Miscellaneous desk
< February 1	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 3 >

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.

February 2

Washing gloves

I have a continuing problem that when I wash gloves, the liner inverts, and hangs out. I find it impossible to get it all the way back inside the fingers. I've tried putting the liner on my fingers first, then jamming the fingers into the glove, but it doesn't seem to go all the way inside. So, I'm left with trying to use it like that, cutting the liner off, tossing the gloves out, or never washing them (I suppose I could hand wash them, but that's a pain and wouldn't get them as clean). So:

1) Is there a way to fix this problem once it happens ?

2) Is there a way to prevent it ? Perhaps the liner should be sewn to the gloves at the fingertips ? How can I tell if gloves have the liner sewn to the glove at the fingertips, before I buy it ? StuRat (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff two surgical gloves into the gloves you wish to wash, so that the "fingers" go into the digits of the original gloves.. Blow them up and tie the ends of the surgical gloves with fishing line. Use plastic clips or simple wooden pegs to secure the open ends of the gloves proper to prevent the inflated plastic gloves to slip out during the washing cycle.

Print this out and hurry to your local patent office. Transfer weekly monetary benefits to my account:o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't I have the same problem getting the fingers of the surgical gloves all the way in ? StuRat (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what type of gloves are we referring to? What is the outside covering, inside liner, washing temperature, soap/detergent etc? An iron chain-mail glove with a woollen lining is going to need a different approach from a boxing glove. --Aspro (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regular winter gloves; leather outside (split pigskin), and Thinsulate (35% polyester/65% olefin) lining. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think then, in your case, that you are buying gloves that do not have not pre- shrunken linings. So, the first thing they do on a first wash is to shrink. Textiles during weaving get stretched. Washing removes the tension in the fibres and so they shrink. This not reserved to just synthetic fibres – cotton does the same thing. Do you reload your spent shot gun cartridges? Wash 'em, (the gloves, not the cartridges) then fill them up with bird shot. Hang up to dry. For cotton lining one could also use 'conditioner' >www.ehow.com/how_7194185_unshrink-cotton-clothes.html<. Alternatively, fly to Germany. The cost of their gloves are comparable to the US but they have real cotton linings and will last a lifetime.--Aspro (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no care instructions with the gloves? I personally would never put real leather in a machine washer unless I was desperate. This site has instructions for washing by hand, which really shouldn't take more than a few minutes [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No washing instructions. And if I had to hand wash them I would likely never get around to it. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I ended up cutting off the fingers from the liner, then pushing the remainder back inside. This seems to work well, although presumably my fingers won't be as warm. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does a company have two majority shareholders?

Saw the phrase and it seems common based on a google search but google And this dictionary definition about collective shareholders making a majority doesn't seem to match the context of search results? dictionary definition

Gullabile (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it means two shareholders who, between them, hold a majority of (voting) shares. That seems compatible with both the definition you linked and with the context of the top Google hits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And note that it only makes sense to refer to them that way if we assume they will always vote together as a block. A husband and wife might be a good example of this.

This is similar to, how, in a multi-party government, the "majority coalition" is composed of parties who collectively control over 50% of the votes, while none of the individual parties alone does. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In A Christmas Carol (at least in the Alistair Sim version), Scrooge and Marley together buy out enough shares in the company they work for to total 51 percent. So, between them, they run the company. All is well unless they disagree on something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Smith and Michael Wynn-Jones are husband and wife and joint majority shareholders of Norwich City F.C. --86.12.139.34 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liszt symphonic poem

Your article on Liszt symphonic poem "Ce qu'on entend sur la montaign" says that it is after Hugo's poem "Les feuille d'autumne" where as all other sites say it is after Hugo's poiem which is the same title called "ce qu'on entend sur la montaign". Could you please double check your article and either correct or confirm. Thanks Nasreen –19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Nasreenp (talk)

That comment really belongs on the article's discussion page. We can get sources for you, but the Reference Desk is not the place to make editting requests. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a mistake. Ce qu'on entend sur la montagne (note spelling) was inspired by an eponymous poem, published as No. 5 of Victor Hugo's collection Les Feuilles d'automne. The latter is not a poem per se. I'll make the correction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record reflect that Jack of Oz is going beyond the call of duty out of pure charitable kindness, as usual. Honi soit qui mal y pense.μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noblesse oblige. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Second Coming and the Environment

Jesus will come back very soon, so why should we care about the environment? Great Time (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this question is being asked within the confines of Christianity. So from a Christian perspective, why should one care about the planet? The answer will probably depend on which christian you talk to - but a quick google search got Why should christians care for the planet - hope it helps. ManOfTeeth (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link. --50.100.193.107 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus has been going to come back "soon" for almost 2,000 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "soon" had better be darned soon, as some nations are starting to suffer the consequences now, and need to evacuate before their land is all submerged. StuRat (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was the Logos or logic of God (if it's not logical, it's not of God), it's logical to not foul your nest, there are other more logical reasons to take care of the planet. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of many reasons:

You might be wrong about Jesus - he may not exist, may not be coming back, or may not be coming back for a million years. Many, MANY people in the world (including many devout believers in Jesus) would disagree that "Jesus will come back soon". Allowing the place to go to ruin in the hope of being pulled out of it just in time is an incredibly risky strategy. Many religious sects have tried to predict the end of the world by careful reading of the bible - sat down with their families one day, expecting the rapture to come - and discovering that....ooops! We misread this or that part of the bible - and no, it's not coming for another 50 years. It's not good that those people made that mistake and were personally embarrassed by it - but the stakes here are MUCH larger!
Even if you are somehow certain of that - perhaps he will be very unhappy that we trashed his planet in such an uncaring fashion - then perhaps everyone except the 'tree-huggers' are going to hell.
Thou shalt not kill. Well, what happens if you cause ocean levels to rise and kill 100,000 people? I don't think Jesus would be very happy about that.
Thou shalt not steal. Again, causing ocean levels to rise results in other people's land being flooded - so, in effect, you're stealing from them. That's just one of many ways in which failing to look after our planet will kill, injure or deprive other people of their possessions.
Perhaps (as someone else pointed out), the deleterious effects of global climate change will strike very soon (there is plenty of evidence of this)...long before he shows up. Much of the damage is already done - there are plenty of animal and plant species that are now extinct because of this.
You could use this argument to justify all sorts of stupid things: Why bother educating children? Why bother repairing roads? Why bother saving for your retirement? Why bother taking care of your health? Why pay your taxes? Why bother asking questions on WIkipedia's reference desk?

SteveBaker (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wonderfully researched and referenced response to the OP, Steve. That, with your lecturing and insulting him are a huge improvement over the old policy of simply hatting vague requests for speculation and debate. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses have published "Why Care for Earth’s Environment?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007443

and information about the word "parousia" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003548.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By soon, I mean very soon. I am asking this because there are some Christians who claim and believe that Jesus will come back and the world will end very soon. They believe that there are signs of the Second Coming and many of these signs have already been fulfilled. For example, look at this article. Jesus talked about these signs in Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Matthew#Chapter 24, Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Mark#Chapter 13 and Wikisource:Bible (King James)/Luke#Chapter 24. Great Time (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is editing wikisource? The superstitious were also making this prediction a thousand years ago, around the time of the last millennium. And they'll be doing it again at 3000 A.D. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two thousand years and he ain't shown yet

We kept his seat warm and the table set

The second sitting for the Last Supper

71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article: Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ - I suggest you read it. It lists at least 30 other occasions when people just like you have used similar "signs and portents" to predict the second coming. I don't see any reason why your prediction would be any more reliable that theirs. It also lists three other people who have made predictions of this happening - and despite them all having access to exactly the same information that you're looking at - they can't agree on a single date either.

Bottom line is that even if you're right, and Jesus exists and is coming back someday - your chances of actually making a correct prediction are no better than all of those other people - which means that it's almost certain that you're wrong about the date you think it's going to be. Hence, assuming that Jesus will return before the planet is fatally damaged is a very, very bad idea. Recall Ronald Weinland - who has (on three separate occasions) decided that he knew when Jesus would be returning - and decided that he needn't bother paying his taxes because of that. He ended up serving a 3 year prison sentence as a result of that...and guess what, Jesus didn't come on 2011 Sep 29, 2012 May 27, or most recently 2013 May 18 - as he so confidently predicted.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus himself is recorded as having warned against listening to those who obsess over when he'll come back (Matthew 24:23; Mark 13:21; Luke 17:23). There are much better things to spend your energy on. Marnanel (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of confirmation bias and recentism in these kinds of predictions. First is figuring out what the signs supposedly are. Next is looking for phenomena that seem to match those signs. Then comes the conclusion that "the end is near". These prognosticators are typically ignorant of the history of natural disasters. Whatever "signs" they're seeing have typically occurred over and over again throughout the millennia. It's also important to keep in mind that the Revelation was written in the form of a letter to try to boost morale of early churches. Hence the message that Jesus is returning "soon". If they had said you have to wait at least 2000 years, that would not have done much to pep up the masses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Evangelical environmentalism, which lists that movements arguments about caring for the environment. Perhaps that will enlighten you. Sjö (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 6:34: Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. -- ToE 13:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? The verse is against anxiety, not against planning, as the link you gave explains. Marnanel (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations vary, as the link explains. -- ToE 02:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope should have something to say about it, soon. Previous Pope did as well. There's also the reasoning "Dad's coming home, why shouldn't we trash the house?" Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]