial trouble now. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's terrible blanket advice.

First, it's almost definitely a two-step verification matter OP is talking about. In that case giving a fake number, if the site doesn't have things in order, could be very problematic (but is most likely to simply not work).

Second, you're encouraging subverting communication systems using your own Radio Shack example but you don't know what systems people reading your response will actually be using. Their bank? The IRS? According to this, if you don't think the IRS will call you, just give them a fake number! Many places use a phone number to verify an account or verify a purchase, even if they don't call you. Perhaps more to the point, not all of them tell you that they're going to call, and some might only do so if there's a problem and they need to reach you.

Third, you're potentially having people have their personal information given to whoever has that fake number.

That's not to say I always give a real phone number myself, of course, and the odds are indeed low that any of this will happen, but isn't it best to just skip the unreferenced anecdotal workaround as though it can be generalized for everybody? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my "for no valid reason" caveat. Obviously your bank and the IRS (if you're in the US) have a valid reason to need your real phone number. RadioShack does not. As for email providers, there it depends. Is this a critical email account you need to protect or is this a throwaway email account you wouldn't mind losing ? In the later case, you really don't need to risk giving out your phone number. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss that. The problem is "for no valid reason" doesn't mean anything. The extent to which information is available/ready-to-hand concerning what, specifically, personally identifying information will be used for varies dramatically, so it's a big assumption that there's "no valid reason". People also have different senses of what is and is not considered "valid", making it utterly subjective. Beyond that, OP is also talking about email, and as I pointed out, it's almost certainly a two-step verification thing -- most people consider that a pretty valid reason. I just fail to see how connecting the question to what you like to do at Radio Shack is anything but detrimental. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the OP to decide what is a valid reason, not you. As for email, I already discussed that. If it's a throwaway email account you needed for a one-time use, they certainly don't need to know your real phone number. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP gave no indication whatsoever they were talking about a one-time use account, and even if it were a one-time use account, it's still bad advice. If it were a one-time use account and they were required to enter a phone number, it would still be for two-step verification. What do you think would happen if they used a fake number? The next step is receiving a message on that phone number.

The alternative, which OP is clearly already aware of, is to not enter a phone number or, when it's required, to seek out a different email service, not enter a fake one -- which, I'll add, is also rather obvious to someone looking to avoid entering their phone number, and it should be our role to explain the less obvious aspects of why it can be a bad idea, not just pitch the obvious idea in its obvious context (i.e. enter a fake number so you don't have to enter a real number).

There is just no scenario where that is helpful and only scenarios where it can present problems. It's irresponsible to say it's up to OP to decide what's valid (as if, as I already pointed out, people know all of the ways the number will be used -- which is very rarely the case), or in other words that it's up to them to make your advice beneficial rather than detrimental. You also didn't even qualify your advice in the original response. You just said "Unless they actually call, or require you to call from, the cell phone, you can just give them a fake number." -- no indication that there are things to keep in mind, that it might not be obvious whether they'll call you, that if an email service is requiring your phone number it almost definitely will be calling or requiring you to call ... just a Radio Shack example.

I'll leave it at that; at this point I'm starting to feel like I'm no longer writing for the benefit of readers and just arguing against Yahoo Answersing the refdesk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's mostly for 2FA. That said, I know Gmail used to require phone numbers (or possible a third party non free address, can't remember now) with verification required before creating an account to reduce spammers creating accounts there. I don't now if Outlook does that as well. I think Google may have abandoned this, at least I believe I may have created one without it but can't remember. Possibly it wasn't terrible effective in the long run since with 10 or 50 or whatever accounts per phone number and phone numbers probably costing a few cents in places in Asia and Africa, if spammers did feel Gmail accounts were worth it they weren't that much to create. Neither Gmail nor Outlook are selling it to anyone of course, or any other such nonsense. Incidently, many sites which very strongly encourage 2FA do have a skip somewhere, it's just fairly small and easy to miss and they may prompt you every login or something. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] suggests it could potentially be an anti spam measure but is only triggered when you push the limits. (Unfortunately one of those limits may be hit by an obvious first step with a new email address namely e-mailing contacts to tell them of your address.) BTW, one thing which doesn't seem to be addressed in the discussion is I don't believe Microsoft nor Google require mobile numbers. Land line numbers are fine. They've had voice verification for a few years nowadays. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Servant of Two Masters Play

The following sentences refer to Beatrice's beloved cat, but I cannot find a reference to it in the script (google servant of two masters script to find several).

He is always complaining of an empty stomach, and always trying to satisfy his hunger by eating everything and anything in sight. In one famous scene, it is implied that he eats Beatrice's beloved cat.

I have searched numerous scripts, but since the actors of the Commedia made up their own dialogue, perhaps the author can provide a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_Two_Masters

TIA, 108.9.134.139 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Ron Tornambe[reply]

The information was added by an editor using an IP address, back in 2009. That IP address hasn't been used to edit here in six years, so I doubt you'll get a response from "the author". I'll assume you're correct, and remove the claim. --Dweller (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good database website that talks about lgbt books for adults that are non sexual explict

I found this great website http://www.leewind.org/ which is a great website for teens. It has alot of categories for example; Queer People of Color, Transgender Fantasy ect. I'm looking for a website that has a great database for adults. I am 31 afterall. Venustar84 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for fiction or non-fiction? This is the sort of thing (databases) I would call my local reference librarian about, they usually have lots of different ones at their fingertips, and with a membership you can often access those databases yourself. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a booklist [2] from the American Library Association, 71 books in various categories, published 2012-13. Other relevant resources and previous lists on the sidebar of the page. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for fiction. Venustar84 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping white spirit on bugs

I decided to do some informal experiments. I splashed a good dollop of white spirit. I found that both honey and bumble bees appear to stop working after having the stuff poured on them. Any idea why? Otherwise, woodlice seem to shrug it off without much bother.

Sadly, I didn't come across any slugs. That would have been particularly interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.177.118 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White spirit is apparently a type of paint thinner, for anyone as unsure as I was. It's listed as a "central nervous system depressant", presumably for humans, but it sounds like it may have that effect on bees, too. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you might want to stop killing bees. See Colony collapse. Dismas|^(talk) 06:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, you've clearly never done any DIY, if you're confused by white spirit. Anyway, OP, stop killing things! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a US/UK split. We just call it "paint thinner" in the USA mostly, though admittedly that term is less specific. Mineral spirits is another term that we hear far more in the USA. So for all I know Stu uses it all the time, just calls it a different name. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most insects have a film of hydrocarbons on their cuticle. Woodlice are not insects, they are crustaceans. My guess is that that has something to do with it. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their respiration systems are also different; as isopods, woodlice respire through appendages on their abdomen rather than through spiracles. That could be a factor as well. Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the header as a new way of dealing with one of our favourite regulars. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]