User talk:Twofortnights

Hi!

If you are wondering who I am, I am Twofortnights and I have worked on articles on Visa requirements and Visa policies since September 2013. I have greatly (no false modesty, just browse through history of those articles) improved them from horrendous state of no references, spam links infestation, incomplete information and information outdated by several years and copyright violations and I had warned admins with success about numerous vandalism instances which resulted in at least a dozen admin actions

Here is the list of articles that I have worked on

I am sorry for any possible mistakes in the table above, I have tried my best.

I have in addition created all respective maps plus also maps in all other articles.

All these articles have thousands of readers every month, as confirmed by Wikipedia article traffic statistics. Many of these articles weren't easy to write as many third world countries don't publish their visa policies nor do they notify international organizations of changes. Often they have confusing policies or inconsistent information. But still I have managed to write them and as I've noticed many of them are recently getting translated to other languages such as Turkish or Chinese.

And what happened? First take a look at The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia just the latest article on something that the Internet is talking about for some time. And the most ironic part is that I have adhered to this bureaucracy almost to the letter, yet it wasn't enough.

Now a bit about the specific case that triggered this (for all those who don't like vagueness and philosophical approach but concrete stories). As I've said I have fought off vandalism on many pages (for an example Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens experienced such persistent vandalism that it will be locked for the next 6 months) and this was just another case. Or so I thought. A vandal targeted Visa policy of China and Visa requirements for Chinese citizens maps. His actions can be described as the so called sneaky vandalism or gaming the system. He edited the maps of Wikimedia Commons with edit summaries explaining how the source of his edits are in Wikipedia. Obviously those were lies, his map version would alter the images so much that they wouldn't even correspond to the file legend, let alone the article content. After failing to stop him from vandalizing those image files I uploaded alternative files with very clear and detailed names but that didn't help much.

OK enough with case specifics. What happened next?

I did everything by the book, I have done all these things treating the situation as mere disruptive editing without ever issuing the vandal with actual vandalism warning:

  • I have warned the user using the official Wikipedia warning templates through to the last one (for this I accidentally violated the so called "3RR" because there are four levels of warning templates but only 3 possible reverts and so I had violated the no 3RR rule while waiting to issue the user with all warnings before talking to the admins to avoid the "user was insufficiently warned" lazy reponse)
  • I have opened a dispute resolution discussion on the talk page of the article (which was ignored by the user I reported)
  • I have added maintenance templates to warn other users about the dispute (which were removed by the user I reported and undoing these removals was considered a "content dispute")
  • I have called the other used to join the discussion and stop removing templates (which he didn't)
  • Finally and ironically I was the one to file an admin noticeboard incident report about the situation. If I didn't the admins would have never taken any action.

What was the admin response to my report? They decided to block me and the vandal for the equal time. In some sort of twisted inexplicable lazy response. The one that raises a question if you don't want to get involved in the merits of the case - why do you get involved at all or why are you an admin in the first place? Can such admins answer a simple question - what benefit does Wikipedia have from their actions? Not to mention the other twists where removing maintenance templates was labelled as "content dispute". The maintenance template that was removed by vandal was exactly the template pointing out that there is a dispute in the article and calling for discussion on the talk page. Undoing a vandal who was removing those templates (and adding a vandalized image file) was all packed as a "content dispute". Mhm.

An admin even tried to make adhering to dispute resolution bureacracy a fault in itself! I was scolded for being the one to add the maintenance template. How was that a mistake was not explained. Actually nothing was explained, none of the issues raised were ever addressed, instead I was always met with repetitive platitudes over and over again.

However I tried to keep my cool and I filed an official unblocking request presenting the situation clearly hoping that someone would bother to look into it.

But here is where bureaucracy really kicks in. My request was denied because hey, it was a "content dispute". Yes, there is a template with which you can warn another user that he might be blocked for removing maintenance templates, but if you actually ask an admin to do it, you get blocked and that's OK because it's a "content dispute". You need to seek resolution through talk page and communication with another user. But when you do that, and the vandal ignores it, you get blocked and that's OK because it's a "content dispute".

And what does "content dispute" mean anyway? Even if it was the case? One can vandalize image files with a false edit summary and that's not vandalism but a "content dispute"? No it's not. Let's stop the euphemisms and call things by their right names. "Content dispute" is an excuse for lazy admins. I have done everything to solve it as a content dispute even though it wasn't one, from warnings to maintenance templates to attempts to discuss things on the talk page. And I got blocked as if I did none of that, the same way the vandal that ignored all my actions for dispute resolution got blocked.

Now enough about the case.

Wikipedia has no effective measures to fight vandalism. None at all. Lazy admins can write off anything as "content dispute" without even bothering to read past the first few letters. Trying to solve the issues by the book won't hold any value in the end. You will be punished the same way someone who did none of that. Don't bother with dispute resolution, no really don't bother with it. It will take away a lot of energy to no avail. No one will appreciate it, and not just that, you will even get insulted.

It's apparently easier to silence users who have invested hundreds of hours in improving Wikipedia. Where this leads? Just Google Wikipedia for the latest news. It leads to the decline of this great website. Quality input is decreasing every day. It's the sad reality and something needs to be done about it quickly.

The whole point of administrators, rules, bureaucrats should be to improve Wikipedia and not to impose some twisted equality between dedicated editors and trolls. Their role should also be to help people like myself. I am not some great mediator or diplomat I admit that. I got here to update those articles and that's it. I can't be expected to do their job at the same time. When I ask them something I expect an answer not "content dispute, pass along". And I did ask them what else apart from the aforementioned actions was expected from me. But I was just slapped with tone deaf "content dispute".

Another great piece from a few months ago - Decline of Wikipedia states that the number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since, down to only 31,000 people last summer. Thanks to the outdated system and disinterested admins still holding on to their positions the number will surely go down to the unsustainable levels in the next year or two.

I have no intention of allowing someone sitting in his chair comfortably and suffering from outpouring of power in the brain to smear my name and to diminish my efforts both in the past as my hard work is met with ridicule and in the future where I will not be able to fight vandalism effectively with "previously blocked" in logs.

I have decided to limit my activity thanks to those admins and their superficial approach. You won't see me again going through 42 articles updating them and then going through 42 maps updating them like when Mongolia recently changed its visa policy only to get blocked the same day by someone who thinks that the position of admin is unaccountable and that he is not required to bother with any details of the case he is dealing with and that all he is require to do is type up a sentence or two with red tape excuse.

I will most definitely not undo any vandalism anymore. I don't want to risk to be blocked for mishandling a "content dispute". However I will track all spam, vandalism, blanking, intentional addition of wrong information - all of it and especially sneaky vandalism. And I will keep track of it publicly so that we can see whose actions serve Wikipedia better, those of vandals and bureaucrats (in real and negative sense of the word) among admins or hard working users.

Such admins don't care if Wikipedia is full of false information for as long as the crazy bureaucracy is satisfied. They literally only care about procedural matters.

And of course let me end this with a note that there are great and dedicated admins out there. I explained that on my reports many actions were taken. And I congratulate them for their dedication in such atmosphere. I've reverted the edits by a vandal on another article, not three times, but thirty three times! But there was an admin who actually looked into the matter and did not just count the number of edits. The result was the block for the other user and a 6 month protection for the article. He didn't think about blocking me for mathematically crossing the line or edit warring when in fact my edits were just undoing a very similar type of sneaky vandalism. But for that an admin needs not be lazy and to actually look into the facts of the matter instead of repeating the same empty bureaucratic platitudes over and over again.

Thank you for reading, --Twofortnights (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Twoforfire , nice talking to u , I edited some information regarding Visa reqiurements for Lebanese citizens few days age and u remove it . It became 42 countries that Lebanese citizens can travel without visa or visa on arrival inested of 39 so can u edit please ? Plus if u can edit the map . Thank you very much and wish u a good day .

Here is a page where the host thinks you might consider discussing problematic admins/admin actions: User talk:Tony1 --BushelCandle (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color scheme on maps[edit]

I understand what you are trying to refer to. Surely, the change of color scheme I attempted is not sufficiently important to result or equate in the effort required for the implementation of such modifications across all 'Wikiprojects'. Regardless, I am unsure on what you mean by "flag based color schemes". However, when I looked through the edit history for the maps on Wikimedia Commons, I did notice a few 'reverts' of color schemes, which I perceived to be the result of a loss of consensus or purely, a mistake. Thank you. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unattended wrong or unsourced information including spam and copyvio in visa articles[edit]

As I have explained above I have no intention of fixing various vandal edits or wrong information added to visa articles for any reason (poor English skills, relying on outdated source - whatever it is). However I will keep track of it.

  • Visa policy of China - diff - 02:12, 29 June 2014 - Whisper of the heart - removed a maintenance template that suggests something is disputed about the map and again added a map that he previously vandalized on Commons by removing a dozen of countries that are otherwise clearly mentioned in the article and that are properly sourced without citing any counter source or reason to do so.
  • Visa policy of the United States - diff - 03:51, 30 June 2014 - Amandeep862 - changed the wording (grammatically incorrect as well) wrongly suggesting how Visa policy of the United States does not apply in Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands.
  • Visa requirements for Saint Kitts and Nevis citizens - diff - 10:17, 2 July 2014 - 86.98.28.207 - changed the maximum stay in South Korea to 20 days, even though all sources say 90 days and South Korea doesn't even have a category of 20 days but just 180/90/60/30.
  • Visa policy of the United States - diff - 21:45, 2 July 2014 - 134.129.141.62 - improved grammar of the wrong information added earlier on how Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands have separate visa policy to that of the United States.
  • Visa policy of Vietnam - diff - 02:30, 3 July 2014 - Leongshujian - changes the wording about the new visa policy from "In June 2014 it was proposed" to "It was decided from June 2014" despite the fact that the source clearly says it's just an industry proposal to the Government.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - diff - 14:32, 3 July 2014 - 180.189.84.130 - one of the articles that saw the most vandalism is hit again, this time Antigua and Barbuda visa requirement note is changed to 3 month (sic) from 1 month without any explanation.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - diff - 14:38, 3 July 2014 - 180.189.84.130 - one of the articles that saw the most vandalism is hit again, this time Saint Vincent and the Grenadines visa requirement note is changed to 3 month (sic) from 1 month without any explanation.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - diff - 15:03, 3 July 2014 - 180.189.84.130 - one of the articles that saw the most vandalism is hit again, this time Uruguay visa requirement note is changed to 90 days from 30 days without any explanation.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - diff - 15:11, 3 July 2014 - 180.189.84.130 - one of the articles that saw the most vandalism is hit again, this time Vanuatu visa requirement note is changed to 120 days from 30 days without any explanation.
  • Visa policy of South Korea - diffdiff - 23:53, 3 July 2014 - 113.198.194.189 - Added China to the list of countries whose citizens do not require a visa for South Korea.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - diff - 3 July 2014 - 113.198.194.189 - Changed China to visa-free for 30 days. No source provided, and current source does not back up the edit. Later on added a link to a press release by South Korean MFA which doesn't say anything about visa-free travel for 30 days but talks about a consular agreement on arrests against Korean citizens in China that will take effect in 30 days from ratification.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - multiple edits on 5 July 2014 by 180.189.84.130
    • diff - changed Saudi Arabia to green (although leaving the "visa required" wording fixed to not required in a later edit - diff) and "30 days". Finally he added a complete lie how it's a "Unilateral of Saudi Arabia" - diff. Saudi Arabia does not allow anyone outside GCC to even get a tourist visa let alone visa-free entry.
    • diff - changed São Tomé and Príncipe to green. São Tomé and Príncipe does not have a visa-free policy for any country.
    • diff - changed Myanmar to "Visa not required".
    • diff - added a false note on allowed stay in Suriname and even added a false reference "This is an agreement between gorvernment South Korea and Suriname.".
    • diff - added a false note on allowed stay in Antigua and Barbuda and even added a false reference "This is an agreement between gorvernment South Korea and Suriname." (yes Suriname for Antigua and Barbuda).
    • diff - added a false note on allowed stay in Liberia and even added a false reference "This is an agreement between gorvernment of South Korea and Liberia."
    • diff - added a false note on allowed stay in Jamaica and even added a false reference "This is an agreement between gorvernment of South Korea and Jamaica."
    • diff - added false notes "Unilateral of xxx" for several countries and changed the notes for several countries that count stay in months to "90 days".
    • diff diff - despite the source clearly saying 3 months he changes it to 90 days.
    • diff - adds a note on allowed stay in Ethiopia without citing any sources.
    • diff - expands on previous vandalism of Vanuatu (allowed stay 30 days), now it reads "120 days in 1 year Unilateral government of Vanuatu"
    • diff - adds a note on stay in Vatican with "unilateral" again, I haven't added all those "unilateral of" additions, there are at least a dozen more edits with it - sometimes diff in one edit and sometimes separately.
    • diff - at some point falsely added information on Cape Verde being visa-free is now expanded with "Unilateral of Cape Verde"
    • diff - added a false note on allowed stay in Suriname and even added a false reference "This is an agreement between gorvernment of South Korea and Lesotho".
    • diff - more randomly changed notes on allowed stay and more of those "This is an agreement between gorvernment of " or "Unilateral of ".
    • diff - typical lost in translation additions of this vandal "This is not a free visa agreement it is just Mutual". Yeah, that's his note for Japan.
  • Visa policy of South Korea - multiple edits on 5 July 2014 by 180.189.84.130
    • diff - adding a random note "Visa-free regime was signed with China in July 2014.". False, no references.
    • diff diff - adds the UK, Austria despite the EU citizens being listed already. Then he removes Austria diff but adds Bulgaria diff. Then he adds Ireland and Romania diff.
    • diff - removes Egypt - no explanation.
    • diff - removes a note on Cyprus and Portugal citizens having a shorter allowed stay from the rest of the EU citizens
  • Visa policy of the United Arab Emirates - diff - 06:08, 7 July 2014 - Jacobcooper00 - copy/paste of large amount of information, apart from being against many style rules this edit is also a copyright violation. / UPDATE: User "Mean as custard" is working hard to remove this history - please block him for trying to remove copyvio guide. That's the only obvious course of action.
  • Visa requirements for South Korean citizens - diffdiff diff diff - 02:07, 7 July 2014 - 42.82.43.45 - some more nonsensical edits on a different IP but probably the same vandal, I mean not a vandal, but a highly respected editor with whom there is a content dispute.
  • Visa requirements for Indian citizens - diff - 17:45, 8 July 2014 - Pillai.sreenath - Argentina changed to "Visa not required" which is a flat-out lie.
  • Visa requirements for Indian citizens - diff - 05:40, 9 July 2014 - Anks7866 - Changed Togo from "Visa on arrival" to "Visa not required" despite the source still saying visa on arrival and news of Togo changing its visa policy.
  • Visa requirements for Indian citizens - diff - 19:59, 9 July 2014 - Pillai.sreenath - Changing Egypt to "Visa on arrival" despite India being listed specifically as one of the countries that are not eligible - [1]: "Holders of normal passports issued to nationals of any country can obtain a visa on arrival...Not applicable to nationals of...India."
  • Visa policy of Thailand - diff - 03:16, 10 July 2014 - Seligne - copy/paste largely from [2].
  • Visa policy of the Schengen Area - diff - 05:53, 10 July 2014 - Andrewphilip00 - added spam links at the bottom and copy/paste from above [3].--Twofortnights (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visa policy of South Korea - diff - 02:32, 11 July 2014 - 42.82.184.17 - just casually removing Norway.
  • Visa policy of South Korea - diff - 02:38, 11 July 2014 - 42.82.184.17 - just casually adding Moldova.
  • Visa requirements for Armenian citizens - diff - 05:25, 11 July 2014 - Hhratchh - changing Uruguay to "visa on arrival" despite Uruguay not having such facilities. Visa-free travel agreement was indeed signed but it is not yet ratified - [4].

Shouldn't someone fix those issues?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely piling up and it's just been a week of me not undoing the addition of unsourced or plain wrong information, spam links, and copyright violations. It seems that I was indeed right when I said that it's entirely irrelevant to some of the admins if Wikipedia is full of such issues for as long as the bureaucratic demands are met. I haven't noticed a single such edit unattended by me that was fixed by one of the admins who were oh so concerned with me. Their concern with the above seems to be non-existent.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So since nothing is being done and problems are piling up I have to tag you openly - User:Jpgordon & User:Lord Roem do you intend to do your job and clean up all the accumulated vandalism, spam, original research and wrong information? Because let me remind you, Wikipedia rules also prohibit vandalism, spam, original research and deliberately adding wrong information as much as reverting the wrong number of times and admins are expected to solve issues like those and not only those where it takes two clicks to satisfy bureaucracy. Let me just repeat once again - I would have removed all this nonsense myself like I've been doing for months but since I was met with zero appreciation and maximum shunning and ridicule I have no intention of doing that, however I do expect admins to do it. Consider this a personalized submission to WP:RVAN, WP:NORN, WP:CP, WT:WPSPAM and WP:ELN. Thank you for your service.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jpgordon & User:Lord Roem if you have any technical questions feel free to ask but please start acting on fixing the above list of accumulated problems asap, it's been just one week and the list is already too long.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leave me out of this; my sole involvement with you was to point out that you were edit warring when you were blocked and insisting, mistakenly, that you were correcting vandalism. It's certainly not my job to follow your editing suggestions; do it yourself. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--jpgordon - leave you out of removing spam? For as long as you are an admin I don't think so. It's not an easy task, but no one forced you to it. As an admin you simply have to respond and remove at least spam links and copyright violations and I would say deliberately added misinformation belongs to that list too. It's not edit suggestions, it's a request for admin action to tackle issues for which admins exist (hence the noticeboards for the very issues I am raising exist). All comments about that being "content dispute" are pure irony. You can't simply ignore it and or insist on how you were right as none of that will take away all the issues above. What's been done - water under the bridge, you now need to protect Wikipedia, it's your duty. If you think that spam links, copyright violations and obvious vandalism belong to Wikipedia then that is poor judgment. So please start tackling the burning issues, it's got nothing to do with me or you, it's about Wikipedia. I've listed all the issues above and you can choose where you will start from, but please don't take your time as you can see spammers are not sitting back and letting us be comfortable, they add such great amounts of spam and misinformation that we can't relax.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken about the responsibilities of the admins here. Removing spam, copyright vios, etc -- that's not an admin job, that's a job any Wikipedia editor can do and should do. The special tools of the admin include blocking and unblocking other editors (that's the only reason I was here in the first place -- to see if your unblock request should be accepted), deleting and undeleting pages, and other technical things -- see WP:ADMIN for a more complete list. You don't need administrative actions; you need a consensus for your changes, and that's what article talk pages are for. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least I haven't mistaken admin job for a lapel pin. And I don't think I am wrong in saying that anything for what there is an admin noticeboard IS the job of admins.
I need consensus to remove spam and copyright violations? Is that what you are saying? Because that is also poor judgement, that is so wrong it's beyond the need to explain.
If you won't remove spam and copyright violations then that's poor judgement too - you are just getting back at me over Wikipedia's back for criticizing you. Is that what an admin should do? You've been clearly pointed at violations that are still standing and deceiving readers but you won't do anything just to a prove a point. And it's not like you are a terribly busy editor, you make a few edits every other day. So if that is the case you would just prove me right, you only care about some bureaucratic procedural matters and the actual results and the state of Wikipedia are of no concern to you.
So please stop being so stubborn and do something for Wikipedia. Fix some of those numerous issues above.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, --jpgordon, I can't do it myself, specifically because of your poor judgement. You obviously said that "you need a consensus for your changes, and that's what article talk pages are for." for removing spam and copyright violations. And I disagree with that. So if I would go ahead and remove that from the articles without going to the talk page, I am rightfully afraid that you would exercise your special tool of "blocking and unblocking other editors" on me.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jpgordon & User:Lord Roem - so now that we are past personal issues, can something finally be done about the accumulated spam, copyright and deliberate factual error issues above? If you don't care about it at least give me a definite answer that won't leave me hanging.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you won't answer me. This is so SAD, for one admin to ignore it and the other admin to be so unable to take criticism that he decides to harm the whole Wikipedia to prove his point and show how offended he is that someone wouldn't be thrilled with his bureaucratic approach of treating trolls and contributors the same way. My point is proven beyond any doubt. In my criticism (that was written before everything) the key sentence was - Such admins don't care if Wikipedia is full of false information for as long as the crazy bureaucracy is satisfied. They literally only care about procedural matters. - and look - I was right, what a surprise.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Requirements for Romanian citizens[edit]

Hi, could you please update the map(s) to show India in yellow as an online visa country? I don't know how to do that myself, but it would be a big improvement. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.178.82 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to prevent an edit war, I have come to your talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience, but: my copying was altered before pasting. Basically, what I did was take the HTML from the German visa requirements' page and used the information from the old visa requirements for Romanian citizens (the one which you keep undoing back to) plugging that one in MANUALLY into the HTML, and afterwards uploading it to the visa requirements page. This took almost 3 hours of manual labor in Microsoft Word. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've told you, on first look I can see you didn't do that because there are at least 20 sources directly related to visa requirements for German citizens in the article concerning Romanian citizens. Not much else I can say. I suspect other editors will not be thrilled either but I will leave it to them, I will not undo your edits any more.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the broader picture: I have changed a lot of the other information to match true info for Romanian citizens. As a result of what you have suggested, I will now verify all the sources using a special software and replace them with the ones matching for Romanian citizens instead of German. Thank you for understanding. It truly helps. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the visa requirements map needs some updating - Angola should be updated per the latest change to visa on arrival, Tanzania should be dark green (visa-free), as should PNG (free visa on arrival). I don't know how to do it, so I appreciate your help. Thanks and keep up the good work! 2601:14D:8580:370:549C:5BFE:D27A:C856 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As for Tanzania, I will check when the policy was changed and amend the map accordingly. As for PNG we don't color visa on arrival as visa-free on the maps. As for Angola, we are waiting for a confirmation that this is more than a simplified visa policy.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comments on Thailand Visa Policies[edit]

Thanks for you good work on visas, but esp on Thailand. Fed up with all the misinformation floating around as you can see I recently got interested in trying to add to the info there.

Yesterday I found the Thai government page on visa requirements on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs site. It was dated 2012 and fraught with errors. I searched for a later version and found it on the Thai Embassy Moscow site, dated Apr 2014. Also fraught with errors. Today I returned to the MFA site and found that it now has a Jul 2014 version, cleaned up considerably.

As I live here, I intend to try to keep on top of the Thai visa page and hope this is OK with with given all the great work you have done.

You mention IATA as a source of visa info. This is a great tip, altho visiting their site did not prove very helpful. I was unable to find any succinct comprehensive info, just a "trip planner" kind of thing that is very time-consuming to use.

Thanks again, Seligne (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unusual for some countries to provide outdated information. From that region, Malaysia is the worst I can think of with their official visa information mentioning even countries that ceased to exist decades ago. There are at least a dozen countries in the world with unclear visa policies, whether it's conflicting sources where we can't be sure what is correct or extremely complicated visa policies that are contradictory to themselves.
As for IATA, here is the Thailand page, it's the information Thai Government provides them with, it seems like they do it regularly - [5]
Please keep in mind that one of your edits is a copyright violation, you need to remove or completely rewrite Visa_policy_of_Thailand#Visa_types.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy reply! Having read your user page, I have a new appreciation of the difficulties of finding answers to seemingly simple questions!

Thanks for the IATA link! I am a bit taken aback by your copyright observation. As I could not find one coherent description of Thai visa types, what I wrote is a pastiche from many different sites, most in public domain (i.e., Thai embassy sites). Are you thinking that I cribbed this from Thaivisa? Best, Seligne (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must not copy/paste without citing a reference, even if you combing from two or three websites. I am not sure if Thai embassies are in public domain, but even if they are you still need to provide a source for other reasons such as verifiability. Either way you have to rewrite it as per WP:NOTGUIDE, because it contains unencyclopedic wording like "If you are single, your monthly income must be". Thanks for being reasonable :) --Twofortnights (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. It is taking me some time to get used to being "encyclopedic" as I come from the Wikivoyage side of things. I will reverse engineer what I derived and come up with some attributions. I am grateful for your guidance. Seligne (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If only everyone like you was so interested in accepting their mistakes or adapting their skills Wikipedia would be a much better place. But unfortunately some people rather choose to be nasty and vengeful.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also learned something from you today, that Wikitravel is no longer the place to be. I didn't know about all those things that happened and that Wikivoyage is now the main site. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I did not open a Pandora's box for you: you could spend another year or more updating visa info over there! Good to keep WV in mind for in-line links, etc., where appropriate. Best, Seligne (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naturalization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TimaticWeb links[edit]

I figure you might be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#links to TimaticWeb. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have shared my input.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan[edit]

Hi. I think your improvements to the Visa requirements for British citizens page are excellent. However, I noticed that you undid my change to list Taiwan as a country. Without wanting to go into too much detail on the specifics of the Taiwan question, I don't think it's appropriate to list Taiwan as a 'disputed region' or 'dependency of China,' etc. because Taiwan is a destination to which many international travellers go and is a major world economy. Moreover on a technical level, Taiwan is the Republic of China whereas mainland China is the People's Republic of China. It has informal diplomatic ties with most countries and retains formal diplomatic ties with a few. Briefly put, the Taiwan question is not a resolved one and I don't think that it's very NPOV to relegate it to a lower standing as a dependency of the PRC. For these 3 reasons, I hope you'll agree with me that Taiwan should be listed with the other countries. --Île flottante (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Île flottante, Hi! Well the thing is just because you personally don't think the status of Taiwan is disputed doesn't mean it's true. The Wikipedia article Political status of Taiwan tells us it's not just disputed but deeply disputed. It's not my view, it's the reality. I personally don't care one way or another about the status of Taiwan, but if it's disputed then it's disputed, nothing we can do about it. And finally as you've said yourself "the Taiwan question is not a resolved one" so that's why it's in the disputed zone. It doesn't mean anything more than that, it's just to avoid future disputes and where do we draw the line. Entity without a resolved status cannot be in the same group with sovereign countries. You should see the first list as undoubtedly undisputed countries and the second list as a list of places with foggy status of a sovereign international entity. Some, like colonies, are undoubtedly not sovereign entities, and some like Taiwan are neither here nor there. Keep in mind that it does not mean Taiwan is a "dependency of the PRC" as you have suggested. I have renamed the section to "Dependent, Disputed, or Restricted territories" to make it clear that there are several things in there, not just territories. However I see how it may cause confusion so we could separate them further, maybe you would find this more appropriate? Something like this Visa_requirements_for_Russian_citizens#Unrecognized_or_partially_recognized_countries. It would definitely cover both problems, the need to list a state with unresolved status separately but also the need to list it in such a fashion that does not suggest it is an entity of China. Please let me know.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps that the international recognition of a country, or indeed the lack thereof, shouldn't be a factor in organising the lists. Rather I would perhaps suggest that differing immigration policies be listed. I.e., everywhere that has its own regulations on immigration be listed. I can see the problem, however, that places like the British Oversees Territories might be problematic: there are a lot of them, some of them have no/very few inhabitants, and some receive negligible numbers of visitors. Perhaps therefore countries with undisputed dependencies have an asterisk next to them, directing the reader to consult a further section on 'Dependent Territories,' and that such undisputed dependencies not be listed on the main list. I think also that if you compare the number of inhabitants in the various countries on the 'Dependent, Disputed, or Restricted territories' list, you'll see that Taiwan's population is unusually large. In all, I think this would be a way to depoliticise the matter as we would not be listing countries, but rather immigration systems. --Île flottante (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's not as simple as you'd think. Some countries share an immigration system with other countries while some countries have more than one immigration system (sometimes it might even be the same visa policy but still more than one authority like with Malaysia). All that would confuse an average reader - where is Austria? Where is Germany? Oh under Sch as in Schengen. Where is Malaysia? Oh look there are two Malaysias. Where is China? Here it is, but wait there is an asterisk, why? You catch my point. If it was just Taiwan, it would be easy to solve it somehow. But it's not. And the fact remains, there is nothing factually wrong with saying that Taiwan is a territory under some kind of a dispute. I think the simplest way to solve the issue that you've raised is to separate dependencies from disputed territories or "Unrecognised or partially recognised countries" as the other article puts it. Anything else would make it too odd and difficult for new editors to figure out so they will avoid to delve into it and of course for readers to understand.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan apply 30 days landing visa in airport for Turkish citizens.. informations you did is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.226.152 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Passport type[edit]

I don't think I came across that issue yet. Can you give me a couple of examples where there's such a distinction? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, judging by the Azerbaijani example, you're referring to the full text database links, https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?FullText=1&COUNTRY=<countrycode>&SECTION=VI&SUBSECTION=<something>&user=<something>&subuser=<something> I've thought about it - it could be as easy as an addition of a single parameter to indicate this mode. But then there's also another popular form of full text database links, https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_client.cgi?ExpertMode=TIDFT/<something>&user=<something>&subuser=<something> - we probably need a content decision on that first... IOW either one can be linked, or even both, but I don't know which one should be linked. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Visa policy of Egypt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *{{flag|Israel}} – only through [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]].<ref>[[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/Consular%20forms/VisaRequirements.pdf]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Visa requirements for Israeli citizens may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] resorts for up to 14 days if entering only through [[Taba, Egypt|Taba]] border crossing.<ref>[[http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/Consular%20forms/VisaRequirements.pdf]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru visa policy[edit]

I agree with what you said. I took out the infobox and made a separate section for the map. I also added a legend. (I'm not sure if you want to continue the talk on my talk page, your talk page, or how it is now.)—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Hi, Twofortnights! When I look visa policies/requirements by the countries, you have uploaded and updated maps drew my attention. First I have to say, map you are using, very amateurish prepared. According to wrong map, Iceland and Greenland belong to Norway, Sardinia of France, Cyprus of Greece, Malta of Italy, Denmark to Sweden, United Kingdom to France :) , Falkland Islands to Argentina?? Also, European Union should not be used as a single country. Because,all countries not members of Schengen. What do you think about this? Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maurice Flesier - those maps are used all over Wikipedia. They don't show any of the nonsense you've said. For an example they don't even show smaller territories irrelevant for the subject such as Falkland Islands, and you claim the map shows them as part of Argentina. It might show Tierra del Fuego ;) As for the rest, I can't believe that's the conclusion you have reached. The whole reason why those maps are made like that is so that they can be painted in one click. They are not supposed to be 100% geographically correct, there are many "mistakes" on the map such as Azerbaijan being shown as one piece despite it having an exclave, or not showing Hawaii. That is because those maps are not supposed to show geography anyway, of course they shouldn't show some fantasy lands, but slight discrepancies are not relevant. And no they do not suggest Iceland is part of Norway or that Cyprus is part of Greece (which is probably why you are contacting me as you are Turkish and the rest of the nonsense such as suggesting that the UK is part of France is a poor smoke screen) but they are just connected with a line so that the whole EU is one block of pixels (yes those unified maps are used only when the whole EU is shown, there is not a single map where Cyprus is connected to Greece and where the rest of the EU is shown separately). I am fully aware that not all states are members of Schengen which is why when it comes to visa requirement maps the UK and Ireland are shown separately. When it comes to visa policies they are shown together if a country has a single visa policy towards EU citizens which is pretty common these days, several dozen countries have it. Anyway back to your actual concern, line that connects Cyprus pixels and EU pixels going via Greece - it can go via Malta or Italy if that would make you happy but I assure you those who made the blank map had no sinister plans, they just chose the shortest route.--Twofortnights (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please when negotiated, please observe the rules of wikipedia, especially WP:NPA and WP:EQ! Can you explain to me "which is probably why you are contacting me as you are Turkish". This topic has to do with my ethnic identity? Yes, maps are disputed many issues. Republic of Cyprus is not member of Shengen and Iceland's not yet an EU member! The use of these maps can cause misunderstanding. So, I'm going to re-upload them correctly. Maurice Flesier (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice Flesier - Yes, you are upset because you see that map as showing Cyprus as part of Greece, at least that is how you interpret it. Cyprus is not part of Schengen Area but applies Schengen rules. Iceland is a Schengen member and EEA member. Either way I have explained things to you, it's not my problem that you don't differentiate between Falkland Islands and Tierra del Fuego or that you think that mere pixel grouping is a political statement but know how to call work of others amateurish. I will undo all edits that you do to maps without reaching consensus for such changes, learn the basics of Wikipedia community rules please.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still insist on violating the rules. You looking at my user page, you cannot judge about me. They are my personal opinions and do not bind anyone. Why should I being upset? I ask u, Republic of Cyprus belong to Greece as politically or geographically?? Also, you saying take it back, are you threatening me? I hope I'm wrong!! – Maurice Flesier (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me it's better for me to believe that things you've said like that the United Kingdom belongs to France are a smoke screen. Because if you really believe that the UK belongs to France because of pixel grouping then something is terribly wrong with your understanding of reality. Cyprus does not belong to Greece, are you that thick, the line connects them so when you click anywhere between Spain and Finland and Cyprus and Sweden the whole area changes color in one click. What is so hard to understand? For this to be technically possible a line of pixels needs to connect them. The closest pixel is that of Greece, it could connect to Italy or Malta but why would you draw a line that is twice as long?! And I have no idea what are you talking in the end. I am threatening with enforcing the Wikipedia rules, you can't just barge in and change the maps that have been up for so long, some of them were created years ago, without first reaching a consensus for such a change on the talk page. If you reach such a consensus go ahead and make edits in line with that consensus.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain[edit]

Justify your continuous reverts.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zyzzzzzy - umm I did? You keep adding the data for 2013 and from third party sources while the actual original source for 2014 clearly says otherwise - [6] I don't know what else to add, I can just ask you to stop making uninformed edits.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for your quick response.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Visa requirements for Israeli citizens shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dreadstar ☥ 20:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks for letting me know. Thanks for the suggestion to use the article's talk page but if you'd care to take a look at Talk:Visa requirements for Israeli citizens you'd see a rather lengthy and unfruitful discussion. As for requesting help after discussion reaches an impasse, sorry but from personal experience most of the poeple involved in those noticeboards are not interested in helping at all. I've had some really bad experience where I've laid out all the issues only to be dissed by a person that was supposed to invest more than a minute of his time into that matter which was clearly too much. Anyway if you are willing to act differently please do get involved, I've linked to the talk page.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you Dreadstar. A known rules violator previously blocked by you personally goes on to remove content with a source from an article (behavior for which there is an official template warning) while citing random policies as a good troll and you block me just to keep it equal? Good job. Feels like we are in the Soviet Union. Don't want to make any class differences even between rule breakers and (impatient) "crime" stoppers, give them an equal punishment, teach them both the most important lesson - do not stand out of the crowd. Bureaucracy prevails too, you don't care that he was breaking the rules because solving that would take some involvement. Solving the bureaucratic 3RR takes only a minute, solving sneaky vandalism would take 5 and that's a lot. I hope you don't work with real disputes, for an example family disputes where a husband beats his wife senseless and where you come in and ticket them both for making noise and tell them to talk this through. On a request of wife to maybe consider that family violence takes precedence over making noise and that you should arrest him you would probably suggest her to talk this dispute over and if necessary seek advise from disinterested social service. Why? Well it's obvious, writing a noise ticket takes 1 minute, arresting and charging someone with a criminal offense takes a bit more time. Still wouldn't make your actions right. The samw thing here, does Wikipedia really benefit from taking the shortest route EVERY TIME?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no 'making it even', you broke 3RR and got blocked for it, you've been blocked for edit warring before. Just a suggestion, if you do happen to put up an unblock request, take responsibility for your actions, show that you understand what you did and assure the reviewing admin that you won't do it again. Making comments about me and my abilities won't help you at all. Dreadstar ☥ 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadstar, I am not going to make any requests because it is futile. I never said I didn't break that rule but I did say that you implemented that easy bureaucratic rule instead of dealing with that user and his persistent removal of content specifically because it takes a lot less effort. But as soon as the bureaucratic block is over he will be back doing what he was doing before, you solved nothing and you know it as you came across this user before. Blocking me for trying to stop him also won't solve anything, it will only further deteriorate Wikipedia quality by aiding fight of editors due to bureaucracy (you can find links to some good analysis on this page above). Maybe I am wrong but I sense from the tone of your message and complete avoidance of the issues raised that my message was delivered and that you understood it clearly. Just like I am taking responsibility for my actions (overzealous undoing of content removal, over three times in 24 hours) maybe you can do it as well, maybe you can for once solve a "content dispute" by actually deciding which side is wrong and which side is right. I wouldn't mind it if I was declared "wrong" at all, but for once let's have a decision instead of these communist decisions of giving an equal measure to all parties involved as that is the most annoying part of Wikipedia by far.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote of you Dreadstar from the talk page of the other user that was removing content

"Since you've owned up to your mistake, said you recognized the problem with edit warring and that you'd stop, I'll unblock you."

So which one is it

  • reverting someone removing content is a more grave mistake than the actual removal of content?
  • if admitting to a mistake is followed by criticism then such user will not be unblocked unlike the user who can show some adulation will be unblocked?

Needless to mention that the other user is manipulative to the maximum, he uses all the wrong Wikipedia policies at random to justify his actions and lies about others without a blink of remorse. But I guess sweet talk gets you much further then hard talk around here. I am sorry I am not too good at first one, and I am sorry I am quite often in the 2nd category but it shouldn't be an excuse to be in this ridiculous situation.

I could have written this message differently, I could have written how terribly sorry I am, how I would never do something like that again but for that I would have to have an incentive in form of yours "listen next time someone removes sourced content we'll deal with it this way>>>" but I haven't seen that. There is not a single hint that there is any plan for the future. I am sorry for violating the 3RR, but not simply for violating it, but for being in the situation where that was the only option.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visa free map for Colombian citizens[edit]

Hello Twofortnights. I know that you update File:Visa free map for Colombian citizens.png, would you incorporate this info into File:Requerimientos de visa para colombianos.svg? because both are the same map, and the second map was created first. So this it will be keep and other will be deleted. Thanks --Luisfege (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure at the moment how to properly edit the File:Visa free map for Colombian citizens.svg but I would suggest against using it until it had been updated as it contains many outdated information.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Zambian citizens[edit]

Hullo! I know you're experienced in making maps for Visa policy and Visa requirements pages and I was wondering if you'd do me a favour and create one for Visa requirements for Zambian citizens. Please do. €smost πк 11:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Esmost. There is not a single reference in that article, I have no idea if any of the information is correct in order to make a map.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them. Can you make it now? --Esmost πк 12:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Esmost, there are so many mistakes in that article you've created, I'll try to fix them and then I'll see to make a map.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KAZA visa[edit]

Hi, Twofortnights. I think we need to create a separate page for "South African Schengen". Kavango-Zambezi universal visa. In May 2015, will be a one visa for five countries. http://www.kazavisa.info/index.php/about/overview Now is the section in the Visa policy Zambia and Zimbabwe. What do you think about this? Norvikk (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norvikk, Hi, yes we probably should, but not before it is actually implemented or at least imminent. Right now it is only a pilot project for 6 months. If Angola, Botswana and Namibia really do join the project and it becomes permanent then definitely, we will create a KAZA visa article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, let's wait the end of the pilot regime. Thank you. Norvikk (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Algerian citizens[edit]

I'd like to talk about the issue with the article Visa requirements for Algerian citizens. The IP you reverted came to me about one of the sources, but when I clicked on the source, it brought me to a blank page. At the original website I noticed that it requires a login from a member in order to go on. If I just put in this in my address bar, it says I don't have permission to access the server. That's fine if you can see what's on the other side, so only you can deal with that IP because I can't see a thing on the other side. If you want you can reply to him here on my talk page. Thanks.--A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AbigailAbernathy, yes it's a bit of a tricky server, you have to use those URL commands. Anyway there indeed was an error in the article but I've fixed it, there are now no more 3 Burundis. I will inform that user on your talk page too.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visa policy of Qatar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Great Job Twofortnights! Excellent Contribution! I am Indonesian Immigration Officer. The plan for Visa Exemption for 5 Countries would be expected as off January 2015 as your written, could be cancelled forever. After we had such a meeting with the Coordinating Ministry, Directorate General of Immigration Republic of Indonesia. Best Regards Ridwan jazz arifin (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ridwan jazz arifin. It is strange though, Indonesia promised this to Japan at least for which Japan also abolished visas for Indonesian citizens.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

who?[edit]

What is the name of the administrator who blocked you and the vandal?

What other administrator wrongly blocked you?

I want to help Wikipedia and rid it of corruption. Likely, the administrator who blocked you is a vandal that got promoted and wants to hurt innocent people. This is like a serial rapist or serial killer.

Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huge error[edit]

You have a huge error in all your articles. You don't specify what kind of visa. Someone may assume it is a tourist visa but you don't specify. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "my" articles, you are free to edit anything on Wikipedia that you think needs further clarification or more information.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you are correct. However, you have put so much effort in these articles, most of which would either not exist or be in a sorry state if you didn't work on it. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Nepal visa policy map to PNG from SVG[edit]

Hello, I noticed you edited Visa policy of Nepal to use a PNG map instead of the existing SVG map I put there. You made your change on 26 April 2014. You didn't provide an edit summary, so I wonder why you made this change? The PNG map doesn't seem to be an improvement, because unlike the SVG map it is not scalable. Also, it has lines running from Iceland to the continents. I'm very grateful for your removal of the spam and vandalism in this article though. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlexanderVanLoon, thanks for the message. I used that map because I thought maybe .png files are much easier for most of the users to edit as they can be edited in MS Paint, and as visa maps can often change I think maybe .svg maps should be reserved for more static maps. The version of .svg map that you've used is pretty good though, it shows island nations well unlike some other .svg maps which show geographically realistic view but that's not good for these articles. Of course this is only my opinion and if you think a .svg map is better suited please do restore it into the article, I don't hold an extra strong opinion on the matter. But please if you restore the .svg just write a short paragraph in the image description informing newbies how to edit it. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Twofortnights, if those were the reasons I can actually tell you that it's the other way around. As I wrote in the description, the map I made is based on File:BlankMap-World6,_compact.svg. The documentation for that map template describes how you can edit the SVG file in a text editor. You can simply search the country code in the file and then specify the color code, which is actually much easier than using an image editor. I'll assume you'll agree with reverting to the SVG map now. I'll make sure to edit the description to point to this documentation more explicitly, as you ask. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks AlexanderVanLoon!--Twofortnights (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of the United_Kingdom[edit]

Hi, Twofortnights, I noticed your edit and your comment. If you take a a look at the reFill tool, you will see these references could not be filled. In my opinion, it is better to have turn these references into bare links. No? Lotje (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But they were already filled by some bot a while ago. I don't think it's the best choice to remove those titles because such articles are tagged with an ugly Template:barelinks.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but bots, unfortunately also sometimes mean vandalism, that is what makes it so confusing. Lotje (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Mozambique[edit]

Hi, Twofortnights! Firstly, congratulations on your work! I have only an observation. Concerning the Visa policy of Mozambique and your corrections, it seems that the Visa on Arrival continues be valid to the countries that host an embassy. The difference is that if you do not apply in advance you will be paying 25 % more for the fee. Cfr. [7]. In portuguese: Visto de fronteira (estrangeiro proveniente de países onde não haja embaixada ou representação consular moçambicana, ou, havendo aquelas, será concedido mediante o pagamento adicional de 25% sobre a taxa a pagar. Válido por 30 dias, prorrogáveis até 60 dias). If you check in the timaticweb for countries which host an embassy of Mozambique it says (in the case of Brazil for instance [8]): Visa Issuance: Visa required, except for Nationals of Brazil can obtain a visa on arrival for a max. stay of 30 days at Beira (BEW), Nampula (APL), Maputo (MPM), Pemba (POL), Tete (TET) and Vilankulo (VNX). Please consider that. Thanks a lot! --Quodagis

Thanks. I'll look into this!--Twofortnights (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quodagis, I've looked into it, and I found that the Mozambique embassy in Washington website has this warning: "NOTE. A VISA MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE TRIP AT THE CONSULAR SERVICES AS A VISA CAN NO LONGER BE ISSUED UPON ARRIVAL AT ANY OF MOZAMBIQUE'S ENTRANCE POINTS. SHOULD YOU REQUIRE A BORDER VISA YOU MUST REQUIRE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM Direcção Nacional de Migração." - http://www.embamoc-usa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89&Itemid=64 Is it possible that [9] is outdated and does not reflect the latest changes?--Twofortnights (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Twofortnights, thanks for your answer! It seems that the recent pieces of news tend to say that the Government wants to reinforce security and to apply in an absolute mode the visa obligation for those countries which host an embassy of Mozambique. See for instance: [10]; [11]. In any case, I would not risk it... Let's wait a bit in order to see what happens. Quodagis 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Орден для вас![edit]

Орден за усердие
Thank you for your work. Norvikk (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Norvikk! It's much appreciated!--Twofortnights (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Chinese citizens[edit]

With due respect, my edit was not disruptive at all. I simply restored the original picture (which you replaced in June 2014). In visa requirement articles, we normally use green or blue color for e-visa. An orange shade is confusing because we normally associate the color with restrictive policy.152.3.43.196 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with that map is stuck. I didn't replace the map I replaced the link with a new clarified version because the original was constantly altered on Commons with blanking a lot of information. Admins have locked the page on that version following a dispute and that's it. By editing it without reaching a consensus on a talk page is restarting the flame war so please don't do it.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entry requirements for Moldova[edit]

Hello, since you seem to have lots of time for these articles, could you please correct Moldova's visa policy so that it states that European biometric ID Cards are accepted? France's aren't, for example, whereby they need a passport, but I as a Swede can very well use mine (already made the correction for Sweden as you know)

By using this site one can search for all European nations one by one and see which ones can use their ID Cards.

OK thanks [12]--Twofortnights (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, amazing! How did you access the general requirement info (i.e. no nationality specified)? All sites I've tried have forced me to specify nationality

About Visa Policy of Turkey[edit]

Hi Twofortnights ! I can very little speak English. I must say for Visa Policy of Turkey ! İf you look this page, you can see. Ordinary passport holder Iraqi citizens, must get a visa from www.evisa.gov.tr adress. Will be only for Iraqi Diplomatic and service passport holders visa agremeent. So, Visa Policy of Turkey map is wrong. Emresunay (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Emresunay, it's corrected.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Travel documents for official affairs - no such thing[edit]

Once there's a "for public affair endorsement" in the ordinary passport, it means the traveller is travelling for public affairs, it's not "ordinary" any more, so it's good to combine that with diplomatic, service passport, etc. --Whisper of the heart 20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the person who don't understand is you. The endorsement means the bearer is having a travel for public affair, so it is similar to people who hold diplomatic or service passport. As a result, although the traveller hold an ordinary passport, they can still be categorized together. This is an absolutely appropriate action.--Whisper of the heart 12:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whisper of the heart, I don't agree but you can take it to the talk page and maybe there will be a consensus. For now there isn't.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Visa policy of China. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Liz Read! Talk! 14:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for note Liz but I have tried to defend consensus in the first undo and to tell the user to use the talk page in the second. After he didn't stop I didn't engage in a revert war but I posted it on ANI board. So thanks but no need to warn me :) --Twofortnights (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visa requirements for Russian citizens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Andrés, Colombia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

Hello, thank you for the notice. I wanted to update Paraguay and I ended up modifying Peru. Thank you for the rectification. You could make another change of just removing the entire reciprocity section for the visa policy of India since India does not give any more visa on arrival or rather update the VOA as e-Tourist visa in the entire table and you do add the countries like Senegal in the table. Cheers.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.64.19 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Visa Free Wikipage[edit]

Why do you refuse to accept the updated count number wanting to abide by the report which is a year old? I can see other visa requirement pages of other countries updated by you almost up to date giving no account to Henley & Partners. For ex UAE count was updated yesterday, Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt were all updated as per appropriate to the latest visa restriction changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.107.137 (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't refuse anything, you are doing original research, there is no source to back-up your edit. The source says one thing and you change it to something else. All countries refer to 2014 report because 2015 report hasn't been published yet. Please read Wikipedia:No original research.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Requirements For Lebanese Citizens[edit]

Well try counting the countries and territories which grant visa free/on arrival access based on the table we both agree on (with the refs. provided) you'll get a 44. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.107.137 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the Wikipedia:No original research as I've suggested, otherwise you wouldn't be proposing that as you'd know it's against Wikipedia rules. You can't "update" against what the source says. You should also read the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passport rankings[edit]

Hi, I have a problem with your reference of Henley & Partners. (Visa requirements for Czech citizens and Visa requirements for the European Union citizens.) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanPodany (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Visa Free Wiki Page[edit]

Then could you please show me the report that states that Qatari citizens have visa-free access to 75 countries? Since I've checked the report you'll abiding to (Henley & Partners 2014) and it states 71. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.107.137 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither 75 nor 71 but 39 - [13]--Twofortnights (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor[edit]

Looks like our banned IP editor is back with a new host. [14] Removing cited material and adding uncited material. WCMemail 22:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence of some of these people is unbelievable.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
W, he kept on making those edits. Could you please check if they are harmful as before, did he again insert his own peculiar views that don't correspond to actual policies?--Twofortnights (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[15] Removed some cited information, which I'll add back when he's bored but I'm not 100% convinced the cite he added supports the edit. I got to 3RR, which I hate doing as too many admins will simply block both parties calling it a content dispute. WCMemail 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
W, I see, I will undo some of those edits as there is no reason to double information. Also the Cypriot base policy is not mentioned as far as I can see in the link provided. As for admin action, unfortunately it's true, it's become pure bureaucracy that doesn't see it's purpose in solving issues the best way but serving its own purpose. There were also some edits to Visa policy of the French overseas departments and territories and Visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean by a seemingly similar IP address.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Requirements for Lebanese Citizens[edit]

Thank you for your advise, I have re-modified the Map on the original one uploaded, I tried several times to use it as the current version but it happen to be reverted and archived. Please have a look on the MAP history and see the adjustments and then if you please do make the one that I did appear on the main page! Thanks a lot fidelovkurt 20:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK fixed.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Vincentians[edit]

Regarding the recent Schengen-Vincentian reciprocal agreement. As you pointed out in the case of Iceland, the Icelandic websites says that Vincentians no longer need visas, but IATA says they do. Under this circumstance do you know what'll happen if a Vincentian tries to board a plane bound for Iceland without a schengen visa? ~ Hairouna (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hairouna - Icelandic Government is the primary source. It's a reputable Government that publishes updated information regularly. The problem with IATA is that they misinterpret the line how those countries have to sign separate agreements in the future with Iceland and other non-EU Schengen states, when in reality this move is done immediately. The reason is that these countries are a) obliged to have the same visa policy b) have open borders with the EU so anything else wouldn't make sense anyway. The problem with Icelandic Government is that while they do keep their websites updated they don't regularly inform IATA of changes believing that this is done by Brussels while it's not. Anyway, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines citizens don't need a visa for Iceland.
If a citizen of Saint Vincent tries to board a plane bound for Iceland (from outside the Schengen Area) without a visa he will face difficulties and it depends on the airline staff - how much will they be interested to investigate ie. will they or will they not place a call to the Icelandic authorities.
These situations aren't unusual for that gargantuan European bureaucracy. Just the process of signing this document took about 3 years from the initial idea, I don't think they even know how they did it, it went between the Council, Commission and Parliament and also various committees back and forth and in circles until it was approved pending signature, and now that we have a signature it's applied pending yet another ratification. It's not unusual that Iceland doesn't realize it's their duty to inform IATA.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. Would you object to us leaving Iceland (and Norway and Switzerland) labelled as yeses but saying in the notes that since IATA hasn't been notified then people might face difficulties boarding flights originating from outside the schengen zone and bound for one of those countries? ~ Hairouna (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can write it like that exactly, unless we can find a reference from some media about how such events can cause difficulties it would be seen as original research even though it is true. However we can definitely write a note if we cautiously word it saying that the IATA database used by airlines to determine who can board the flight still lists Iceland as a country where visa is required. Also you can contact Timatic IATA to tell them that the information they have on Iceland is wrong (it wasn't updated for Moldova either and also the recent expansion to the East Caribbean nations).--Twofortnights (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Visa Requirements[edit]

Mr Two Fortnights, We would like to inform you that the Jamaican page has been edited based on information passed by the Jamaican embassy in Kuwait. So please dont try and change the information tthat is correct. The only thing that can be changed is the map to show the updated countries. Otherwise all data on which countries give Evisa or Visa on arrival, etc is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeboarddubai (talk • contribs) 06:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lifeboarddubai! Please take a minute or two to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also quite important is Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Well I have given the links from which I had verified the details I had put up. So if I provided the links with proof, why do you change them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeboarddubai (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it "Lead reversed because WP:NOR, Andorra rev.bcs. WP:CIRCULAR, others reversed for formatting issues for the time being until fixed because - {{}} can't be used for reference links, use [] instead, eVisa is template "yes2" not "yes""--Twofortnights (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have executed the changes you asked. Can you provide an updated map cause I don't know how to create maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeboarddubai (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a partial edit. You need to read WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR to see why there are remaining issues. Also you could benefit from using the preview button, you added some nonsense text like "Italic text" at the beginning of the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Indian citizens[edit]

Hi, Twofortnights,
Can you check through the recent series of edits to this page and see if they are accurate? Some of the edits seem to undo previous edits by this IP but you are most likely familiar with this page and can evaluate whether the new information is true. Thank you! Liz