Miscellaneous desk
< June 5	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 7 >

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 6

38 foot tidal variation？

“The scene on Alang's 6-mile-long beach seems the stuff of nightmares. Because of a 38-foot tidal variation, vessels meeting their end can sail straight onto its sand, no need for expensive docks.“

Don't know much about maritime matters so can anyone help me figure out what the 38 foot tidal variation is and why it opens the path for vessels to hit the beach?

Interpretationneeded (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They mean Tidal range. For Alang, this page claims a tidal range of at least 10m, which is roughly 32 feet - some less reliable sources claim 13m. When the tidal range is greater that the draught of a vessel they can wait until high tide, move the ship in until it's grounded (and they anchor it to keep it there) and when the tide goes out they're high and dry on the beach. A bigger range lets you do this with bigger ships. 87.112.36.202 (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, as this is the ship's last trip, they can completely un-balast the ship beforehand, so she rides as high in the water as possible. This way, when she's grounded, she's as far up the beach as they can get her. She'd be so unstable as to be unseaworthy, but as she's on the cusp of scrappage no-one will care. 87.112.36.202 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This technique is similar to that used for landing stuff from a Landing Ship, Tank in WW2, where friendly harbours were unavailable. Except the LSTs refloated on the next tide, rather than being scrapped. 87.112.36.202 (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer thanks. The last ride sounds dangerous. How far does the vessel usually have to go before hitting the beach? Interpretationneeded (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This YouTube video and this one too, show the deliberate grounding of large ships on the beach for the purposes of breaking. Seems they are all unloaded and riding high in the water and then come in a quite a speed, presumably to get up the beach as far as possible. One of the comments says the crew are taken off at low tide using the pilot's ladders. Astronaut (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countries that do not need an International driving permit for India

Are there any people of countries who are close neighbours of India that do not need an international Driving Permit to drive in India eg The MaldiveS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.179.47 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwiches

I have a question regarding sandwiches. First, I have come to understand that a sandwich is a food item consisting of two slices of white bread, with fillings of meat and vegetables between them. Now, the article sandwich has an interwiki link to fi:voileipä, but I'll have you know that in Finland, a voileipä (literally: bread with butter) refers to any kind of sliced bread, usually (but not necessarily) buttered, regardless of the grain the bread is made of (Finns also like to eat much rye bread, which I don't normally associate with "sandwiches"), the number of slices (there usually is only one), or the fillings, if any - a typical Finnish voileipä has a slice of cheese and a slice of sausage, but it's also common to just have the cheese, without any sausage or other meat. Vegetables are seldom used. To me, "sandwich" seems too specific for voileipä. Is there any more appropriate term? Second, I have seen "sandwich" used interchangeably for "hamburger". To me, a hamburger is a sandwich made of a soft bun, with a slice of grilled ground meat, vegetables, and sauces inside it, thus not just any sandwich. Therefore "sandwich" seems too general for "hamburger". Is it really that common to call hamburgers "sandwiches"? JIP | Talk 19:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always translated voileipä (for people who aren't familiar with the concept) as "open faced sandwich", which could be a US-ism (and I disagree with the rather narrow definition given in the article). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to has an interwiki link to sv:smörgås, which claims a smörgås is a slice of bread with one or more toppings. This is more or less equivalent with the Finnish voileipä, although I am not sure whether it is exactly equivalent. The picture in the Swedish article shows two smörgås, which are similar to the food items Finns usually associate with voileipä, which is unlike (but not too distantly related) to the English sandwich. I am quite sure the Finnish article fi:voileipä should be interwiki-linked to open sandwich instead of sandwich. JIP | Talk 20:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Detroit, I would never call a hamburger a sandwich. If you look on restaurant menus, they are usually in separate sections. I also use "open-faced sandwich" to refer to the variation which only one piece of bread underneath. Note that one version of this is served on a plate with sufficient gravy to make the bread into what the British might call a pudding, requiring that it be eaten with utensils. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That seems a bit idiosyncratic. Many people would consider a hamburger a type of sandwich, see [1] Just because the name "sandwich" isn't in the standard name, doesn't mean it isn't one. After all, few call it a BLT sandwich. You just say "a BLT" or "a cheesesteak" or "a meatball sub" or "a reuben". They're all still sandwiches. A sandwich is stuff served on bread. Sometimes its two slices, sometimes it's a larger piece of bread split partway down the middle, and sometimes it is just lieing under the stuff (like an open-faced sandwich). The fact that sandwich isn't in the name doesn't change what it is. --Jayron32 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If somebody here asked if I had a sandwich for lunch, the answer would be "No, I had a burger instead". StuRat (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there are some parts of the Anglophone world where if you order "a coke" in a restaurant, they ask you "what kind?" The English language is a fantastically diverse thing, and different does not mean wrong. --Jayron32 22:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid Q even if you do take it to mean "Which cola from the Coca-Cola company would you like ?". The answers could be "regular Coke", "diet Coke", "Cherry Coke", etc. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I can't imagine any Britisher calling a slice of bread in gravy a pudding. We'd probably call it a mistake, or perhaps nasty foreign muck, but not pudding. As for sandwiches, any kind of bread will do (not just white bread), and a sandwich without a top is an open sandwich. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pudding" in British English is a synonym for dessert. The only thing I can think of that is like an open sandwich in gravy that is eaten with utensils is beans on toast (and that isn't gravy, it's tomato sauce). I wouldn't normally call that a sandwich, but I suppose you could if you really wanted to. --Tango (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except when it isn't. --Jayron32 20:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant, and there are other savory British "puddings", like a Rag Pudding or Dock pudding or Pease pudding or Red pudding. A Yorkshire pudding is something like an open-faced sandwich with sliced chicken/sliced turkey/chipped beef and gravy, and a Summer pudding is a dessert with the same concept of wet stuff served on bread to make "pudding". StuRat (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chipped beef? Never heard of it! What part of Yorkshire does that come from? Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Americans know it by the name "shit." Not sure what people from Yorkshire call it. --Jayron32 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, a Yorkshire Pudding is nothing like a sandwich; it's a baked batter pudding similar to a popover, only generally much larger. It is not, and does not contain, bread, nor is it usually served cold at a buffet - so it isn't a sandwich or smörgås. In England, it's usually (but not invariably) served as part of a larger meal such a roast beef and vegetables. In American cuisine, other foods such as grits might be used in a corresponding context. In Sweden, where they call the same dish pankaka (sp?) it's generally eaten like other pancakes - with sugar, jam, cream, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and creamed chipped beef on toast isn't anything like a traditional sandwich either, but could still be called an "open (face) sandwich" by some. And baked wheat batter soaked in gravy isn't all that different from bread soaked in gravy. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As our article says, the word sandwich is used to refer to two slices of bread (of any kind) with just about any kind of filling between them, or even just one slice of bread with a topping (generally called an open sandwich). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(many ecs)The notion that a sandwich requires two slices of white bread is just wrong; take for example the Reuben sandwich, which is nearly always served on rye, or even pumpernickel. Regarding the term "hamburger sandwich" - the term does have historic meaning, but is probably considered archaic today. Originally, a "hamburg steak" or "hamburger steak" was just a bit of formed, minced beef. Putting that between two slices of bread, or onto a bun, is what made it a hamburger sandwich. More detail can be found in History of the hamburger, if you want to slog through a stereotypically overwritten Wikipedia article. A hamburger is a type of sandwich, simply by definition, but will commonly be grouped separately on a menu. --LarryMac | Talk 20:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally make a distinction between a sandwich and hamburger, hotdogs, etc. To me a sandwich implies sliced bread cut from a loaf, as opposed to other forms of "bread" like buns, pita, etc. Calling anything that is not dessert a "pudding" is a peculiar "Britishism" to me, (aiui British cuisine includes several savoury "puddings" but most are in fact desserts). I'm South African. Roger (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Roger on this, and I'm British. Hot Dogs, stuffed pitta and burgers in buns are not sandwiches. Neither is anything on or in crispbread or crackers or scones or vol au vent cases or even bridge rolls (which are, of course, utterly evil). Jews refer to Hillel's sandwich, a marvellous anachronism for something no sane person would ever eat without being compelled by religion... and as it uses matza, it's not a sandwich, either. --Dweller (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this reference clearly calls the pita-bread-stuffed-with-falafel thing a sandwich. It would not be the only time I have heard such a description. This search shows that many common, reliable sources refer to foods stuffed inside of pita bread as "sandwiches". --Jayron32 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to eat that, I'd feel awful. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

(ec)I agree with Roger and Dweller, something "inabun" is not a sandwich. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Jayron, just because foreigners call something a sandwich doesn't mean that British people have to. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shonuff. Just don't think that the word "English" is restricted to a singular dialect. The British variety of English may have certain meanings for words, and it doesn't mean that any of the other dozens of widespread standard dialects necessarily do. --Jayron32 22:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds refers to chicken in a bun as a sandwich.[2] Our hamburger article refers to them as also known as hamburger sandwiches. English usage varies widely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty bloody obvious if one reads the Etymology section of the Sandwich article. It is said that John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich asked his valet for "meat tucked between two pieces of bread". That's the origin, and it's what sandwich still means in places speaking UK versions of English or similar. (That includes my country, Australia.) That Americans lost a slice of bread somewhere is their problem. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Etymological fallacy. Just because a word had a different meaning in an older variety of English doesn't make its usage in a different variety of English incorrect. Or more to the point: just because you don't use a word to mean something doesn't mean that others will not. And that they do, doesn't make them incorrect. --Jayron32 22:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the part of my post that said "...it's what sandwich still means in..." Of course I'm aware of language evolving, but it hasn't evolved the same way everywhere, and to evolve the way it has in America just means somebody there got it wrong at some stage, and a lot of other people copied the mistake. I can accept the difference, Can Americans? HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you ascribe normative value to difference. Or in simpler terms: being different doesn't make it wrong, and didn't make it wrong at any time. You've made your disdain for American things plain in your other dealings elsewhere at Wikipedia, and you continue it here. Being American doesn't make it a priori wrong. Neither does being different in any way. Different is not wrong. --Jayron32 23:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I said. It's not wrong now. Just different. But a sandwich certainly started out as requiring two slices of bread, so to get that difference someone in America had to get it wrong at some stage long ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the first person to broaden the meaning of a word isn't "wrong", they are being creative and expanding the language. StuRat (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language, of course, is free to evolve. What would you call an open-face sandwich ? StuRat (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it an open sandwich. There are many variations on the original concept of the sandwich HiLo refers to, but they all require a descriptor or qualifier. If I was told "The suspect was apprehended while eating a sandwich", I would imagine him eating something made from 2 pieces of bread with some filling inside, and I think most people would also get that. This is the default meaning of "sandwich". If in fact it was an open sandwich or a Reuben or a hamburger or a hotdog or whatever else, we should have been told that explicitly, because it's not reasonable to expect people to understand that without that specific information. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's an open sandwich. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then, even you admit that not all sandwiches have 2 slices of bread. Incidentally, going the other way, a club sandwich has 3 slices of bread, and a Dagwood sandwich has as many as you want. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a Dagwood would be a sandwich sandwich. Mingmingla (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK and Australia at least, all sandwiches have two slices of bread, just the way the word was first used, unless the word is qualified by some additional explanatory adjective. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's pretty much the same in the US. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should get a (an?) Hawaiian's opinion on this matter. Incidentally, while browsing lightly through that marvellous book "Do Ants Have Arseholes?" ... and 101 other bloody ridiculous questions (which, btw, is required reading for all Ref Desk Regulars, if you didn't already know), I was reminded of such culinary wonders as "The Breadless Sandwich" and even "The Foodless Sandwich" (p. 172, "What's the perfect sandwich?"). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon if I've asked you this before... but what's your opinion of the Aussie product called "Vegimite"? Tasty? Yucky? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vegemite is definitely tasty, but it's easy to overdo it. For those who just don't get it, I recommend spreading some toast with butter (not margarine) and a thinnish scrape of Vegemite. But not so thin that you can barely see it or taste it. On the other hand, if it's so thick that you can't see the toast underneath, it's too thick, and that's when it becomes yucky. It's like salt: a little bit can be essential to bringing out the flavour of a dish, but add too much and you've got a disaster on your hands, and in your mouth. You need more Vegemite than just a pinch of salt, but there's still a limit. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I've checked out the article, be guided by the photo. I'd probably have just a little less Vegemite than that shown, but it's a very personal thing. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything you could compare the taste to? Its name suggests it should have a vegetable taste, but I'm a tad skeptical of that assumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My North American palate finds it horrible. Wayyyyy too salty. Mingmingla (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Salty is not the overriding experience I've ever got from Vegemite, and I don't like things that are too salty. What I know is that products sell or not depending on whether people actually like them, not just because their parents and grandparents liked them. Children are notoriously picky eaters, and if Mummy tells Johnny he'll be punished if he doesn't eat what's put in front of him, that will never make him like it. But Aussie kids have always loved Vegemite, hence its fantastic success. It's not an acquired taste, like beetroot or asparagus or chillies or beer - they like it the very first time they ever eat it. And they don't stop eating it when they become adults either. Aussie kids and adults do not have taste buds that are any different from anyone else's, and our cuisine is generally comparable to those of all the other anglo countries, so I'm really not understanding why other countries' people have such a different experience of Vegemite. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vegemite customs, the image pictured at Vegemite contains way way way too little vegemite for my tastes. Cynically I would suggest that Australian children love Vegemite because it is made of beer. Less ironically, Marmite and Promite appear to be fundamentally similar products in other anglophone countries. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume being exposed to it as children is important. Kids will eat bugs, too, if nobody tells them it's gross. StuRat (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they'll try anything, even their own excrement. But if the taste actually revolts them, they stop immediately and spit it out. I've never heard of any Australian child actually having this experience with Vegemite. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(lightbulb moment) It occurs to me that some people with no experience of it might have tried a teaspoonful by itself, to see whether or not they like it, because that would work for jam and peanut butter and all sorts of other spreads, so why not try Vegemite that way. All I can say is that Vegemite eaten by itself, even in very small quantities, would be way too strong and salty for most people. I think that must account for the very negative reaction we typically hear from Americans and others. Vegemite really must be combined with some other food, typically toast and butter. It was never meant to be eaten by itself, and again I'll use the salt analogy. Even a tiny pinch of salt tastes uber-salty and most unappealing, but no cook worth his, er, salt would consider doing without it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the salt content, I can distinctly remember a fuss around 30 years ago when strong anti-salt campaigning across the board led to the salt content of Vegemite being reduced at the time. So it used to be even saltier. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me ... the best sandwich filling is Vegemite with Smiths potato crisps (says he whose 6th great grandfather was Lord Sandwich, the inventer of the sandwich). Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you make sure to use salted butter too. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, HiLo48, I make sure I avoid using salted butter as it isnt good for my high blood pressure. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Republicans in the US will introduce a Constitutional Amendment stating "A sandwich is only a union of two opposite pieces of bread." :-) StuRat (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I have changed the interwiki link on fi:voileipä to go to open sandwich instead of sandwich, and updated the corresponding interwiki links to the Finnish Wikipedia here on the English Wikipedia as well. There are a lot of other interwiki links on the articles too, but I don't want to go through all of them. I just fear that some bot will now notice that the interwiki links now point to different articles than those on language X Wikipedia do, and will revert my changes. JIP | Talk 18:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I would disagree that most countries using a UK variant, which would include the US, use such a narrow definition of sandwich as you did, "meat tucked between two pieces of bread". Now I know that you emphasised two but the implication is there that a sandwich is defined by having only meat. So things like a cucumber sandwich and the others listed at Category:British sandwiches contain items other than meat. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive difference between UK English and US English. But I agree about the contents. It can be almost anything these days. Now we can start discussing whether folks in the UK or Australia would ever eat a jelly sandwich. (The answer is no.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hilo48. Basically anything you can eat sandwiched between two slices of bread or some equivalent is a sandwich, based on the origin with the earl. Also, look up butterbrot. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that means you can have a sandwich without any bread. I was recently introduced to the Ramen noodle sandwich, which must be eaten quickly after making, or it fall apart. (My favorite filling is tuna.) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally eat food between two leaves of iceberg lettuce if I do not want or have bread. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see my reference above to "The Breadless Sandwich" and even "The Foodless Sandwich"? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is a huge difference between UK and US English but it is still a variant, see American English. By the way when you say jelly do you mean Gelatin dessert, which is unlikely to be eaten on a sandwich by anyone, or Fruit preserves#Jelly, which would be eaten almost everywhere on bread or lamb. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a Jelly sandwich and a fish sandwich ... what do we make of a jelly fish sandwich? Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jellied eels in a sandwich? Roger (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't mind eels / Except as meals / And the way they feels." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop debits by Brawnco Incorporated?

I haven't heard of Brawnco Incorporated when I saw a debit of $20 from my online bank statement in May. I had planned (and am still planning) to file a fraud report with my bank. I just need to be near the closest branch of my bank to file it as it needs to be done in person, so I would like to do so at my earliest convenience.

In the meantime, a bank phone rep told me to try calling them to resolve this issue. I've tried a couple of numbers of theirs: 702-666-8895. That phone # is no longer in service. Another number I tried was 888-666-3609.

Their website, Foopile, is a dead link. Everything about them appears dead. It appears to be an undead vampire company, whose only purpose is to suck money from me even though it no longer does anything else. How does a company already out of business keep collecting debits from me?

And most of all, how do I stop their debits and how do I get the $ back? There was just another one this month, so I need to take care of this soon.

If you can find any other way to contact them (or even information about their employees, etc.) then please post it here. I don't wish to pay ghost companies any longer. Thanks. --75.39.129.110 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a fraudulent company. As such, I doubt if you'll get any satisfaction from them. Working with the bank is the way to go. They can refund money withdrawn fraudulently. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is fraudulent, it is quite certainly deceased. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one like on Facebook, you could try contacting them and seeing if they actually know anything about the company. I see they were involved in Penny auctions [3] which isn't exactly a good sign and even then it sounds like they rarely delivered [4] [5]. There's a different number here [6]. You may want to take this to other sites if you really want to try tracking them down, for WP:BLP reasons I don't think we can really help with tracking down individuals even the owner even though there is some alleged info out there. However although I don't live in the US, at least for stopping future debits it strikes me it should be something it's easy to do with your bank. 2001:0:5EF5:79FD:20CB:1C04:833A:FA41 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. Why is this editor's IP address showing up as a string of letters and numbers? --Viennese Waltz 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contact your state attorney general's office. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Companies and individuals cannot just withdraw money from random bank accounts without the account owner's authorisation (government agencies might be able to do that under certain circumstances, but its certainly not something a private company can do). Your bank must think that you authorised the payment in some way, maybe by signing a recurring instruction like a standing order or a direct debit, or as a one-off instruction like a cheque (I guess you would spell that "check") or an electronic payment. In any case, ring your bank and tell then not to make any further payments to this company even if they appear to be authorised, and say you will be disputing the payments that have already been made. You really should be able to do this by phone, and then follow up later by filling out any forms that are required. If your bank really can't/won't take instructions like this over the phone, then you should seriously consider switching your account to a bank with better customer service. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, except for the burden of proof being on them before the money is taken from your account. It seems bizarre, but the banks seem to give your money away merely because some other company claims you said they could. No signature or other proof of authorization is required from you. If you object, you then have a limited time period to demand the money back, at which time the burden of proof that you authorized the transaction does fall upon the company that withdrew it. Now, if the company either refuses to give back the money or has gone bankrupt in the meantime (perhaps intentionally to avoided repayment), that does get tricky. A decent bank should give you the money back out of their own funds, then sue the company that fraudulently withdrew it (if they still exist), but I don't have much faith in banks doing what's right, these days. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]