User talk:JS Uralia

Welcome! JS Uralia 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops

sorry I hope I didn't do that redlink -- I'll leave you to clean it up as I want to get back to dancing. JS Uralia 07:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it was just a slow image upload and I got impatient. :-) GreenReaper 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense

A little common sense has to be applied. For example, the drive shaft makes a car go, does that make the drive shaft an energy source? The motor makes the drive shaft turn, does that make the motor an energy source? The battery makes the motor turn, does that make the battery of an electric car an energy source? Electricity charges the battery, does that make electricity an energy source? The electricity comes from a transformer, does that make the transformer an energy source? The power to the transformer comes from transmission lines, does that make transmission lines an energy source? The power in the transmission lines comes from a power plant, which is the only item along this chain that we call an energy source. If the power plant is photovoltaic or wind power, it is a renewable energy source. If it is natural gas or coal, it is a non-renewable energy source. If it is running on synthetic fuel that was made from more electricity that was made from somewhere else, it is not even an energy source, but part of an energy storage system. I really hope that you will drop your POV pushing of "carbon neutral fuels" and "carbon negative fuels" as if they were the best thing since sliced bread since they are really not very important today, and really do nothing to help reduce global warming. Delphi234 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked you whether you can provide any reliable sources in support of these opinions, and you have been unable to do so. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for personal opinion. JS Uralia (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

There is no chance of the section above being archived before the RFC expires - sections are only archived if there is no activity for 60 days on the Talk:Renewable energy page. Delphi234 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain how an WP:RFC works. There is a disagreement, it is discussed, then, usually in 30 days, an admin or other uninvolved editor closes the discussion and decides what to do. Only then is any action taken, such as the stuff about other renewable fuels gets moved, not while the RFC is open. And since no one else thinks it should be moved, at this point there is little chance of that happening. And thinking that just because Germany made coal into a different type of fuel during WWII means it is currently being commercialized as a renewable energy source???? Delphi234 (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because of [1] and the Carbon Recycling International projects in Iceland and Europe. JS Uralia (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on iOS jailbreaking

Hi JS Uralia! Thanks for your input on Talk:IOS jailbreaking#Comments on recent edits. The other editor and I have discussed your suggestions, so I believe it's ready for another round of third opinion and/or implementation, if you're still interested. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes that you agreed with and self-reverted as you recommended - here's the diff of the added/changed text. Thanks again. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for helping me not have to go through all those diffs again. JS Uralia (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]