Miscellaneous desk
< February 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

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.

March 1

How much lies are too much for a CV?

For example: Instead of "part-time from jan. to jun." just "Worker from jan. to jun." (without specifying how long) or instead of a period "self-employed with VERY little projects", just putting "self-employed from x to y". Or, if "studied biology without completing a degree for 3 years", just saying "studied biology for 3 years". Is that acceptable? Wikiweek (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ignoring any ethical/moral considerations, "too many" lies would be the number of lies it takes for the HR representative to realize that you have sent them a bogus CV. This might be one lie, this might be one hundred, it depends on the field, the competence of the HR representative(s) involved, and your ability to falsify and then convincingly lie in support of your CV. As a point of example, last year I had a young lady include the minor note on her CV that she spoke Japanese as a second language. It just so happened that I spoke Japanese as a second language. I opened her interview by greeting her in a traditional Japanese fashion and her mouth hung agape. She was completely unable to speak so much as one word of Japanese. It was a lie, full-stop. Needless to say, she wasn't hired. The Masked Booby (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't just have to fool HR. If you get the job and it is later found out that you lied during the application process, that is grounds for immeadiate dismissal (even if you've done a really good job). I would say that even one lie is too many. By all means, portray the truth in the best possible light, but it does need to be true. As for your example, if the young lady in question had done some research she would have found numerous websites with CV writing tips that include "don't say on your CV that you speak a language if you wouldn't be comfortable having a short conversation with the interviewer in that language". --Tango (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) None of those things are lies, maybe just not the whole truth, but then, the job market is not a courthouse. If you worked in a part-time job from February to March 2010 and haven't worked since, there's nothing wrong with saying in your resume that your last job was at company X in 2010, period; because that statement is a true statement. If they ask you for details, then tell them. The point of a resume is to get you an interview, and in a buyer's market an interview is an achievement in itself. As long as you don't say anything on your resume that is blatantly false, you can make your case as persuasively as you like. You can write things in the knowledge that the reader will probably read it a certain way, even though that's not exactly how it was. So, in the above example, they will probably assume you were at company X for most or all of 2010. You are not responsible for the assumptions others make, even if you are secretly hoping they will make them. Is this a moral/ethical question? Undoubtedly. This is just my take. But I'm a professional employment consultant in "real life", and I have some experience in advising clients how to make the very best first impression they can, because the first impression others have of you (whether it's a personal meeting or a resume that's arrived by email or post) lingers far longer than later impressions. I'm amazed schools don't teach kids that anymore. Progress, eh. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really true about first impressions? How true? What if you make a really good second impression? One thing that has always struck me about advice for writing CVs and conducting yourself in interviews is the amount of hysteria and superstition, things which feature in advice in all fields where the outcomes are to a high degree stochastic (or where the connection between the action and the outcome is unverifiable) - it all rather resembles a "system" for making money when you bet on horses. 81.131.65.79 (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't make a great first impression, there's every possibility that you won't get any chance to make a second impression. That's the practical reality here. But let's say you are given that second chance. The first impression is the benchmark against which the second one is judged; if there's an improvement, they'll think "Oh, he can dress well after all", or "Oh, he can string a sentence together after all" - but they'll still be left wondering whether the first encounter was atypical, or whether the first one was the typical performance they should be expecting and the second one was the atypical one. On the other hand, if the second impression was worse than the first, they're likely to put it down to nerves or whatever because their sole experience of you up till that time is of someone who does better than that. They were expecting better, and they will continue to expect better, because that first impression is what counts. I don't know what "stochastic" means in this context, but there's plenty of research about how short a space of time it takes for someone who's never met you before to form an impression of you - about 5 seconds. This particularly applies in interview situations. So, well before the time they've even asked their first question, they've already got an impression, which could be as strong as "There's no way I'm going to hire this guy". Hence all the advice about dressing and grooming well, smelling good, making eye contact, remembering to smile, giving them a firm handshake, etc. If it didn't make any difference to the outcome, it wouldn't matter - but it does. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with prior, but here's what might be a useful rule of thumb: if during an interview you would have no qualms providing the whole truth face-to-face with someone for whom you really want to work, then it's probably okay. When I see "studied for 3 years" without any indication of a degree, then I see that for what it is - I might ask why no degree was completed, and I watch the person's reaction. -- Scray (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends how checkable your partial statements are, what the impact will be if you are caught out making them, and how you will look when forced into a position where you have to come clean. If company X still exists and is likely to be contacted for a reference, best to admit "part-time". If they are out of business, or if nobody's going to call them to confirm, then not putting it won't hurt. "Self-employed from 200X to 200Y" is no problem if you can honestly elaborate on some contracts you did have if you're asked at interview. "Studied biology for 3 years" is always going to look like weasel wording, and one simple question could have you squirming and looking shifty at interview. People who later get fired for lying on their job application tend to have put a blatant untruth, such as a nonexistent degree, in writing, and often the company started digging because it was looking for an excuse to fire them legally. Try to make the best of your story without straying over the border into lies, and you're doing what most other people do. Ka renjc 08:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I knew a guy who had a very bad employment record (took several jobs within a year and got let go for turning up late, hung over, etc). He went to a professional CV writer who wrote a CV that really shocked me because it was 100% true but made him sound like a prime candidate. It said "for this period XXX undertook contracts with the following companies: YYY where he worked on an ecommerce system. He was responsible for working to a high standard, and delivery of completed code within project timescales, successful testing"... The CV went on like this. Of course normal employment is a contract, but the way it was phrased made it sound as though he was a contract worker - explaining the many job switches. The thing that really got me was that a lot of things that "he was responsible for" came straight from the letters of dismissal - things he had not done. There was no denying that he was responsible for them though, he had it in writing! Of course his big hurdle was references, but I understand that many companies only give an "HR reference" now anyway, confirming that someone was employed. I have to say that it jaded my view of CVs from then on, if someone lists responsibilities and I am interviewing I always ask to what extent they met them. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:OR is that every company I have ever worked for has sternly told its employees that if they're contacted for a reference, they are only supposed to give that "HR reference"; but every time I have actually called up a reference, except once, they blab and blab; people seem to love to give out their opinions about other people. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Companies will only give minimum information, i.e. confirming dates of employment. Comments about the employee, be they good or bad, can come back to haunt the company making such statements. If an employee says something, they are giving only their personal opinion, not speaking for the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that an "HR reference" is two questions with yes-or-no answers: 1) "Did so-and-so work at your company with such-and-such a position between these dates?", and 2) "Is this person eligible to be re-hired?". If the answer to the second question is "no", it's a good indication that they were dismissed for cause. --Carnildo (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astonishing that some people lie about their linguistics abilities. One speaker and one minute time is all you need to uncover such lies. Quest09 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this watch company logo

Link: http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o98/JAP_DISC/Elgin/FK1129TI-B.jpg

Look at the Elgin USA logo on this watch, can you identify the company? Wikipedia has an article about an Elgin Watch Company that shut down in the 1960's and this watch looks much newer than that age. Does this company using the Elgin name have anything to do with that company? Can you positively identify the company of the watch in the picture? What's there website or address? Note: the watch in the picture is on of several similar mid-range quality watches, I believe they are or were popular in Japan, often carrying the words Titanium, Solar, the figure 8 infinity symbol, and Tachymeter on them, but I'm not sure if these are gimmicks or actually present features. Thanks for your input. The actual name of the company that makes these is most important! If any known connection with Elgin Watch Company is known, let me know. Roberto75780 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Elgin National Watch Company says, "The rights to the name "Elgin" were sold to a company called MZ Berger Inc, that specializes in manufacturing its watches in China and distributing them outside the traditional watch dealerships. Elgin-branded watches produced after 1964 have no other connection to Elgin or the Elgin Watch Company." Looie496 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have come accross the website for the watch in question, and the website is http://elgin-int.co.jp its a japanese company and the history section of their site (written in japanese) i only understood a reference to the same elgin company of illinois. my next question is, is this the company you are talking about that purchased the name rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

international beneficiary funding schemes

Dear Sir or Madam,
Do you know of any international beneficiary funding schemes that would pay all the costs for anykind of art project wether it involves painting, sculpture, photography, performance,environmental or land art,please?
I am looking forward to your reply.
Your's Sincerely,
Carwyn Rees
Date:1/3/2011
212.219.142.118 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts, an independent agency of the Federal Government, offers competitive grants. You can apply for a grant as an individual. You must meet certain eligibility requirements to even be considered, and these grants are not easy to obtain; but they are available. Nimur (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but they are available

All of the above is true.AerobicFox (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish version of the name Theodoric/Derek

Hello

Both the name Theodoric and the its derivative Derek are Germanic names yet I've been unable to find out if there is a Swedish version of either name. Do they exist and if not, would it be out of place for a Swede to be named Theodoric or Derek? I apologize if this seems like a trivial question but I do like some sort of factual accuracy in my writing even if it's from unconfirmed internet sources.

Thank you.

173.33.12.81 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be Didrik. Dirk is also a common variant. You can find it here: http://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Didrik. Also here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didrik. Theoderik, Theoderic or Theodoricus are historical forms only, apparently. --151.51.60.184 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Swede, the only one of those names that I would consider not foreign would be Didrik. Dirk and Derek would indicate that the person was likely named by English speakers. Theoderic sounds like an ancient Germanic king, or Theoden from Lord of the Rings, i.e. not a natural name for Sweden at the precent time. If you're looking for how common names are in Sweden, the resources from Statistics Sweden at [1] are very useful. There seem to be only 3-4 times as many Didriks as Dirks or Dereks, but the numbers are small for all three, and the latter two likely belong to those with a foreign heritage. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]