User talk:Travelplanner

Congestion pricing
Hi there, and welcome to Wiki. Since you are a transportation pro, would you mind to participate and comment on the GAN posted on the Talk:Congestion pricing. I am the main contributing editor and cannot participate, only answer questions if asked for. Mariordo (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your collaboration on the article. I will be back next week, but I couldn't helpt to notice you and the reviewer did a great job putting it in good shape for GA. Mariordo (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment
Welcome onboard. If you need or have question on anything, just give us a shout at the project's talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Travelpanner Thanks for all your constructive input on the sustainability article. i am, at present on holiday, getting back middle of October and will go through your suggestions when I return as I have only enough time to read comments at present. Cheers for now Granitethighs (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions
Your suggested way forward is, to me, abundantly reasonable. It is, to my mind argued extremely clearly and objectively and I would be delighted to get back into a cooperative effort to make this article a useful tool for the many people who, in these times, are keen to understand the background and meaning of what sustainability is all about and, above all, how they can make a contribution to a more sustainable future. Thank you for the effort you have made to keep the article on track. Sunray has suggested that a majority acceptance on the talk page would be a way of resolving differences which I feel would be "fair" in a democratic sense. However, I think that technically Skip is correct that Wikipedia encourages the evolution of an article through progressive editing of th earticle itself. When editing ceases or is little then the article would appear to be "acceptable", at least for the time being. Trouble, it seems to me, arises when there are either many edits by the same person or the "pushing" of particular points that others might not agree to. This must inevitably lead to edit wars with editors deleting and reverting one-anothers work when deadlock is reached either in the article or on the discussion page. I guess the bottom line is that, although I am prepared to go by majority opinion, I am not prepared to spend a lot of time battling an individual in this way. To my mind the History section is not appropriate for a Featured article in its style or content (I notice that you seem to agree here). However, although I have not tried it I "know" that if I were to edit it by significant reduction and alteration of content then a protracted edit war would result. You can see the difficulty from what has been written after your comments. Wikipedia might have ways of dealing with this sort of deadlock but I think we have a particularly difficult case here. As I said - if there is a productive way forward I will be right in there, but I really dont have the time for protracted unproductive word and edit battles. Anyway, sincere thanks for your efforts. Granitethighs (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I have re-read what you have said and agree that an external review for Featured status would be a possible way forward, and a way of providing focus. How do we initiate this? Granitethighs (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may jump in on that last point, I think that we are a ways away from a FA review. Let's get at the changes, go through the "To do" list, and when we get to the bottom, we should be ready for GA or FA review. I don't see why we wouldn't want to go for FA status at that point, as, if we get that far, it will be very good. Now that we pretty well know what we are dealing with, I wouldn't worry too much. There are more tools at our disposal than are evident on first glance.
 * BTW, TP, I think what you were likely doing would be more aptly described as negotiation rather than mediation. The skill sets are the same, but the configuration of the participants is different. More on that here. Sunray (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More feedback
I have only just had a chance to look at your "Measuring sustainability" sandbox. I think you have expressed the flow of ideas more clearly than in parts of the existing article. I also think the diagram of per capita consumption vs development is extremely important and revealing and a great overview of where we are at globally - it should be in the article. I think the ecological footprint section is explained really well but we have a problem that sustainability now has a whole armoury of measures apart from the EF although it is well known and relatively simple to understand, I think this at elast needs amention (see sustainability accounting). Anyway - once we get going again this looks very useful for this section of the article. Granitethighs (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that your "Measuring sustainability" write-up expresses the ideas in a succinct manner. I think EF works well in the section on "Human pressure on the environment." I also think it entirely appropriate in a general encyclopedia, for the reasons GT has mentioned. In "Responses which improve sustainability" I was taken with your turn of phrase: "providing tools for the management of causes." It would be good to provide an example or two. The ones I find particularly useful are The Natural Step's system conditions of sustainability for larger-scale sustainability initiatives, such as the eco-municipality movement and life cycle assessment for initiatives such as green building. Sunray (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sign up for FA editing team
Ahem, two people have already signed up for the team. You too can be a part of this exciting venture by signing up here. Sunray (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you are back, team leader (lovely pic, BTW)! The Sustainability FA, is a great project. The key will be to keep forward momentum. One thing that would be helpful right now is your take on whether we should put the "under construction" sign back on the article. Three people have spoken. Two in favour, one opposed. Your vote, either way, would clinch it... Sunray (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there have been further developments (see article history and talk page) and I've put the sign back up. Join in when you can. Sunray (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Measuring Sustainability
Hi Travelplanner thanks for joining up with the Sustainability editing team. Yes, I did the sustainability accounting article. I'd better give you some background. When the Sustainability article was done I must confess I was painfully aware of the complexity of it all and that there were two huge gaps in the story: how sustainability can be implemented, and the evidence on which this implementation is to be based. I think that because sustainability is so young as a subject there aren't well established terms for these two processes. The decision-making part I have, simply for convenience, called sustainability governance in the Sustainability article, because it can be tackled both through the formal political process but also informally by families, individuals etc. - and also operating at the full range of levels of biological organisation from the biosphere to the home garden etc. This is a bit hard to get across. Anyway because it did not seem to be addressed in Wikipedia I did an article called Sustainability Governance. It was done quickly, inadequately and needs more work but I think it is a critical aspect of the story and needs an article of its own. It also seems to me that we need to find out, as well as we can, exactly what is sustainable, what are the management priorities etc. This surely needs a lot of measurement and analysis with many tools that are yet to be developed. I must admit that I am not very keen on economics but what we need, I reckon, is to manage and look after the environment in the same fussy way we manage our finances. For that reason I thought Sustainability Accounting was a reasonable title but again it could be called all sorts of things because nothing has become firmly instated yet. I then wrote the article under that name. Again it was too quick and inadequate and Skip is getting stuck into its shortcomings but it seems a critical part of sustainability again needing its own article. It is IMO where we are heading in the years to come - in fact I dont think we have any choice. Excuse my "preachy" chat, you probably realise all this and are several jumps ahead of me but I thought it would help to let you know this background. At present I am keen to give attention to the Sustainability article but if and when that is complete it would be good to bring the governance/accounting (or whatever they are called) articles up to standard. We now have (at least) four articles covering very similar ground: Sustainability Accounting, Sustainability Metrics and Indices, Sustainability Reporting, and your Sustainability Measuring. When there is time I would really like to be part of a team that rationalises these topics and gives the overall topic some more substance. A I said, I really like what you have done. Some I think should go in the main Sustainability article. However, just to let you know I am really interested in helping develop the idea but at the moment a bit preoccupied with "Sustainability"! Granitethighs (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for upgrading the Image
Thanks for upgrading the image relating 2008 to the Ecological Footprint. The only improvement I could suggest is to add trend arrows. The New Scientist of 03 October 2007 carried an article by Daniele Fanelli entitled "World failing on sustainable development" showing the trends of various nations in terms of their improvement in HDI correlated with Ecological Footprint over time. They showed that of their analysis "Only one country, Cuba, is developing sustainably, according to a new report - and even that is due to an oil embargo imposed upon it". It would be great to include the trend arrows for a number of the major countries if we could not include them all.

Many thanks John D. Croft (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability article concerns
Hi Travelplanner, best of the season to you. I hope you have had a joyous holiday with family. There has been some recent discussion of editing problems related to the Sustainability article here. Your comments on Jehochman's proposed findings would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi TP - hope you had a great holiday - now back to work (groan) ....... We are making good progress now on the article so would appreciate your comments on how everything is looking. Granitethighs (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to take a look at the material on social concerns at Talk:Sustainability/social? Cheers. Sunray (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Need for further direction
Could you please comment further at Talk:Sustainability/Definition? Sunray (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Modification of diagram
I must confess my first awareness of a variation of your excellent diagram of countries and footfrints was the Living Planet Report 2006 on page 19. On this diagram it has a "window" showing the "minimum criteria for sustainability" - you might want to have a look although you probably know what I mean. I think it really helps the reader to see what we are up against globally. Would it be possible for lines to be drawn on your diagram and attention be drawn to the "sustainability window"? Granitethighs (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting this out - no rush. Granitethighs (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable transport
Hello there. I think you are right, that the highway banner should not have been added, that transport is more to the point. I can help somewhat with the article, but it looks like it was an anonymous user which tagged the article proper, by looking at the article history page. I think perhaps fixing the link farm as you mention on the talk page so that more items are referenced in the article should do the trick. SriMesh | talk  17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability Lead
Hi TP - we need you to cast a last glance at the Lead - it is very close to peer review but maybe needs 2 or 3 tweaks to make it flow after a few of us have adjusted it a little. Many thanks. Granitethighs (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability task force
It is a shame that you are not willing to participate in the Sustainability task force. There is a huge amount of work to be done on all the associated articles. Bear in mind that a User:Skipsievert appears to question the edits on the sustainability article only. How about helping out on all the other stuff? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability
I merely said I wasn't going to take another bow. At least, not to S/A. My comments were an attempt to snap GT and SR out of their trance. They appeared hypnotised, and no progress was being made, just more and more of the same stuff. If you and Nick hang round, so shall I. But let's put an end to this time wasting nonsense now, stop indulging the man, and revert inappropriate edits. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is best not to refactor others comments. Also using the discussion page of an article Sustainability as an attack blog on other users is not suggested as you have done Geronimo . skip sievert (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geronimo, really appreciated. Skip, we're calling it as we see it.--Travelplanner (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi TP - OK, I've added myself to the list.  Granitethighs   01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it they are voting on the arbitration request which cannot be granted while Skipsievert is blocked. The blocking administrator said that only Arbcom could unblock so that is a separate issue.  If he is unblocked then they can reconsider their votes.  I do not think that I have any special status as the filing party.  If you want to know more you can contact one of the arbitrators or enter a question in your section of the arbitration request.  Reading through the various ANIs and the statements at RFAR, it seems the block is justified and I do not see how proceeding through arbitration would be of benefit to anyone.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image tweak
Can you do a little tweak on File:Human welfare and ecological footprint.jpg? Can you change the title at the top to "Ecological footprint versus Human Development Index"? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Transport
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_29 TruckCard (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ridesharing in the UK and USA?
I came to your talk page via the project traffic page in the hope you can answer my little question: in Germany and Austria there are pretty popular agencies called Mitfahrzentrale that give people the chance to share their cars between citys. E.g. when you are in Berlin and you go to Munich by car, you put up an offer for the ride, usually you find 2 to 3 people who join you and pay around 30€ for that distance. Is there anything similar in the US and UK? --Kricket (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy message from WikiProject Transport
Hi there Travelplanner. You are registered with WikiProject Transport and we are cleaning out our list of members. As you have not contributed to any page for over a year we have removed you as inactive. If you still want to participate in the project, just go back and add yourself again. Thank you.  Rcsprinter  (yak)  @ 16:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)