Talk:Open Fuel Standard Coalition

The utilization of wood fuels should be common place in the homes across America. The refining process is so very simple and cheap it should be lobbied into the industrial sector and education system aswell for the masses to understand its importance!24.17.115.187 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Page is advertising or an editorial or both, should be removed.
This page is breathtakingly blatant advertising in support of proposed legislation, and as such is offensive (stet) in the context of an encyclopedia. For the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, this should be removed, or summarized with an explanation, and linked to. You are not helping Wikipedia at all by allowing something as blatant as this to remain on the site.

Yes, I saw the NPOV notice. I've seen it many other places where I thought that notice was adequate. But this page is so blatant, so one-sided, so partisan, so un-encyclopedic that I believe it is damaging to your site.

And it gets worse. It seems like an administrator is protecting it, and has blocked a bank of many (possibly as many as 255) AT&T servers affecting tens of thousands, perhaps many more users. The alleged transgression is BLP, but I see no mention of any man on the page. I'm not sure, of course, since I am inept at the arcana of Wikipedia, but will attempt to file a notice on the designated page about the blocking of a server bank, almost certainly inappropriately.

[later] As I searched for information on how to file a complaint about the administrator who blocked editing of this page, it appears that blocks are not associated with a page/user, just with a user (198.228.200.28/6(?) in this case). So when I attempted to edit the talk page at the time I was assigned to that server in the bank, I got blocked. I think that I must withdraw the allegation of protecting the page. And it appears that it is Wikipedia policy to block ranges of IP addresses. Sigh...

You should have someone knowledgeable look into identification of users on the internet. It is admittedly a difficult area, but your policy is inadequate and wrong headed. Identification of users by IP address doesn't work. Get an knowledgeable programmer to look at how to protect your site from vandalism. Registration/login works; yes, it has problems too, but at least it works much more reliably than mutable, sharable IP addresses.

Anyway, it seems I was wrong about the inappropriate behavior by the administrator. I apologize.

The page remains a travesty.

Good luck. Amccray (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Information on Methanol and a description of this Legislation was helpful.
Why was I looking? Reading this R40187.pdf; Congressional Research Service; U.S. Energy: Overview and Key Statistics; Michael Ratner and Carol Clover; June 27, 2014."

Set me on a path of trying to understand that methanol can be made cheaply from Natural Gas. Maybe more cheaply that gasoline? Which took me to Wikipedia for Methanol. This had a link to this page which I found useful. I don't feel like I'm being lobbied here - only being informed. I thought the article described the legislation very well. The other thing I'm trying to understand is "is ethanol better than gasoline from a GHG standpoint?". If it is - it could be a real winner.

For the last large increment of time we (USA) have been importing Natural Gas so using it to make a gasoline substitute is pretty much a non-starter. Why this quest on my part? Well - the big debate that is about to happen has to do with exporting Natural Gas. Some folks have a vision that in 10 years well be exporting 5 Quadrillion BTUs ("QUADs") of Natural Gas, 3 QUADs of Coal, and still importing 8 QUADs of Oil (defining "energy independence"). If we can turn those 5 QUADs of Natural Gas into a gasoline substitute, that is cheaper than gasoline, with better GHG properties - that sounds like a win-win-win. I am in the middle of this effort to make a determination and again - I found this Open Fuel Standard information helpful.

On the political front - ins't there a "boatload" of legislation "pushed" on Wiki. I don't mind that as long as the legislation is fairly described. Are you suggesting that it is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickLeary1248 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)