Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 September 9

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.

September 9

Female settlers west bank pictures

Is there a website where they show pictures of female settlers, especially those who wear sandals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.45 (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Struggling with WP:AGF here because this comes across as creepy. My response would therefore be YES. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So, um, I guess something like hotwestbanksettlerswearingsandals.com Submissive Arab foot fetishists: feel "raped" by Israeli settlers?

If that URL really works and that's on there verbatim then OMG. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't know, you can find tons of images by searching on google images for /west bank settlers women/, like so [1]. (Nobody is compelled to respond here. We are WP:NOTCENSORED and 'creepy' questions deserve refs too!) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did give a reference. The user asked a yes/no question, which I answered, with a reference. --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dweller, may I provide a reference to your reference? This even has the same answer (both in text and image). - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 09:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mobile phone questions

First, has the UK code for mobile phones always been 07?

Second, why do mobile phones have numbers with regular country calling codes whilst satellite phones don't?--Leon (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For your first, no they were changed as part of the Big Number Change in 2000. Nanonic (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There were some changes to the structure in 2000, but mobile phone numbers still began with 07 (070 then 077, 078 and 079) from 1995. See Telephone_numbers_in_the_United_Kingdom#New_personal_numbers_with_revenue-share_start_using_070 Dbfirs 06:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the second, because cell networks (and in particular, the transmitters) are within a country and so are integrated into that country's telephone system; whereas satellite networks are not in any country. See Global Mobile Satellite System. --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When your mobile phone is abroad, it becomes a guest of the network it has connected to. It is allocated a temporary phone number on that network, and your home network is informed of this, setting up a redirect for incoming calls. CS Miller (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Work at home edu (www.wahedu.net)

I can't seem to find out anything about the validity of work at home projects from this company Work at home EDU-(www.wahedu.net). Supposedly they have an A+ rating with the BBB, but I can't find them listed with the BBB. Also, they list as seen on MSN NBC, ABC, Fox News, USA Today, and CNN, but I can't find anything on these websites. Any information would be helpful2601:1:AC80:13FE:9420:5E4D:B41:DE9C (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a review for Work At Home Edu on ScamXposer, for what its worth (spoiler: rated as "scam")[2] —Btw, BBB rating for ScamXposer = A+  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, ScamXposer itself looks creepy as heck. I don't believe for a second that the sites it endorses are not paying for the endorsement. The Better Business Bureau is kind of a dodgy organization too. An A+ rating just means ScamXposer pays the BBB for membership and no one has filed a complaint against it with the BBB. And I'm sure wahedu.net is a scam also. I'm not sure there's such a thing as a work-at-home web site that isn't a scam at some level. Even if they technically offer paid work, their ultimate goal is to prey on the desperate. -- BenRG (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the skepticism around ScamXposer. On the linked page they have a few recommendations for "legitimate" work-at-home work. For one, their write-ups are as vague and titillating sounding as descriptions of actual scams. And two, doing a search for their recommended programs yields a number of other sites reporting those recommended programs as scams themselves. In this case, I'd say that the scam site is a scam itself in that it's trying to dissuade people from signing up for other scams in favor of its own scams. Dismas|^(talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• There are a few work-from-home distributed work sites that are reputable, but generally they are associated with reputable companies. See Amazon Mechanical Turk generally gets good ratings; though criticisms are leveled against it, none of them amount to the service being a "scam" per se. --Jayron32 16:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've had a few problems with Freelancer.com (Freelancer.ca in my case) - relatively high commissions (paid upfront by me#$!), mediocre support, clunky website - but getting paid for my work hasn't been one of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)