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.
Was just reading the article on Anastasia. There were four Grand dutchesses... So how come she's by far the most popular and well known one in popular culture? 199.29.247.15 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because she is the only one that was, for a time, thought to have survived the family's execution. RudolfRed (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a fair question to ask why she and not another of her sisters was thought to have survived, and why all the fakers and crazies assumed her identity and not theirs. Perhaps because she was the youngest? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every weekday, I get several phone calls from a few numbers - the same numbers every day. One comes up on my phone as "International", one is an 0161 number. We never answer. But they've been doing this for years. We used to answer, back in the day. They ask for specific people, who don't live here and never have; when we tell them as such, they hang up.
The obvious question; short of changing our number, how can we stop them? Some of the numbers are withheld.
But my second question is; why are they calling? I can't help but think that some company somewhere is paying a man to call us. Every day. For years. This is going to cost money. What kind of business pours this kind of money into an endeavour that is fruitless? So far they would have spent nine hours calling us (I just did the maths). Someone had to pay for that! And this must surely be happening to other people, too. They never stop calling when we tell them the person they're after isn't here. As this company has to call more and more people over time, surely some more of them are going to be unreachable, like the ones they call us to find. Isn't their system going to end up completely saturated with impossible phone calls sooner or later? I'm picturing a massive office block full of call centre operatives making identical phone calls to identical people, every single day... 90.193.232.42 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cant answer the first Q, but suggest you may be over-thinking the answer to Q2. Why are you worrying about their costs and system? 'why are they calling?', just ask them - how would any of us know? Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Registering with TPS won't help if the company thinks the number has been given to them by a customer etc. It's only applicable to cold calling. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone with a bit of an insight into this industry, I recommend you answer the call evasively and find out who it is calling you. Googling the 0161 number will usually help, too. You can then write to them, demanding they stop contacting you and suggesting a two month period for them to sort out their bureaucracy, following which you will invoice them on a regular basis with a £1 administration fee every time they contact you, which you are prepared to pursue through the courts. That should stop it. Incidentally, if you're not answering the phone, you can't be sure if it's 1, 2 or 20 different companies contacting you. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and registering, as suggested above, with the TPS will help reduce such calls, although it won't prevent them. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your picture is accurate; hundreds of workers in low-wage countries, working for a call-centre outsourcing agency which buys international call time wholesale, at a great discount. Like all spammers, their business model relies on some proportion of calls being converted to a sale. I agree with you that it does seem like an uneconomic system for them, even given their low costs, but they must be connecting to enough people somehow for it to work for them. The sad thing is that some calls are from downright scammers, who have suckers lists (usually of elderly or other vulnerable people) who've been scammed before and who the scammers think they can dupe out of more money. As one scammer resells his sucker-list to other scammers, those people who you're getting calls for may be in that tawdry call-list. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this. Registering with TPS will help and should block the 0161 number, or you can ask your service provider if they can block the number for you. The TPS can only block calls from call centres in the UK, though: you will still get the Indian scammers call, but what I do is hang up or tell them I'm registered with the TPS and they're breaking the law by calling me. They usually hang up. On my mobile which is Android based, I downloaded an app called Mr Number which blocks numbers calling me, it's free and easy to use, but I don't think it works on a landline, so asking your service provider for help is your best bet. As for the mechanics of such things, there is (of course) a computer program set up to dial numbers at random. People sit in a call centre waiting for the number to come up on their screen as "answered" and then they will read their script. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB don't try blowing a whistle down the phone. It's a widely publicised idea and a very bad one. The caller is probably wearing headphones and you could seriously injure their hearing. If they're not in the UK, they're probably being exploited and you're getting your revenge on the wrong person. If they are in the UK, even worse, you could end up being prosecuted. If you want to irritate them, take a long time answering their questions. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone said the other day in response to the question of why bars play loud music, it's pointless to ask why businesses behave in the way that they do. The fact is, if it didn't make sense for them to do it, they wouldn't be doing it. Businesses do not act against their own best interests. --Viennese Waltz 13:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be true in the big picture sense, but it doesn't necessarily apply at the micro level. When businesses become aware that a certain practice is not working for them, they will change it, but by definition there was a period before then during which they were operating a practice that was unsound. That period may have been a few days or a number of years. Sometimes, businesses do ridiculous things forever, because their internal operations are so complex that some things never come to the attention of anyone in a position to do anything about them. Or, because their customer feedback systems are, well, crap, and people complain but nothing ever gets fixed. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 13:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be pointless to ask why businesses do things the way they do? Even if you believe that they always act in their best interests (and I agree with Jack that that is a false assumption), surely it would be interesting to ask why those things are in their best interests? Warofdreamstalk 15:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that your number is mistakenly listed in a customer database, as mentioned previously. When the people call that number to try to make a sale, and discover that the number is no good, they are either unable or unwilling to fix it. There might be a procedure to follow to make a change, say submitting some form to the appropriate department, but they won't be paid for their time to fill out the form, and may even be punished or fired for making fewer calls that hour.
This is the type of thing that falls under a diseconomy of scale. That is, large corporations often do things which are not in their interest, because the interest of the individuals or departments are not properly aligned with the overall goals of the company. In this case, the sole goal of the person who calls and their department is to make sales, and correcting the customer database is unimportant to them, even though this is important to the company overall.
Hopefully eventually their database will be so poor that they will either correct it or go out of business. You might also want to contact the phone company, explain the situation, and have those numbers blocked. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or if he has a VOIP system, he might be able to do it himself. As regards these telemarketers' business models, here's the deal: They don't have to sell anything to you in particular. They just have to sell to somebody. It's what I call the "carpet bombing" approach to marketing. Fire enough darts and you're liable to hit something. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time when I got a lot of calls for [name redacted], unknown to me, whose bum cheques showed my phone number. (My then wife suspected that [redacted] was our obnoxious neighbor's girlfriend.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has recently called the BT "nuisance calls" helpline, I can tell you that if you are already exdirectory and on the TPS "no call" list, there is nothing further they will do. If you want the ability to block specific numbers, you have to subscribe to an extra service. As the calls come from overseas, they say there is nothing they can do. Technically, I'm sure they could, but maybe politically it is hard. Anyway, you can call the "nuisance calls" helpline listed on te BT website, if you're with BT, but don't get hopeful. 86.161.209.111 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than saying "he doesn't live here" and hanging up, how about engaging the caller for a long time, trying to find out why they are calling and then explaining (to the call centre manager if necessary) that they are wasting their time and if they remove your number from their database they won't be wasting anyone's time by calling you again. If they do call again, remind them of the same conversation, again and again if necessary. I think UK companies are obliged to remove your number from their database if you request it. Do register with TPS - I did and now get no calls from telemarketers. You might ultimately need to change your number. Astronaut (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat doubt trying to explain to them they are wasing their time would make any difference. Perhaps it'll be fun once or twice but I expect it'll quickly get old and you'll find yourself effectively wasting even more time then you have to. Particularly since per this discussion, the most likely problem would be with non UK call centres. (If you've ever dealt with such call centres, you probably know they tend to stay on script whatever you try to say. And it's quite doubtful the people calling have the authority to remove you from any list nor are you likely to be able to get thru to their manager.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gah!! I'm not really asking a question, I am just making an apology. I made a bit of a tiny mess in section "Aircraft in Fiction" under "F-104 Starfighter" Your text editor was behaving strangely, and didn't post the material I had written, so I went back in, to try again, only this time, it deleted the previous post, in the section I was editing, and replaced it with my entry. My apologies to the individual who made the entry in reference to Chuck Yeager's involvement with NF-104 test program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.78.44 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave your Q it's own section it's own title. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Did you try to "View History" (near the top of the screen, pops up when you mouse over the down arrow) and then revert the edit ? StuRat (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all been cleaned up. No probs. Thanks 174.88 --Tagishsimon(talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Difference between "Marxist-Leninst" and "Communist"?
The query has arisen at Talk:Nazism as to whether the DDR, which specified that it was "Marxist-Leninst" in its constitution, can properly be referred to as "Communist". Is there any substantive cavil to using the term with regard to the DDR as being essentially equivalent? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The normal way "Communism" is defined, I wouldn't think there's any practical difference. As they were a Soviet puppet, whatever the USSR was is presumably what the DDR was. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, you aren't a scholar of socialism, and when I want right wing opinions on socialism, I turn to an actual scholar such as Leszek Kołakowski's work. I'd recommend Kołakowski's Main Currents of Marxism to Collect for this point actually. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing??? Bite your tongue, son. Them's fightin' words to this liberal American patriot. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, you come across in this dicussion and the criticism of america discussion, above, as a clueless american idiot rather than liberal american patriot. So many people ask you to stop adding your vacuous point of view to RD questions you are manifestly and demonstrably unable to answer. But you continue on. Very depressing. --Tagishsimon(talk) 10:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It substantially depends on the terminology being used in wikipedia's voice. Does "Communism" mean a society without labour control and cost accounting, per Marx, the utopians, the anarchists, etc? Or does Communism mean Soviet Power plus Electrification (to paraphrase Lenin in a suitably hostile manner)? I would suggest using more nuanced terms, "actually existing socialism" is a widely used term in the literature. Moreover, IIRC, the DDR never claimed it moved beyond "socialism" into "communism" even using the hackneyed ideas. Finally "Communism" is not a coherent ideology. "Marxism-Leninism" is a coherent ideology, even if used in differing ways. It clearly refers to descendants of Stalinist ideology in the 1930s (China, DDR); it has a bunch of commonly agreed interpretive attitudes towards Marx and social change. etc. etc. It can be contrasted with "Eurocommunism," and doesn't involve any confusion regarding the ideology of the SED. If we're talking about the governance of the DDR, then I'd suggest "Stalinism" or "actually existing socialism," if we're talking about the ideology of the SED I'd suggest "Stalinism" or "actually existing socialism." But in an article on the SED I'd expect much more nuance, such as the early difficulties with forcing social democrats and left communists into obeying the line, etc., or the history and composition of the non-SED parties as fundamental to the structure of the SED itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion is "DAP ?" then it is generally confused and non-expert. Given that the discussion is tending towards the actual composition of the SED in the DDR, I'd suggest that the broadscope terms often used are radically insufficient. The actual history of the SED, including the Stalinisation of the KPD and the gross failures of the SPD need to be considered. It is too complex to paper over with "Marxist-Leninist," or "Communist." The absence, for example of the 4th and 5th congresses from our article Socialist Unity Party of Germany is problematic, given that this would be the period of consolidation of pro-Soviet line SED communists against "national" or "humanist" communists (per the situation elsewhere). Compare to the detail in the "Early History" section about the actuality of inner party life being a conflict between KPD and SPD activists. So if this is the terrain you're interested in, you need a factional history of the SED. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DDR 1968 Constitution defines it as "Marxist-Leninist" which I submit is dispositive as to what the DDR Constitution states. One can easily argue that no "Communist" state has ever been actually "communist" but that is not the issue at hand. And neither Bugs nor I are "right wing" so that sort of aside is pretty non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know regarding your opinion, Collect, which is why I haven't referred to it. Bugs has made his opinion regarding private property known to me, at length, during other discussions and it was both apt and pertinent to comment on given the nature of his reply. I recommended Kołakowski to you solely for his scholarly benefits. The chief problem with using the DDR's own conception of itself is that states' public and constitutional definitions often fail to reflect their social reality, a phenomena widely remarked upon in the literature regarding states and ideologies. I would propose putting trust in political scientists and political historian's opinions of a particular state, both for encyclopaedism and for what actually happened, with more emphasis being placed on opinions by persons more expert in a particular state. Regarding the SED, again, I would propose trusting histories of the party, and major analytical frameworks such as Main Currents of Marxism rather than the party's own suggestions. Leading parties in Central Europe in the mid to late 20th century often obscured the real nature of their politics, and deep internal divisions. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fifelfoo has a point. Few people consider DPRK or many countries with the word 'democratic' somewhere in their name good examples of democracies[2], nor do they go by what the constitution says. (Some military dictatorships and similar disown or otherwise say the constitution no longer applies when they take over, others claim it's still in force but ignore it all the time.) So if you're like most people, it's unclear why you would call a country communist just because they call themselves such, but not call a country a democracy even when they call themselves such. In other words, it seems it does make sense to consider what you actually mean by 'communist' and whether the country falls in to that category, the same way you do for 'democratic' and probably other descriptive terms for countries rather then treating 'communist' as a special term that applies to any country that calls themselves as such unlike other terms. (I mean if Jorge Rafael Videla had a sense of humour or something and decided Argentina should be called the Communist Argentine Republic, would you really be saying Argentina under him was 'communist'?) Note that this doesn't mean you have to follow a definition of communist or communism which means no country has ever been communist. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
