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improved them from horrendous state of no references, spam links infestation, incomplete information and information outdated by several years and copyright violations and I had warned admins with success about numerous vandalism instances which resulted in at least a dozen admin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)

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)

Color scheme on maps

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)

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

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)
• 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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

--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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Visa Requirements for Romanian citizens

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question/comments on Thailand Visa Policies

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

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)

TimaticWeb links

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)

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

Taiwan

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: Passport type

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)

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)

August 2014

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)

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)

Nauru visa policy

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)

Maps

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Explain

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

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)

Thank You for your quick response.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

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)

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)

• I've blocked you for 31 hours for violating WP:3RR on Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. I've also blocked User:Chunk5Darth. Dreadstar ☥ 20:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

Visa free map for Colombian citizens

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)

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)

Visa requirements for Zambian citizens

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)

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)

I've added them. Can you make it now? --Esmost ^πк 12:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

KAZA visa

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)

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)

I understand, let's wait the end of the pilot regime. Thank you. Norvikk (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Algerian citizens

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

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)

who?

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)

Huge error

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)

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)

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)

Change of Nepal visa policy map to PNG from SVG

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)

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)

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)

OK thanks AlexanderVanLoon!--Twofortnights (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Visa policy of the United_Kingdom

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)

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)

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)

Visa policy of Mozambique

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)

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)

--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)

Орден для вас!

	Орден за усердие
	Thank you for your work. Norvikk (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk! It's much appreciated!--Twofortnights (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Chinese citizens

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)

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)

Entry requirements for Moldova

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)

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

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)

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

Re: Travel documents for official affairs - no such thing

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)

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)

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)

April 2015

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

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)

hi

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)

Lebanese Visa Free Wikipage

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)

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)

Visa Requirements For Lebanese Citizens

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)

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)

Passport rankings

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)

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

Lebanese Visa Free Wiki Page

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)

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

IP Editor

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

Persistence of some of these people is unbelievable.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

[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. WCM_email 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Visa Requirements for Lebanese Citizens

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)

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

Visa requirements for Vincentians

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jamaican Visa Requirements

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reference errors on 3 June

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

• On the Visa requirements for Hungarian citizens page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Visa requirements for Polish citizens page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Visa requirements for Indian citizens

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 12:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz! It looks like a series of editing tests, in the end he didn't change much but what he did is indeed wrong. I'll go ahead and undo his edit. Thanks for notifying me :) --Twofortnights (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Twofortnights,
Any specific reasons why a minor edit I made [16] was reverted? Was only trying to keep that column consistent because it helps one while searching which countries have opened up eVisa. That one cell was odd one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratheesh.pisharody (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The "Electronic Entry Visa" is used for Antigua is used in all other VR articles, so I placed it there for consistency reasons.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for taking such good care of all the Visa Requirements articles and in particular, the Indian one! Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cpt.a.haddock! It's a pleasure, especially the Indian article knowing it's an article with the highest number of monthly readers.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	What an awesome niche to fill. Thanks :) Acebarry (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation Acebarry :) --Twofortnights (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Орден «За борьбу с вандализмом»

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For laborious work on clarification from vandalism of visa articles of all countries of the world. Norvikk (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk! It means a lot to see this recognized because Wikipedia bureaucracy often allows vandalism to thrive.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Visa policy map of Iran

Hello, could you please modify the map of the visa policy of Iran so that it no longer says that there are conditions for visa on arrival? I have discovered that the pre-approval code is not needed and reported it to Timatic, who have corrected their info André Devecserii (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

André Devecserii, interesting development, I remember this was asked of them a year ago and they wouldn't change it as it supposedly was required. Thank you for this, I will make the necessary updates.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be required still for advance visas depending on nationality and embassy (at the embassy in Bern, for example, EU except UK nationals only need it for multiple-entry visas, whereas Swiss and UK citizens always do). This was purely about VOA at the airport. André Devecserii (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

==Visa requirements for Tunisian Citizens==First, Dear Wikipedia contributor i do not know if it s the talk page and if i am writing in the true place well about the visa requirements for tunisian citizens thanks for adding Iran in green to show that it s a country with VOA but please would you like to add Bengladesh too and for Lebanon Tunisian citizens do not require a visa it s a visa on entry requiring only the three documents Nationals of Arab countries but non-G.C.C. (Algeria - Comers Island - Djibouti - Egypt - Iraq - Libya - Morocco - Mauritania - Somalia - Sudan - Tunisia - Yemen:) can obtain their visa at the airport provided they are in possession of the following: - A round trip non-refundable ticket - A hotel reservation or residence address - A US$2000 in cash or a check from a recognized bank and i will gove you 2 official resources the tourism office of lebanonhttp://www.lebanontourism.com/TravelerTools/visa.asp in arabic try to read part 8 for ahttp://www.general-security.gov.lb/Entry_visa/visa.aspx General Directorate of General Security of Lebanon while you can check a problem in english in the web site i ll try to do it in other languages but it told the same thing as the tourism office in frenchhttp://www.general-security.gov.lb/Entry_visa/sub3-(1).aspx it says in french i will copy past Les ressortissants des pays arabes non membres du Golfe qui arrivent pour des raisons purement touristiques :

Un visa gratuit d'un mois, prorogeable jusqu'à 3 mois sur demande de l’intéressé, pour les ressortissantes en provenance des pays suivants :

Algérie, Djibouti, Egypte, îles Comores, Iraq, Jordanie, Libye, Maroc, Mauritanie, Somalie, Soudan, Tunisie, Yémen- Un Billet d'avion Aller-Retour non remboursable

- Une réservation d’hôtel ou l’adresse claire et nette d'un lieu d'hébergement fixe, ainsi qu’un numéro de téléphone

So would you like to change it to visa on entry and to add it in the map too and thanks

- Une somme d’argent liquide, d’un montant équivalent à 2 000 Dollars Américains, ou un chèque bancaire de ce montant, certifié par la banque concernée

French IDs to Saint Lucia

Hello, I have a dilemma regarding St Lucian acceptance of French ID cards. I mailed Hewanorra airport directly claiming to be a French national planning a 10-day trip. They said a French ID would not be accepted. I then forwarded the reply to IATA who contacted their sources. Apparently it came back French can after all use their IDs for max 14 days.

I don't know what to think. Did the airport themselves seriously give me wrong info? I'm asking because I want to modify the information on Wikipedia according to what's correct

Below is my correspondence with the airport and IATA [17] [18] André Devecserii (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a very poor reply from Saint Lucia, there isn't even a signature. I guess it shows how French nationals may experience some delays but I guess in the end Immigration Authority would confirm the same thing they confirmed to IATA. I think it should be added to the article, the fact that someone at the port authority doesn't know about it is not relevant for us.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I also had them investigate whether French can still use IDs to Dominica (still awaiting a reply). It says in Timatic that they can even use expired IDs (5 years max). Also mailed the Dominican embassy in Brussels to hear their version André Devecserii (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of these countries don't see laws including immigration, passport and visa rules as something carved in stone. Also quite often they don't have updated information even in embassies. So it can be frustrating to track down the truth. Even bigger countries like Malaysia provide really poor information on their visa policy.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

More flexibility with ID cards than passports for Turkey and Dominica?

It has come to my attention that, according to Timatic, Turkey requires Georgian, Dutch, Italian, Northern Cypriot, Liechtenstein, Maltese and Greek passports to be valid, on arrival, for the period of their visa exemption or e-visa plus another 60 days (i.e. most often 150 days). However, the ID cards of those countries must only be valid on arrival.

By reading this, I get the impression that in fact, the validity limit waiver not only applies to ID cards, but rather for travel documents in general for those citizens who do have the option of using an ID.

Do you think it'd be a good idea to contact the MFA and ask? It definitely sounds like a potential miscommunication to IATA.

Similarly, for Dominica, it says French passports must be valid on arrival, whereas ID cards can be expired for max 5 years if "issued between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2013, provided card holder was over 17 years of age on the date of issue.

I got a vague answer from Dominica stating that French ID cards can be used, but nothing about the validity even though I asked. Is this phenomenon (more flexibility with ID cards than passports) normal? André Devecserii (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Got a "response" from the Turkish MFA. Jesus Christ, how retarded can you be? [19] [20]. They don't even answer the question!

Sigh, should I take the risk of asking IATA to check? They seem quite irritated at my regular correspondence by now (even though about 90% of it resulted in corrections), so much that they assigned me a specific contact in the team. I don't want to raise a false alarm André Devecserii (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

From my experience Turkey is diligent enough about updating their websites, but it's still worth a check. Whomever they hired to work as support for MFA is dumb though, these emails are really unacceptable. I guess you'll have to write for the third time.

As for Dominica, looks like some special case to me, so I wouldn't connect it with any other policies on validity. However I think the reason for this are the French Caribbean territories so that their residents could travel to Dominica on an expired ID card. Therefore it is possible they have this policy on expired ID cards, but I think it's also worth rechecking, no reason for IATA to be irritated as far I'm concerned.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not the mere fact that expired ID cards can be used that I question, but that the same allegedly doesn't apply to expired French passport, despite the passport being a "stronger" travel document.´Same about Turkey (got a third worthless reply btw, and the fourth time they refused to respond).

Will send a mail to my assigned IATA contact André Devecserii (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Visa exemption for French territories

According to your maps, EU citizens have an indefinite right to stay in French Guiana and New Caledonia, but not other French territories. Is this really the case? I thought all EEA+Andorran+Monégasque+Sanmarinese+Swiss could stay indefinitely in all territories of France, and the info I have found seems to agree. André Devecserii (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Island territories except New Caledonia occasionally aren't actually marked on the maps. Guiana is there because it can't be omitted but other territories are impossible to be placed. The reason is that French territories aren't the only ones in the world, if you take a look at the visa requirements/territories section of some article you'll see there are dozens of them so the best thing is to keep the map only for established countries while everything else is in the table. It's a compromise to avoid clutter and keep the maps readable.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I understand André Devecserii (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Visa on arrival in non-Kurdish Iraq + visa-free visits to Iraqi Kurdistan

I have two problems. First, the MFA website (the date of which cannot be said for certain) says that, to get a visa on arrival for non-Kurdish Iraq, one simply needs to convince the immigration officer that one didn't get the opportunity of obtaining a visa in advance. Timatic, however, says "a signed and stamped letter issued by the Ministry of Interior of Iraq" must be provided.

Do you know of any sources confirming either version? How good are the Iraqis at updating their websites?

Secondly, I find absolutely nothing suggesting that holders of Vatican passports can visit Kurdistan visa-free (erhm, with "visa on arrival") for 15 days. Any source of this, or should I mail and ask?

Finally, I got your message and will send a mail. André Devecserii (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about Iraqi diligence but at this time I think it's safe to doubt any information from there given that the country is falling apart.

As for Kurdistan and Vatican, it's on the IATA page [21] - "Visa required, except for Nationals of Vatican City (Holy See) can obtain a visa on arrival at Erbil (EBL) and Sulaymaniyah (ISU) for a max. stay of 15 days. "

Thanks for emailing them about the other countries as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Visa policy of Kazakhstan for OECD members

Hello! I stumbled upon this article about Kazakhstan having lifted visa requirements for OECD member states as of the 1st of July 2015: ([22]) I saw on the wikipedia article page that Kazakhstan is indeed going to lift the visa requirements for members of the organization, however, no timeline was set in place. I can't find any official website confirming the above mentioned information. Have you seen any other information regarding this? Thanks and regards. Aquintero82 (talk), 16:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Aquintero82, in the end they lifted it only for 10 countries this year and they will lift it for all OECD members by the end of 2017. Here is a link [23]. Regards, --Twofortnights (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"Visa on arrival" in Iraqi Kurdistan

I don't know why it is constantly referred to as that, when it's really a visa-free visit. Even the government refers to it as visa-free. [24]

Unless you are of a differnet opinion, could you please remove all references to this as "visa on arrival" on Wikipedia?

Btw, look at the list in the link - not the same as the IATA info at all, and the site gives a good impression on me. I think I'm going to mail the Kurdish government and ask. If they confirm their list is up to date, this goes straight to IATA. André Devecserii (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks. They were changing the list quite a bit. As for why is it a VoA, I am not sure why some sources call it that but let's see what the IK Government has to say.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visa policy of Gabon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo. 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) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Twofortnights!

Just wanted to extend my compliments for the great job you've been doing so far with all the visa articles. I am here only to help and I hope you find my inputs so far helpful. I look forward to working with you on making the pages as comprehensive as possible

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61C:9BA:909C:45DB:4298:E0AB (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--Twofortnights (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

UAE visa-free map

Please update the uae visa-free map.. Exodusvisafree (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, what needs to be updated?--Twofortnights (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Mexicans to Tunisia

Hello, I recently saw that you changed the article that Mexican passport holders do not need a visa for Tunisia, however, the link you provided (as well as several other links that I have discovered) state the opposite. [25] The only exception are official and diplomatic holders. Can you please provide me with a link that states otherwise? Thank you and regards. Aquintero82, (talk), 23 July 2015, 11:19 (UTC)

Hi, yes you can read about it here - [26]. It's in French only, I am sorry. It will take some time for them to notify IATA I guess.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Aquintero82, (talk), 24 July 2015, 20:46 (UTC)

Visa-free entry to Georgia

It is, unlike previously, not just valid for 360 days, but one year. IATA says so and Tbilisi airport confirmed it to me on the phone. Thus, the visa policy map needs a slight change André Devecserii (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

André Devecserii, done. Also please add to the list of inconsistent visa policies for IATA clarification - Iran. Some media reported on how they abolished visas for citizens of Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Bolivia and Syria. First of all known visa policy of Iran already exempts nationals of these countries from a visa except Egypt, Lebanon and Georgia. Second of all citizens of Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Venezuela are also exempt but now that is not mentioned. And third of all the visa exemption allowed stay is just mentioned as 15-90 days depending on nationality but without further details. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My designated IATA contact doesn't seem keen on answering my two mails (describing about 8 issues in total), although the Georgian visa-free change was eventually put onto Timatic (may or may not be because I mailed about it).

To be honest with you, I'll give him a call tomorrow. He said two weeks ago he was very busy but that he'd contact me "anytime within the next 2-3 days or so". He hasn't so far.

If you're curious, his name is Jordi Bardolet (probably a Catalan guy) and his mail is bardoletj@iata.org André Devecserii (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

==Visa requirements for Tunisian Citizens==First, Dear Wikipedia contributor i do not know if it s the talk page and if i am writing in the true place well about the visa requirements for tunisian citizens thanks for adding Iran in green to show that it s a country with VOA but please would you like to add Bengladesh too and for Lebanon Tunisian citizens do not require a visa it s a visa on entry requiring only the three documents Nationals of Arab countries but non-G.C.C. (Algeria - Comers Island - Djibouti - Egypt - Iraq - Libya - Morocco - Mauritania - Somalia - Sudan - Tunisia - Yemen:) can obtain their visa at the airport provided they are in possession of the following: - A round trip non-refundable ticket - A hotel reservation or residence address - A US$2000 in cash or a check from a recognized bank and i will gove you 2 official resources the tourism office of lebanonhttp://www.lebanontourism.com/TravelerTools/visa.asp in arabic try to read part 8 for ahttp://www.general-security.gov.lb/Entry_visa/visa.aspx General Directorate of General Security of Lebanon while you can check a problem in english in the web site i ll try to do it in other languages but it told the same thing as the tourism office in frenchhttp://www.general-security.gov.lb/Entry_visa/sub3-(1).aspx it says in french i will copy past Les ressortissants des pays arabes non membres du Golfe qui arrivent pour des raisons purement touristiques :

Un visa gratuit d'un mois, prorogeable jusqu'à 3 mois sur demande de l’intéressé, pour les ressortissantes en provenance des pays suivants :

Algérie, Djibouti, Egypte, îles Comores, Iraq, Jordanie, Libye, Maroc, Mauritanie, Somalie, Soudan, Tunisie, Yémen- Un Billet d'avion Aller-Retour non remboursable

- Une réservation d’hôtel ou l’adresse claire et nette d'un lieu d'hébergement fixe, ainsi qu’un numéro de téléphone

So would you like to change it to visa on entry and to add it in the map too and thanks

- Une somme d’argent liquide, d’un montant équivalent à 2 000 Dollars Américains, ou un chèque bancaire de ce montant, certifié par la banque concernée

N.S: Dear Wikpedia contributot i already wrote you this before but it seems that you did t read or you acted so!! I did t copy past from any other web site i only made a copy past from the given source or may be you are not up to date try to open and read it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Majdiii (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars for you.

For a great contribution to writing of visa articles for all countries of the world.
For editing, the help in editing the articles "Visa Policy of Russia" and "Visa Requirements for Russian Citizens"
Thank you so much. Norvikk (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Norvikk!--Twofortnights (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements map for Filipino citizens

Hi there! Thanks for making these wonderful visa maps. However, I'd just like to point out two incorrect things in the map for Filipino citizens. The map states that Oman and Jordan allow visa on arrival for Filipinos. This is incorrect, according to Timatic/IATA. Additionally, Suriname and Costa Rica allow visa-free access to Filipinos, but the map does not reflect this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.241.50 (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. The map is now fixed.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens

Concerning the edits made, what part of the info have you seen as being false?

- Don't just undo everything. Just remove the ones you're not satisfied with as being referenced or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibanoGerman (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't provide references for any of the additions so that is why I removed everything.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems contacting IATA

Hi, just wrote the following mail to IATA http://oi61.tinypic.com/5dtff6.jpg

Did I write something I shouldn't have? They have refused to answer me for a week (they used to answer within 3 days at the most) just like they haven't been answering any of my mails since early July.

They haven't made any changes on the subject either (and they always used to let me know even if it turned out that their current info was correct)

Seems I will no longer be able to extract info from them :/ Do you think you could try, given the time (both with the Mozambique thing and other issues you have found)? Their main mail address is timediting@iata.org André Devecserii (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that seems very well written. The UK now also warns about Mozambique - "British nationals need a visa to enter Mozambique. All tourists and those travelling for work purposes from countries where there is a Mozambican diplomatic mission must get a tourist or business visa before travelling. If you’re travelling from a country where there is no Mozambican diplomatic mission you can get a visa on arrival although visitors have sometimes reported problems doing so." [27]

So they did not reply about any of the other countries? That is odd.

I will try to find time to write them an email, but please let me know if they reply to you in the meantime so that I don't send them an email about something that got already fixed.

But I think maybe your contact person is on vacation, so you should maybe resend the request for all countries on the main e-mail address so that it gets assigned to some case worker who is in the office. What do you think?--Twofortnights (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What I did was send a mail with my contact as "To", and the general address as "Copy".

I'll keep you posted in case they answer, but as I said, heard nothing from them ever since 2 July (except for speaking to my contact on the phone in late July, when he would reply within the week. Since then I've not been able to reach him at all)

Also, just to clarify, the Georgia visa exemption was corrected, and I think the new 90 day in a 180 day period rule for ACP countries was added for a few, but not most of those countries http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/05/28-jha-eu-visa-waiver-agreements/

They never let me know but I found out by inspecting.André Devecserii (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Twofortnights, another thing you could mail them about is the fact that Timatic still states that Iranian VoAs are only valid for 15 days even though it's been extended to 30. André Devecserii (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wrote this http://oi59.tinypic.com/33dj9z7.jpg At this point I expect no answer from them but I will let you know if I do get one André Devecserii (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have checked recent edits on Iran by Timatic and interestingly they added Georgia and Lebanon to the list of countries where VoA does not apply together with the UK, Canada and the US. This is interesting because media reports suggested that Iran did the exact opposite, that they had fully liberalized the visa policy towards these two countries and that their citizens no longer require a visa - [28] --Twofortnights (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

May be a miscommunication. I think you should definitely mail them and point this out if you can. Those could be significant errors André Devecserii (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Standardized color codes for all visa requirements maps

Hi Twofortnights

Greetings once again. I have been looking over the visa articles you've worked on, and first of all, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent job you have done. However, one thing that I feel needs work is that we should have a standardized color code for all the visa requirements by passport maps. The best color combination is the map that you use for most passports- E.g. Visa requirements for US, UK, Danish and Swedish citizens. The reason why I say that this is the best color code is that it allows us to effectively differentiate between countries that are visa free, offer visa on arrival, need a visa in advance AND allow a pre-arranged visa to be picked up on arrival.This color combination of dark green, light green, gray and reddish gray (for countries that allow pre-approved visa on arrival) is both easy on the eye and good to look at

However, this excellent color coding system does not apply for all the visa requirements pages. For example, on the visa requirements for Croatian and Singaporean citizens pages, the color code that is used is dark green, light green and red (for countries that require a visa). However, these 2 maps do not distinguish between countries that require a visa prior to arriving and countries that allow a pre-approved visa on arrival. This is why I would like to suggest that the color code you have used for the other visa requirements pages (US citizens, Danish citizens and UK citizens) be applied to these 2 pages. That way, we can also differentiate between countries that require a visa before arriving and countries that allow pre-approved visa on arrival.

Needless to say, you have done an excellent job of looking after these pages and I am positive that you will continue your great work. Feel free to hit me up with any further comments or suggestions!

Best,

Basanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:1CDB:95A3:E530:2DAE:54B7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! First of all thank you for your kind words. It is greatly appreciated. As for the map colors, I am not sure what is the right course of action, that is why I kept several maps slightly different hoping for other users to comment. You are the first user to share his input on this subject and thank you for that. One thing I know is that some users confuse "Visa requirements for" and "Visa policy of" articles so I tried to keep the visa policy articles more colorful and easier to distinguish. When it comes to visa requirements articles with a different code include Croatian, Polish, Singaporean, Albanian, Afghan, Swiss, Norwegian, Icelandic, Liechtenstein, post-Soviet, Central American, some Caribbean and Oceania states citizens. The problem for a unified approach are some countries with special categories such as China public affairs, Belarus tourist group or Macedonia voucher travel then there is also South American ID card travel, EU freedom of movement, Israeli ban etc. I hope more users can share their view so that we can proceed.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did take a look at the visa requirements articles that you said have a different code and they also do not distinguish countries that require a visa before arriving and countries that allow a pre-approved visa to be picked up on arrival. Many countries in actual fact do allow pre-approved visas to be obtained on arrival and that is why I personally think that this should be made distinguishable as soon as possible to further improve the accuracy of our maps. Once that is done we can worry about the potential anomalies that you mentioned exist (China Public affairs, Belarus tourist group etc etc) and make the necessary adjustments from there. However, for now, distinguishing pre-approved on arrival countries vs visa prior to arrival countries should be made a priority, as it will apply to quite a few countries. Right now, the map whose color code should be used as a model for the others will be "Visa requirements for British citizens". Not only are the visa free, visa on arrival, E Visa and pre-approved visa on arrival countries color coded well, the map is also very easy on eye and is not as Gaudy as some of the others (E.g. the red in the Visa requirements for Singapore citizens page or the yellow in Visa requirements for Swiss citizens" Congrats on your great work once again, and I look forward to working with you to improve the quality of the articles! - Basanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:210A:40E8:8B47:45E3:321F (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure which visa pick-up countries should we color? All of them or just those that don't require a local sponsor? You may see most of them and the rules here - Visa_requirements_for_European_Union_citizens#Pre-approved_visas_pick-up. Also I was contemplating about swapping the table colors between visa on arrival and evisa.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the countries that allow a pre-approved visa on arrival are those that state the possibility of one under IATA data. For example, Burundi allows you to get a visa on arrival if you hold a letter issued by Burundi immigration or Cameroon which allows you to get one on arrival if you have a letter from Le Delegue General de la Surete. Do not color the countries that allow you to get a visa on arrival if you are of that country's origin. The countries that offer pre-approved visas on arrival as a general rule are Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bhutan, Burundi, Cameroon, Eritrea, Ghana, Liberia, Libya, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

As for the visa on arrival vs e visa, I think that will be a great idea because blue is a much more welcoming and friendly color than the uncertain yellow color and it will be more applicable for a process like visa on arrival

Hope this helps!

Basanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:210A:40E8:8B47:45E3:321F (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes I know which countries offer it, but countries like Eritrea, Somalia or Turkmenistan allow it only if the arriving passenger has a local sponsor. I am still not sure if this should be grouped with simple pre-arranged visa pick up like in Belarus for example.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Turkmenistan only allows it with a sponsor (such as a tourist agency) regardless, that is, even if you apply through an embassy. Thus, there really aren't additional conditions for getting it specifically on arrival. André Devecserii (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can include those, because for all 3 of them, as long as your inviting party sends in the documents prior to arrival, you will still be able to pick the visa up. That is just like Belarus where your inviting party submits the documents 3 days before arrival and you pick the visa up at the airport. Hope this helps!- Basanth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:354C:2007:F420:526E:5BB9 (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope you understand this will be a lengthy process though. So far I've brought map for Bulgarian citizens in line with others.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I do understand. I think we should give priority to the really ugly looking ones (Singapore and Croatia) for the time being and we can slowly work out way through the rest from there. If there is any way I can help with the maps, just let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:394E:BD55:43D:4077:A1F8 (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OK I have updated Singapore. As for Croatia it is a lot more complicated and will require time.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. For Singapore, the legend appears to have been corrected but the map is still the same. You should look into it as and when you can. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:394E:BD55:43D:4077:A1F8 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have definitely uploaded a new file. You need to refresh, or try clearing your cache or click on this - https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Singaporean_citizens?action=purge --Twofortnights (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies- I see it now. Great work as always!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7400:6000:394E:BD55:43D:4077:A1F8 (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Low and behold...

Finally an answer regarding Iran :D http://oi59.tinypic.com/slk39h.jpg André Devecserii (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

André Devecserii, sorry, I entirely missed this message from you. I saw that they updated their Iran page again, but it again doesn't make sense. Now it says Georgian and Egyptian citizens can get visa on arrival for 45 and 20 days respectively. First of all the media spoke about visa-free. Second of all grand announcement of a visa on arrival facility which is shorter than for the rest (30 days) for Egyptian citizens makes little sense. And finally they didn't make any updates about Lebanon. I don't know what to think.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Twofortnights, it would be great if you could mail IATA (timediting@iata.org) and explain everything that you have discovered doesn't make sense. Although, they did say they're awaiting confirmation a few days ago so maybe we could for a day or two. What do you think?

This is serious because the IATA info is what airlines base passenger requirements on. André Devecserii (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens

Hello, I'm made additions and improvements to this wikipage and made sure to provide the appropriate reference link for every single bit of info as possible. Please check them up and feel free removing what you don't agree with just please don't undo everything. Regards,

109.68.191.35 (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC) LibanoGerman

I will check but unfortunately it's not enough to simply cite references. There are copyright laws to take into consideration as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Conditional Georgian e-visa

Hello, where does it state that nationals of, say, Afghanistan or Somalia have to have an OECD/Schengen visa/residence permit to be eligible for an e-visa? When I try entering these nationalities and specifying that I have no visa/residence permit in an OECD/Schengen country, it still says I can be granted a 30-day multiple-entry visa if I just upload a photo and the passport.

Since you had a reference to this, I assume this used to apply, but doesn't anymore.

On the other hand, when I enter the completely non-eligible nationalities (Nauru etc.), it rejects the application straight away, unless I have a visa/residence permit in one of the 50 "good guy" countries, in which case I can enter visa-free for 90 days in a 180-day period. André Devecserii (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right, it seems they've changed this. I just don't know when because there were no announcements. I will then go ahead and change the map.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, however I think a "visa from embassy required" or simply "visa required" should be added to the map as well, because unless reading the article one might think everyone can get an eVisa since it's hardly visible that not quite everyone can André Devecserii (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I will fix that too.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Twofortnights, sorry for bothering you for the third time, but firstly, it says Kosovo nationals are eligible for the eVisa, but on the website, Kosovo is literally not even on the list from which you choose your nationality.

Secondly, it could be worth distinguishing between 30 days in a 120-day period (African and Asian nationals) and 90 days in a 180-day period (Central and South Americans) eVisas. Just like on your map of Turkey's visa policy André Devecserii (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to fix that article :) But I am not sure where is Kosov mentioned? It's not mentioned anywhere in the article. And you are right, countries usually don't even list such disputed places in their visa policy, so no wonder it's not on the eVisa website.

As for the 30 vs. 90 day visa, do you have a full list? Also what about Oceania?--Twofortnights (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it is Macedonia that I mistook for Kosovo. Macedonians, along with Oceanians (including East Timor, but excluding ineligible Nauru), apparently get the 90/180 version André Devecserii (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing: According to the official Geoconsul site, Chileans can still only stay visa-free for max 90 days in a 180-day period, and Uruguayans for 90 days (for non-ordinary passports, it's the other way round, funnily). However, Timatic does not state this, instead saying that Chileans and Uruguyans (except diplomatic/official Chileans) need an eVisa.

This would be worth checking with IATA, but I've sort of given up on them as they've stopped acknowledging any mail I've sent since July (apart from the one about Iran)

This is for ordinary passports https://www.geoconsul.gov.ge/HtmlPage/Html/View?id=25&lang=Eng

And this is for non-ordinary passports https://www.geoconsul.gov.ge/HtmlPage/Html/View?id=28&lang=Eng André Devecserii (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. I think all this would complicate the map too much, I might remove all info on the length of stay from the map. Because as it is we would need 1 year visa-free, 90 days visa-free, eVisa, supplement visa 30 days, supplement visa 90 days (which both have the eVisa right) and visa required countries. I'll see if I can squeeze it all into one map, if not I will remove the reference on the length of stay.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding the Visa Requirements for Colombian Citizens. I think that you could be more objective and neutral towards Colombia and make a better article, as nice a the one on Chile or Argentina, which includes different colours for the free movement within South American countries and a better map and updated information.

You said that my source was not reliable? I got it from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Colombia. So your sources are more reliable? We can stay in Georgia 365 days. We do not need a visa to go to Cuba. Treat Colombians objectively is my request to you.

Kind Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noirdesir1 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Regarding the Visa Requirements for Colombian Citizens. I think that you could be more objective and neutral towards Colombia and make a better article, as nice a the one on Chile or Argentina, which includes different colours for the free movement within South American countries and a better map and updated information.

You said that my source was not reliable? I got it from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Colombia. So your sources are more reliable? We can stay in Georgia 365 days. We do not need a visa to go to Cuba. Colombians neither need a visa to go to Guyana or Suriname. Treat Colombians objectively is my request to you.

Kind Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noirdesir1 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide a valid verifiable source for your claim, it's got nothing to do with me but with Wikipedia rules. And sources say that Colombians require a visa for Guyana, Suriname and Cuba (Tourist card to be precise) and as for Georgia you are correct so I fixed that.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Visa-free to Kurdistan

Alright, seems I've found a source on this that actually responds to mails: an immigration officer at Sulaimaniyah airport named Handren Hiwa. I asked him before whether visa-free visit was still possible (because I had heard rumours to the contrary). Now I've asked him to specify exactly what countries citizens can visit visa-free (let's just hope he's accurate in listing them) André Devecserii (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks. But that must be published for us to be able to use it as a source.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Twofortnights Here it is, he attached it in his mail. [29]. For your reference, this is the mail itself [30]

Neither the government site nor IATA are fully correct, though IATA was much more accurate: they say citizens of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland (Rep.), Italy, Japan, Korea (Rep.), Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, USA, United Arab Emirates and Vatican City (Holy See). It also lists the UK separately

Iceland and the Vatican (in bold) are not in the list I got. Switzerland is in the list, unlike in Timatic.

Question is: could it be the case that the list I got accidentally excludes Icelanders and Vaticans due to sloppiness?

One thing's for sure: I will report this to IATA (armed with the mail and attached list). If they decide not to consider it, so be it, but I will try. André Devecserii (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It could be both really as I've seen even worse cases such as this from Vanuatu - [31] Yes that is the official document, and they wrote that Western Union is visa exempt before changing it to Western Samoa (which is also the name that is not used) and then uploaded this same paper in scanned form on their official website. On the other hand there could be an error in IATA databaase. I guess we'll find out soon. Keep me posted!--Twofortnights (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Twofortnights Nope, IATA won't bother. Honestly I find it extreme on their part since I actually provided material from an officer.

How do we go from here, given that there are three versions of their visa policy.

Let's call the Kurdish government website "the first list", the list from the border guard in Sulaymaniyah "the second list" and IATA "the third list".

Nationals of Andorra, Monaco and San Marino do not Need a visa according to the first list.

Nationals of South Korea do need a visa according to the first list.

Nationals of Iceland do need a visa according to the second list.

Nationals of Switzerland do need a visa according to the third list.

Nationals of the Vatican City do not need a visa according to the third list.

For now I've listed all countries in an edit of Visa policy of Iraq

What do you think...? André Devecserii (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Twofortnights Still waiting for your opinion on the issue André Devecserii (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit messed up. I recommend not including information that was received via e-mail because under the rules of Wikipedia we can't use non-published material as sources. As for the other two, they can be included, I already did that with Uganda visa policy for example, or Bangladesh, Tanzania as well. I will try to do it here as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Chinese visa requirement for San Marino.

There is no airport in San Marino, thus theoritically, a Chinese citizen cannot access San Marino without a Schengen Visa(must transit through Italy). Should that be added on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueutyi (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There actually is an airfield in Torraccia for smaller planes, plus a helipad at Borgo Maggiore.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Never know this before, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueutyi (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Visa policy

Okay, but could I ask a question? Why do you have to change those names of country to smaller one when they are related to Diplomatic, service and official passports? Why can't you remain the same as the upper one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwu889 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Because of the proportion. Diplomatic passports are usually issued only to a few dozen people - head of state, head of government and ambassadors with their families. Therefore diplomatic passport data should not have the same space as regular passports which are held by millions of people.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia visa policy

Hi, on your visa map for Macedonia it says Serbians can visit visa-free for 90 days, but Timatic says 60 days.

Been trying to find any official info confirming either, but to no avail (I don't trust IATA here because I know of a couple of errors in their info) André Devecserii (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

They used to have a .doc file with lot more data where it said how many days are allowed, but the current website is very poor. I could find this though [32] and [33] --Twofortnights (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Right you are! And yet Timatic says 60 days for Serbians...will mail IATA about this. André Devecserii (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I did notice your comment on the section of Indian citizens traveling to Macedonia. Timatic database mentioned visa-free policy for Indian citizens traveling to Macedonia on both 'visa information of Macedonia' and 'visa requirements for Indian citizens', though no mention about this on the official Macedonian visa-policy website. It could be a glitch of Timatic database or perhaps the official Macedonian visa-policy website has not been updated yet? Charlies280590 —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

For now I would say a glitch in the Timatic database as there is absolutely no mention of this elsewhere.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

French visa comparison relevance

Hi, it has been said that US and French passport are among the "strongest" passports in world (ie enter a max number of countries without visa). I tried to study the no-visa countries between US and French to see where they are and I think it is relevant for the French to know where they need a visa unlike US nationals. Why do you think it's unrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouzinac (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no relevance because there is no published trustworthy source that dealt with this issue therefore it all falls under the Wikipedia:No original research policy ( any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources). You could easily compare it to British then, and then to poorer standing ones like Algerian or Iraqi etc. and have ten pages of these comparisons that serve no purpose. If you can write the comparison that respects the Wikipedia:Verifiability then fine --Twofortnights (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ID Cards for Moldova

Hello, I have an issue regarding this. I went by night train Bucharest-Chisinau the other day and have discovered that at least at the land border at Ungheni (which the train uses), the old rules for ID cards seem to be in effect whereby they must be biometric.

I was sharing a couchette with a French national and we both only had ID cards. Mine (Swedish) is biometric (it has the logo too), whereas his was not.

The Moldovan guards were highly skeptical of both of our cards, and took both out to have them examined and scanned. When they came back 30 minutes later, I was told I can continue whereas the French guy got arrested (handcuffs and all) and thrown off the train. When asking in my broken Romanian (they spoke no English at all) what was going on, they replied that they checked and his French ID was not valid because it wasn't biometric, and he had broken the Immigration act (some number)

I showed them the official PDF document, to which they nodded (acknowledging the document being genuine) but said that it "currently did not apply here" (I assume they referred to that border crossing).

I did not see the French national again.

When exiting through Chisinau airport, there was no skepticism towards my card, although the controllant did take an extra careful look at it. Didn't witness any case of a non-biometric ID being used so can't say anything.

Should this affect the Wikipedia info in your opinion? Clearly, if the new rules have ben implementd at all, they do not seem to apply at land borders (at least not Ungheni) André Devecserii (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoa that's an insane story. Can't believe they handcuffed him instead of simply denying him entry.

As for Wikipedia, unfortunately I think Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth applies. If Moldova has on its official website that ID cards may be used, then that's it. It could easily be the rogue border crossing where they extort money etc. We can't know for sure.

While we are at it, references nr. 2 and 3 in Moldova visa policy article are broken.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)'

Fixed André Devecserii (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Iran

They have notified IATA of the new visa regime :) [34] André Devecserii (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Although it's again incomplete. No mention of Egypt separately which was mentioned quite a lot in media as a new visa-free nation.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly think Iran's playing it slowly, hence the delays. Taking it step-by-step. André Devecserii (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OK here is the media confirmation finally - [35]--Twofortnights (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly it does not specify which countries :/ Egypt, Georgia and Lebanon for example, info on them varies André Devecserii (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So you've got a problem with my edit on Visa requirements for Romanian citizens? Go ahead and revert me then if you don't like what I did. Daybreak Jobbo (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically you have two options: 1) Save this revision to remove my last contribution or 2) Leave it as it is and keep that mouth of yours closed. Daybreak Jobbo (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You should seek professional help.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WTF, what is your problem Daybreak Jobbo? You might come across as respectable if you actually provided constructive explanations in regards to your edits rather than insulting anyone not agreeing with your way of doing things. André Devecserii (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy maps for Romanian citizens

Hi, could you perhaps take a look into the policy map for ID card trvel for Romanians? It contains a couple of errors (for example it says they require a passport for Greenland and Iceland (!!!)) André Devecserii (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

True, there are some errors. But one of the rare files I don't regularly update are those on Romanian page. You need to contact the user Laurentiu Popa who's active on that article.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to that Malawi is now visa on arrival, Sao Tome is visa-free, Indonesia is visa-free, Burundi is visa on arrival. There could be more errors.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Democratic Congo visa policy

Hi, on the visa requirement maps for *insert country* citizens requiring a visa for the DRC, DRC is grey-marked, indicating that visas need to be obtained at embassies no matter what.

In fact, travellers arriving from countries without a DRC embassy can get a visa on arrival provided a confirmation is obtained in advance, which I myself added to the DRC visa policy article. IATA doesn't acknowledge this, but it says clearly on the official website and I even mailed them and asked and got a confirmation that the info was up to date.

As such, DRC should be marked "red-grey" and not grey on requirement maps for foreign citizens requiring a DRC visa. André Devecserii (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK but could you please provide references for claims on Berlin embassy. Also, how extraordinary is this procedure? In some countries visa pick up exists mostly in theory only as it is reserved for VIP visits only.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This procedure is not extraordinary. It says clearly here (translating loosely but accurately): "Visa Volant: authorization granted by the general director to a foreigner arriving from a country without DRC representation, allowing them to arrive at the border and obtain a visa on arrival. Also granted to those invited by the DRC government.

Although in 2013, a Finnish person I know (also residing in Finland) went to Kinshasa this way, and he was just an ordinary tourist. Besides the passport, he did have to show his boarding passes proving that his point of origin was a country with no DRC representation.

Nevertheless, if you want, I could write a letter to the general directorate (I know French) and ask.

As for the embassy in Bern, I have no official source for it, but found it out by calling them, so I'll have it removed André Devecserii (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No that's OK, no need to write to DRC GD, I was just wondering if the "authorization granted by the general director" is something that is not provided so easily.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2015 (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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Saint Kitts and Nevis passport.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Saint Kitts and Nevis passport.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Limited VOA

Hello Twofortnights,

I came across may articles categorizing some countries as a "Limited VOA". What criteria does entry conditions have to meet in order to regard it's respective country as a "Limited VOA". Age groups? Approval? Invitation Letter? Residence Permit in other countries? Substitute visas? Age groups? exct..

I'm looking forward to your responce, Regards, Joseph Sakr JoeSakr1980 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Usually those mean it is not a straightforward procedure but applicants require either an approval letter, local sponsor, documents sent in advance etc.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove Egypt flag ??

On the article Visa Waiver Program , there are flags for Oman , Argentina , .... --Omda4wady (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Flags are only for eligible countries.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Visa Policy of Russia

Do something with that guy who keeps reverting our edits. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSakr1980 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is very little I can do about vandalism unfortunately. Thank you for fighting vandalism.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

Hello,

How could one report an IP address for vandalism?

Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure given that it's a dynamic IP range.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Visa for the Czech Republic

Hi, the newest change is about Palau but reference is to relationship and agreement EU and Tonga. Have a nice day. Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanPodany (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about that, the link should be http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2015058 --Twofortnights (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Visa policy of Turkey

Hello,

Concerning your post, well I removed the "VoA phased out" section as it just says that it's no longer available and is replaced by the e-Visa. I on the other hand included the point that visitors of certain countries eligible for e-Visas can obtain them on arrival via kiosks. I visited Turkey last summer (July) on a trip from Dubai where my Emarati companion was able to get an e-Visa from kiosks available at Istanbul International Airport for a certain fee which was definitely above $20 but I can't recall the exact amount, plus the airport personnel weren't very welcoming stating that we should've got it beforehand. I'm not sure if the kiosks are still available at the moment but let's assume they are until there's a proof/ref that they aren't anymore.

For the As of right section, you're right about that point that each citizen would normally have a right of abode in their country but for the sake of pointing out that TRNC (which in Turkey's point of view is a self dependent country)'s citizens also enjoy freedom of stay/living/work as much as Turkish citizens do. All TRNC nationals whether citizens or naturalized nationals are eligible and can apply and get a Turkish passport. However, Turkish citizens are only granted 90 days upon entry to TRNC via Ercan Airport which is only accessible through Turkish carriers (THY, Atlas Global, Peagasus, Onur Air, and Borajet) through Turkish ports.

Feel free contacting me anytime, Joseph Sakr — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSakr1980 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. 22:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
   — Berean Hunter (talk)

Thanks for this tool Berean Hunter!--Twofortnights (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens

Hello,

May you please check out the this article, there seems to be a discrepancy between the count Henley's reported and the the number of countries indicated in the map/table.

Thanks & Regards, Joseph Saker JoeSakr1980 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! There is always a slight discrepancy, but that article however requires a complete overhaul. The line you had removed was original research nonsense. It happens very often for vandals to do that, to increase the number of visa-free destinations or the passport ranking. I don't see the point but they do it all the time.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know earlier

Hello, I didn't know there's copyright on text, I thought info should match with the one in the ref. for accuracy's sake. I sure know better now,

Thanks & Regards, J.Sakr31.209.107.137 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Sincerest wishes for hope, happiness and peace during this Holiday Season and throughout the 2016! Norvikk (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk! I wish you a Happy New Year and all the best in 2016.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ! Norvikk (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visa policy of Ethiopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somali. 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, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Turkey

Hello,

Concerning the media reports suggesting that Qatar and Turkey have mutually abolished visas. Did it mention anything about implementation? Since Timatic hasn't updated their records. Moreover, Qatari citizens can still obtain an eVisa online by paying a whole 28 USD.

As for the visa regime change toward Syrian citizens, should Syria be set as an exempt country or a country whose citizens benefit from the visa-free regime under certain conditions? As most major Syrian cities have no borders with Turkey with the sheer majority of Syrians residing abroad anyway.

Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Well when it comes to Turkey-Qatar deal there is very little information on whether this was a mutually signed agreement or some kind of a promise to make an ordinance etc. When it comes to Turkish citizens going to Qatar Timatic was actually updated - [36] "Visa required, except for Nationals of Turkey for a maximum stay of 30 days.". But what got me confused is that in the other direction there were no updates, neither on Timatic nor on the Turkish consular website. Did Turkey trick Qatar or simply Turkey did not update their website nor notify IATA? No idea. As for Syrians, well the primary policy is that the visa is not required so I would keep that. The exception is only for those coming from third countries. Most of Syrians going to Turkey are coming directly from Syria and not by plane from some other place. That is because most Syrians these days go to Turkey in order to transit to a third country. Why would they after they had reached a third country go back to Turkey? It makes no sense. --Twofortnights (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for United States citizens

You recently reverted a change to Visa requirements for United States citizens that was made by an IP user. You didn't include an edit summary, so I don't know why you reverted the user. I want to inform you that the material added (that Burundi no longer allows "Visa upon arrival") was correct. I've reverted the edit, and will add a citation shortly. _{(Please ping upon any reply)}Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Etamni. Burundi introduced visas early in 2015 and this is reflected on State Department website that says that as of April 2015 visas are now required. However this was believed to be done in connection with Burundian presidential election, 2015 that took place in July. IATA database was updated in October 2015 to reflect the most recent update which is the return of visa on arrival in Bujumbura. Hope this clears things up.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a second reference to the article: [37] which appears to be an offical embassy site, and which also supports the claim that a visa must be asked-for in advance... Etamni | ✉ | ✓  15:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Etamni, that page looked exactly the same in 2014 when visa on arrival was definitely in place - [38]--Twofortnights (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for your edits, Merry Christmas and happy new year! I was wondering where are you from and why are you so interested in visa articles?

Dear User:Albatalad, thank you, happy holidays to you as well! I am a World Citizen :) There is a huge interest in visa requirement related articles, hundreds of thousands of views every month and yet these articles didn't get much proper attention before and were full of mistakes. In addition visa policies change daily so someone needs to keep track to keep the articles up to date. Also there is an army of trolls editing visa requirement articles to add obviously false information so if no one was watching over those articles suddenly you will read on Wikipedia that citizens of Pakistan can enter the US without a visa and that British citizens require a visa for France etc.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL you made my day, true, previously the articles were rubbish, but i'm still not satisfied with the 'world citizen' answer :/

I guess it means he has a World passport! A wild guess would be Australia, UK or New Zealand given his use of the word "fortnight". Could be wrong; again, just a wild guess. André Devecserii (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting topic. I'm interested in two aspects. Mr. or Mrs. Twofortnights. I talk with mister. Suddenly not right. And religion. How to congratulate? "With Christmas and New Year" or "New Year holidays". What if he is an atheist or a Muslim? Awkward situation. --Norvikk (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Visa on Arrival" for the UAE

Hi, just wanted to inform that the "visa on arrival" for the UAE is actually a visa exemption. Despite what Timatic says, UAE visas are not issued at ports of entry. It's just that EU/EFTA nationals (except UK/Ireland) are exempt for 90 days within 180 days, and others for 30 days.

As such the golden legend in the policy map should be removed and replaced with the existing blue one André Devecserii (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

André, that's not the case. For example one of the two EU member states not to sign this agreement with the UAE is the UK and the Emirati embassy in London has a very clear explanation for the UK citizens - Citizens of the UK (with right of abode in the UK) will be granted a free of charge visit visa on arrival in the UAE. The same can be found on the page of the UAE embassy in Washington - No visas are required for American citizens (holder of regular passports) before arrival in the UAE. Visas are available upon arrival at the airport and they are valid for one (1) month stay in the UAE. --Twofortnights (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights, on the Emirates website it says: "Simply disembark your flight at Dubai International Airport and proceed to Immigration, where your passport will be stamped with a 30-day visit visa free of charge".

In other words like South Africa, where, besides the entry stamp, you get an additional stamp (sometimes called a visa. Timatic also uses this term for Kurdistan). I got it as well yesterday in my Swedish passport, so clearly there is no difference other than the length of stay given (30 vs. 90). You don't actually obtain a visa separately at a desk before passing through immigration - that is, again, not possible in the UAE.

Also, [39] (All visitors need a visa, unless you are from one of these countries). And [40] (Citizens of the following countries ( holders of Regular Passports ) are exempted from UAE visa:). The "visa on arrival" countries are included in both

The UK and Ireland not being part of the agreement simply means their nationals will remain visa-exempt for 30 days only André Devecserii (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well that link from Emirates just confirms the embassies and Timatic - there is a visa on arrival. I know it's a mere stamp like anywhere else but they call it "visa on arrival" for some reason. It would be against the rules on original research for us to comment on that within the article even though it is pretty obvious it is not comparable with visa on arrival in other countries (although there are other similar examples like Maldives) but is more like short term visa-exemption entry.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the 90-day exemption should also be called visa on arrival in that case. Because you get two stamps (one permission stamp+one entry stamp) whether you're British/Irish or from another EU/EFTA country, and the links I provided make no distinction between the UK/Ireland/US/Canada/Australia and EU/EFTA countries. They're all lumped together in a single exemption list. André Devecserii (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

But it's not because the EU signed a bilateral contract with the UAE which clearly calls it a visa waiver. Like I've said why they call this stamp a visa on arrival is unclear but that's what they do. As for the lists they really rarely update anything in that part of the world. For example Bahrain still hasn't updated their evisa page to include new nationalities although they can be selected in the evisa system. Qatari websites are notorious for the lack of information especially for some more recent exemptions like Polish passports. And apparently Oman evisa is now available without sponsor but good luck with finding that on their police page where you must enter sponsor data in the evisa form.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Albania

Hello, Albania has a rather weird policy whereby they accept national ID cards of nationals of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. I'm trying to find out which of these countries have ID cards with nationality info on them. Australia and NZ don't, Kazakhstan does.

What about Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea? In Canada, the closest thing I can think of is the enhanced driver's licence. André Devecserii (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Uninformed visa policy makers that's what it is. There are so many countries that have a visa exemption for Puerto Rico or Aruba or Cook Islands etc. None of these issue separate passports. Even the EU added Northern Mariana Islands to the visa exemption list although this blunder was later removed after someone realized there is no such thing as NMI citizenship and passport.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I now fixed it to the best of my abilities. However, what do we do about Ukraine? There's an inconsistency between the English-language and Albanian-language lists, with the Albanian one saying only non-ordinary passport holders are visa exempt. André Devecserii (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

OK but I am not sure where did you find the info on Ukrainians requiring visas? Both [41] and [42] files plus Timatic say they don't. It was decided back in 2011 - Albania allows Ukrainians to travel without visas for three months--Twofortnights (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the Albanian-language version of the official list, which I accessed today manually by going on the MFA website, so no old third-party link. (Me vizë=visa required, and it is the right column that applies to ordinary passport holders).

I'll try mailing the Albanian MFA for clarification. André Devecserii (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Armenia

Hello,

Could you please re-asses the countries listed under the "Visa-waiver countries" section? Cause for some reason Timatic states that VoA should be obtained for some of the citizens of countries included in that section. Eg: Uruguay, Brazil, and some others.

Thanks. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi JoeSakr1980! This is because Armenia does not notify IATA on time. Those agreements entered into force more recently (with Brazil on November 25 - [43]) so I guess it will take some time to see the changes.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens

Hello,

I just filed a report to a Wikipedia moderator named "Berean Hunter" concerning Dr.Majdiii who broke the 3-edit rule and engaged in an edit war. I've mentioned your name a couple of times when appropriate. You can check the report on the talkpage.

Continue your hard work. Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

JoeSakr1980, well he is at it again, reverting back with caps lock.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Tongans

Thank you so much for your edits. [44] May I know if there's any particular reason why i. countries which are dependent territories gotta be listed separately, ii. they're usually altogether missing on most similar lists, and iii. there were several users who were so keen to remove them with no explanation? 116.48.155.127 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Because we try to keep the articles uniform and if we start adding dependent and disputed territories to the main table it will be a mess because the list of such entities is very long. Consequently none of the articles would be uniform.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your strange & persistent reversions to mangled English

I am genuinely baffled as to why you keep reverting to a version that has mangled English.

Perhaps someone else can explain why your mangled English versions are better: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_policy_of_the_United_States&oldid=701340964#Mangled_English.3F BushelCandle (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle, would you be so baffled if you'd read my edit summaries? Here it is again, you are cutting the article content, trying to simplify English you also remove information which is important. So suddenly a table that shows only overstayers who are still in the country and who arrived only via air and sea - as simply "overstayers"? Well how is that acceptable?--Twofortnights (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've read your edit summaries over and over again as if they were holy writ - but I'm still baffled.

Let me state clearly that I have made no edits to any tables WHATSOEVER !!!

Please double check and apologise - or point out to me exactly and precisely what text you think I changed (as I have done here at: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_policy_of_the_United_States&oldid=701340964#Mangled_English.3F

I really am baffled as to why (and what) information you think I have removed - the part about overstayers and arriving by air/sea was NOT changed - why on earth do you think it was???????????? BushelCandle (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all there is no need to get hysterical, I am not yelling at you nor sending you multiple questions marks.

Now I see that you are right, the reason why I thought you removed it was that you did something with new lines which put your edit on one line in line with a different on in diff so it looked like you removed them through editor. Now I've checked in regular editor and you are right. But still I don't see the reason to yell.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

So, no apology for wasting my time with multiple careless reverting then. Just an accusation that I am "hysterical". How collegiate... BushelCandle (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You made snide and aggressive comments, what did you expect?--Twofortnights (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I expected a simple apology for twice reverting my edits with nonsensical and impertinent (in the original meaning of the word) edit summaries and then not bothering to double check even when I raised the revert issue (politely and non-hysterically, I thought) on the article's discussion page.

I did not expect to be accused of being "hysterical".

What was (or were) the "snide" comment(s)? BushelCandle (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, not to be "that guy", but nothing is gained by being hostile towards each other. There was a misunderstanding, such things happen. All of us want to improve information, so let's stick to doing that. André Devecserii (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Minors travelling to South Africa

Hi, just wanted to ask if it is allowed, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, to add that an unaccompanied minor travelling to South Africa with no one to receive him/her needs to produce a return ticket, hotel reservation and proof of funds at the port of entry. Found this out via e-mail from an immigration officer at Cape Town Airport André Devecserii (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can source it, I've no idea why it wouldn't be "allowed" but, it's definitely acceptable at Wikivoyage, a sister project of the Wikimedia foundation. BushelCandle (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle- wrong. There needs to be a verifiable source meaning published as per Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

André Devecserii, we can't use it if they didn't publish it anywhere. But while we are at it, I believe that SA changed their rule regarding unabridged birth certificate for minors who are not SA citizens.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you try to find out if these changed are in force yet - [45]? Basically no more in person applications for those who live in a country without SA mission, easier process for China, India and Russia citizens, no more birth certificates for children on arrival just with visa application (unclear what happens with visa-free countries).--Twofortnights (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights I know of these plans, and they have yet to be implemented (it says so on the website of the Swedish embassy in Pretoria and was implied by the imm. officer I mailed under the pretence of being a minor going to Cape Town alone for tourism).

Visa-exempt nationals currently need to present documentation for minors at the port of entry, nationals requiring a visa at the embassy whilst lodging the visa application. André Devecserii (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

E-visas for St. Kittians and Nevisians bound for the ROC

[46] Thought this would be of interest to you. ILBobby (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I already updated the Taiwan visa policy article to include the eVisa part.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Arab League Boycott of Israel

Nom, not that I'm aware off. But they they took those actions shortly after the Arab League placed that boycott on Israel. I got to beleive that their foreign policy is influenced by the Arab League's ones in such case Pakistan and Bangladesh offered sending troops to Yemen following the start of the ongoing conflict in Yemen.

Going out of topic, check this article out: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/visa-programme-restrictions-decried-hatuqa-160122194210349.html. If it's implemented already then probably the Visa waiver article should be updated as per appropriate.

Hi, yes I have added it [47]. As for the boycott, I remember that previously someone removed the Arab League from those countries (and I was the one to add it) that I've mentioned saying how it's not related.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Kazakhstan Passport Stamps

Hi Twofortnights,

I noticed that you removed the photographs of the Kazakh passport stamps due to the fact that those were old ones. Yes, that is correct. I just visited Kazakhstan and have arrival and departure stamps in my passport! Would you like me to send those to you so that you can update the Kazakhstan page? Do advise on how I should send it to you if you are interested

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You can upload it here and leave me a link to the image file. In addition you need to state your permission for me to use it and modify it for any purpose and the name you wish to be used as a copyright holder. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The link to the image is here http://imgur.com/Kwv1Uq5

You are free to use it and modify it for any purpose and the name of the copyright holder is Basanth Sadasivan. Also, I thought you should know that those stamps were issued at Almaty International Airport to a citizen of Singapore. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks. I have uploaded the file.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks very good- great job on your excellent work- I give you mad props for everything you've done for Wikipedia!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of the Marshall Islands

You forgot to leave an edit summary saying why you didn't like the Visa on arrival section as a multicol list instead of a table. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Third column had more entries than the other columns, that was the issue.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian visa-free regime for Mauritian citizens

Hello,

Well at first, I saw a user editing the visa requirements on the Visa requirements for Mauritian citizens yesterday. I've checked Timatic and it confirms that a visa is no longer needed. Having seen that an agreement have been signed earlier between the two parties made me thing that it's effective as of yesterday. So I went on to the Visa policy of Russia's article and included Mauritius in the visa exempt countries. I have no source stating ratification but Timatic should be enough as a source. I didn't know about the false report exct.. But do you think that ratification is needed? UAE citizens had visa free access to the Schengen region since signing the agreement on May 6 before it's ratification on December 2015.

By the way, do you work for IATA? How do you keep up with all the changes in visa policies of all the countries in real-time?

Have a nice day & regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. First of all I don't work for IATA :) There are some tools to follow changes to visa policies but some of them got changed recently so it will also affect my ability to edit in "real-time" and will take more time to apply changes on Wikipedia.

As for Mauritius, I know because we already had this. I saw the IATA database was updated and someone also updated the article. The database was updated as soon as the agreement was signed. But user Norvikk which actively updates Russia related articles quickly pointed out that the agreement requires ratification plus a certain period, I think a month, before it enters into force. You may find this discussion on the talk pages somewhere. Anyway since there is no news on ratification I guess it goes back to signed not yet ratified category.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You can find the agreement here - [48] which says under effect - "no effect" and in agreement " This Agreement shall enter into force after 30 days from the date of receipt of the last written notification about the fulfillment by the Parties of internal procedures necessary for its entry into force,"--Twofortnights (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Turkey-Qatar visa exemption

Hello,

Remember when we discussed the media reports about Qatar and Turkey bilaterally abolishing visa requirements while Timatic maintains the voa/eVisa requirements for Qataris? Check out this tweet by the Qatari embassy in reply to a citizen's inquiry. It's in Arabic but you could translate it on Google. It states that a visa is required but could be obtained online at at Turkish airports.

https://twitter.com/QatarEmbTurkey/status/690630318227873792?s=09

Regards, Joseph Sakr JoeSakr1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! This clears it. That's the oddest bilateral visa waiver I've seen, don't see how Qatar accepted it.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for kosovo citizens map

Hi, i've made an incomplete visa requirements map for kosovo citizens, it's here: http://s11.postimg.org/42c4taq6r/Visa_requirements_for_Kosovo_citizens.png do you mind fixing it and uploading it? Thanks in advance// Albatalab (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem with Kosovo is that the data is inconsistent when we search through IATA. It's because some countries list on IATA that they allow everyone visa-free or visa on arrival entry. And IATA database includes Kosovo as a separate entry. So searching the Timatic database it will show that Kosovo passport holders may visit that country without a visa. But in reality this country does not recognise Kosovo as an independent country nor the passports that it issues. The same is true for Palestine. So I am not sure we can claim any accuracy in articles for visa requirements for Palestinians and Kosovans.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello TwoFortNights,

Thanks for the barnstar you left on my talk page, much respect and regards. Keep up your good work

Joseph Sakr — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSakr1980 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa Policy of Mozambique

Hi Twofortnights,

I was taking a look at your article for Visa policy of Mozambique and would like to point out one factor that you might want to consider- I notice that Mozambique offers nationals of certain countries (Those without a Moz embassy) visa on arrival, while nationals of countries with a Moz embassy must get their visas beforehand.

You might want to make this difference known in the map for Visa policy of Mozambique (Perhaps shade the visa on arrival eligible countries in blue, non visa on arrival countries in red and visa free countries in green?) Doing this will make your fantastic page even more constructive

Great job on all your hard work once again, and thank you for everything you have done for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Yeah I wanted to do that a while ago, but I have a problem with conflicting sources on Mozambique visa policy. Some suggest one thing, some suggest another, so I kept the map only with the data that is in no way disputed. Hopefully Mozambique will soon update their webpages with the current policy.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Georgian visa policy

Hi, just so you know, I just found this. I assume due to Iran having done the same for Georgians André Devecserii (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I saw that too, they recently announced that. I think that it's related to the Iranian visa-free days that was announced before and that they never bothered to inform IATA about.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa Policy of Egypt

Hi Twofortnights

I was looking at your page on the Visa policy of Egypt and noticed that 2 countries (Brunei and Singapore) are shaded in grey (N/A). Upon looking at the IATA data, it seems as though both countries are eligible for visa on arrival for up to 30 days (they should be shaded in light green on the map). Also, I found a more comprehensive list of which countries can obtain a visa on arrival via the Egyptian embassy in Vienna, Austria http://www.egyptembassyvienna.at/visas.htm And you might want to refer to this for more up-to-date information

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! I will update the map accordingly. Egyptian visa policy is such a mess.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed- you have done a fantastic job managing things though so keep it up!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Cuba for US citizens

Hi Twofortnights,

I just wanted to keep you in the loop of a slight change I made to your otherwise fantastically well-managed page on Visa Requirements for U.S citizens! With regards to travel to Cuba, the U.S State department has been explicitly clear that travel to Cuba for U.S citizens is prohibited which is why I have changed to color code for cuba to black (I have included the U.S State department source about this) This black code is following the code we use for all other travel restrictions (E.g. Malaysians going to Israel and Vice Versa) or Israelis travelling to Saudi Arabia and Vice Versa. It is imperative that we make all travel bans known on this page to prevent people from getting false impressions about travel to Cuba. The map for Visa requirements for U.S citizens should also be shaded black where Cuba is for the time being

Hope this helps!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But is this actually enforced? I mean the US and Cuba just signed a contract that restores regular flights between the two countries - [49] --Twofortnights (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights! The regular flights are for certain business people who have authorization to visit Cuba. However, as of right now, tourist travel is still prohibited with the exception of those who have a license- until that is lifted, Cuba has to be shaded in black for the time being — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello,

Yeah I seems a bit funny if that's to why this users feel the need to vanladize.

Probably, in your spare time, I would appreciate it if you would check this page out Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens and take appropriate action. There seem to be a high amount of vandalism and and unsupported info.

Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, OK but after dealing with too much vandalism on Chinese page and noticing that it's even worse on Taiwanese I didn't have the energy to deal with it. But I will look into it.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Visas and Passport stamps for Tajikistan and Turkmenistan

Hi twofortnights, I recently travelled to both countries and have updated visas and passport stamps for both countries. Would you like me to send them to you to be used in the wikipedia article for both visa policies? I notice that the visa on display for Visa Policy of Tajikistan is from 2012 and is outdated, while there is no picture whatsoever for Turkmenistan

Let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, thanks! You can do it the same way as with the Kazakhstan stamps.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have uploaded both images here! http://imgur.com/a/qO6JM As always, both are in a Singapore passport and you have the freedom to use it in whatever way necessary. Copyright holder is Basanth Sadasivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I thank you for better understanding my views on an article and coming to a consensus that can better unify Wikipedia. Whatshouldichoose (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to disturb you: but what software/website/etc. do you use regarding the makings of the "visa policy maps" and the "visa requirements map". I intend to use this information to make my own maps for different purposes. Thank you for taking the time to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Maps and Help

I apologize for disturbing you at the given moment, but: What software/website/etc. (something of that sort) do you use to make the "visa policy maps" and the "visa requirements maps" on the respective Wikipedia pages? Thank you for taking the time to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatshouldichoose (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You can use literally any graphics program, even MS Paint will do.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanuatu Visa policy

Singapore is not shaded in red even though it is visa exempt- please clarify. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

An omission, sorry.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa Requirements for Malagasy citizens

Hi twofortnights, I noticed that visa requirements for Malagasy citizens does not have a map, so I have created one in accordance with the data from IATA http://imgur.com/sRI5FUa Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

OK but that map in particular cannot be used as it's clearly under mapchart copyright. I will recreate it under a right license. I will also try to upload your stamps soon.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights- thanks for the tip-off- which software in particular do you use to make the maps under the right license? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.53.78.52 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC) You can use literally any graphics program.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Visa requirements for South Korean citizens page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Lebanon

Hello

This user (192.43.227.18) is on 3 reverts now. I hereby request you to take appropriate measures to deal with the issue by protecting the page or blocking the offensive user if need be.

Thanks & Continue doing your great job. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Visa Requirements for Malaysian Citizens - Updates

Thank you for the most current update on visa requirements for Malaysian citizens. Can't thank you enough. Having read through some of the threads in here, it is sad to say that the Malaysian authority has not updated its list of visa requirements for Malaysian citizens traveling to other countries. Pittedprunestravel (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Visa Requirements for Brazilian Citizens

Hi, First I'd like to say that I appreciate ur job! So, could you please update the map? At the Visa requirements section u can see that Malawi is actually Visa on arrival[118], but on the map is coloured grey, as if it was Visa Required. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.235.52.228 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Visa Requirements for Chinese Citizens

Hello there. As much as I appreciate your work, I do hope to point out that correcting your mistake is not vandalism. Your claim to the passport for public affairs being a normal passport is simply wrong, and the discussions have proven to be useless.

http://cs.mfa.gov.cn/zggmcg/hz/hzjj_660445/t1200748.shtml

This is the official source released by the Chinese government. Read the section on Service Passport. It clearly states that PPA is a variant of the Service Passport and its machine readable zone starts with PPCHN rather than POCHN. I do hope you can be reasonable and see for yourself. Use Google Translate if you have to. If you are still inconvenienced, have others translate it for you. Being a senior editor, it's important to get the facts from the official sources to maintain accuracy, rather than "figuring out" them when the real answer is right there. Many Chinese Wikipedia editors have repeatedly tried to correct your mistake with no avail and I guess you just to need to see some proof from the Chinese government.

If you need more references, the page Chinese passport has been updated as well. I dedicated a section regarding the differences between the "old" PPA and the current PPA. The PPA you mentioned was indeed a variant of the ordinary passport, but the government discontinued it in 2006. The current PPA is completely different from the old one with different issuing authorities and everything.

Once again, no disrespect here, just hoping you would come to your senses and correct this. I just hope you and the Chinese editors can settle this for once and all so we don't have to waste time on this subject.

By the way, Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens has been overhauled, so feel free to look into it and make improvements.

C-GAUN (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry C-GAUN but you can see an extremely lengthy discussion on talk pages of Chinese articles that came to a clear conclusion it's a P ie. ordinary passport. If you want that changed you will have to present some new evidence rather than personal opinion. The link you gave clearly reiterates that the public affairs passport is a P type passport ie. version of an ordinary not a version of a PS type passport ie. special/service passport or PD type passport ie. diplomatic passport. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry too but let me be absolutely clear: the CHINESE GOVERNMENT has declared it as a Service Passport, not you, not me, no any one else in the discussion. The first sentence of the Service Passport part on the webpage I gave you is an OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, which states "其中公务护照又分为公务、公务普通两个类别", which translates to "the service passports are divided into two types: the Service Passport and the PPA". End of story here. Your evidence clearly cannot triumph over the decision of Chinese Government. I am simply following the accuracy rule, and please don't credit a decision made by the government as "my original research". Passport types are irreverent to what the government says. C-GAUN (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's more proof: Article 4 of the Passport Law:

• Ordinary passports shall be issued by the entry-exit control department of the Ministry of Public Security or by the entry-exit control departments of the public security organs under the people’s governments at or above the county level authorized by the Ministry of Public Security, or the embassies or consulates of the People’s Republic of China, or other missions overseas authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

• Diplomatic passports shall be issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

• Service passports shall be issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the embassies or consulates of the People’s Republic of China, or other missions overseas authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the departments for foreign affairs under the people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ywzn/lsyw/vpna/faq/t710009.htm

Read the biodata page of PPA again: it was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which means it's NOT considered as an Ordinary passport.

Again, I have hoped you can open your mind to listen to some voices of reason, I've posted official documents and laws, NONE OF WHICH are my original research, but a decision taken by the Chinese government. C-GAUN (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Your work is much appreciated! Seligne (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Seligne!--Twofortnights (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Conversations

Good evening. I did changes in article Visa policy of Russia recently. We spoke about Mauritius. You ignore me after that. I have offended you something?

Hi. I am not sure what are you referring to? --Twofortnights (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have thought I was rough at discussion of Mauritius. Forgive if I have offended you.

No, there is nothing to worry about :) --Twofortnights (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mozambique and "original research"

Hi again.

You have been using the term "original research" a lot recently, and now it's just getting offensive. To be clear I only follow IATA and other officially published data in my editing, and TIMATIC was indeed updated earlier this month. Under Wikipedia guidelines, only materials with "no reliable, published sources exist" can be concluded as original research. I would appreciate you using terms like "unreliable data" or "unverified source" instead of crediting me repeatedly for information on IATA.C-GAUN (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

C-GAUN, OK so you wrote that the Mozambique visa policy changed in April 2016 and that this was reflected by a Timatic change. Your source for this claim? If there is no source then I am afraid it is NOT offensive but it IS original research.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I know your first language is not English but this stance is simply absurd. READ THE DEFINITION FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH AGAIN, AND TRANSLATE TO YOUR MOTHER TONGUE. Has by edits not backed by the IATA? Only edits with "no reliable, published sources exist" can be classified as original research. Now ask yourself this: is IATA really a unreliable and unpublished source?

IATA rules are updated periodically and proving a previous version of the rule is simply NOT possible for anyone who works outside the specific branch of the government. You have stated that the IATA remained static in nearly 2 years is simply nonsense since airlines can face steep fines up to US$10,000 if they do not follow the latest government guidelines. In this case, not only you have refused to acknowledge the latest change on IATA, but you also claimed IATA as inaccurate. Now THAT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

The Mozambican one is not the first time you call my well-documented edits as "original research" like the last time I proved that the Chinese "passport for public affairs" is NOT A TYPE OF NORMAL PASSPORT. Seriously, I really have no idea what your problem is with Chinese-language editors but this has got to stop.C-GAUN (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Regardless of your lengthy incoherent rant on some bizarre purported language issues above I am still waiting for a reliable published source that Mozambique changed their visa policy in April 2016. Unless there is some reliable published source that proves this claim then it is original research to include it in any article on Wikipedia.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussing ID Card restrictions with IATA

Hello, I have a dilemma here, and was hoping you could give me some advice on how to proceed.

Timatic clearly states the fact that Swedish immigration does not accept Swedish ID cards for travelling directly to a non-EU/EFTA state.

I now found out Finland has a similar policy for Finnish citizens.

I then wrote the following e-mail

The reply I got was this (down in blue)

What the hell? If it's "out of scope", why do they mention it for Sweden, as well as for Estonians and Greeks when flying directly from their own countries to Georgia?

My question is: should I bother sending the response above? Feels like the lower text was just an extremely poor excuse for some reason. I mean, if they didn't include this sort of info in the first place, that would be one thing, but including it for one country and not another is just damn inconsistent, or what do you say? André Devecserii (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! If I were you I would send a new email and not reply to this person who is obviously a bit lazy to do his job, hopefully it should reach someone else. But in this new email I would start with what you intended to reply now. So just begin with explaining that they already have such and such information on Sweden and then proceed to explain how a similar information should be added for Finland. Let's see what happens then.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

After my significant number of mails in the beginning, the team decided I should turn to this guy, who's the sourcing manager (!!!), with info. Guess I'll list him as the principal recipient and write the general e-mail address in "Copy" André Devecserii (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens

Hello Twofortnights,

Regarding the Wikipedia article mentioned above, I would like you to solve the dispute between you and that user who keeps udoing your edits concerning the map. Either have a discussion on the wikipage or apply protection against any unverified edits, because the number of undo-s and the nature of the edits fall beyond wikipedia's terms and conditions and this page should be no exception. Discuss it with the user or take action with fellow mediators. Thank you and may you have a nice day. Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joe! Yes I agree. Unfortunately that person, we know him from before, he doesn't seem to be very sane and willing to listen. It's VERY frustrating.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Schengen

Hi

I do not understand why you canceled the editing article visa requirements for Russian citizens. See article for Indian citizens. Same rules. where the information is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.163.71 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

for example. I have a French Schengen visa.I can enter in Holland with it and then to France. For Holland I need a French Schengen visa. the information was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.163.71 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

example. my trip. French Schengen Visa. Russia - Finland (2 days) - Norway (2 days) - Denmark (2 days) - Germany (3 days) - France (4 days) - Russia. I can say that I have been in these countries on the basis of the Schengen visa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.163.71 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This is because every Schengen country can also issue a national visa which is not valid for the rest of Schengen. This means that to visit one of the Schengen countries you don't need a Schengen visa, you can do so on a national visa, therefore the "Schengen visa required" is incorrect. Hope this clears it up. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Keep up the good work JoeSakr1980 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joe! Much appreciated!--Twofortnights (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstars for you

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

I thank you for creation of maps for visa articles and for maintaining relevance of visa maps.
For work on clarification from vandalism of visa maps. Norvikk (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk!!! Thank you for your hard work too!--Twofortnights (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Tunisia

I browsed thoroughly through the MFA and the Tunisian Custom's websites without a clue on entry formalities and guidelines, in such case we should stick to Timatic unless a Tunisian official board states otherwise. Have a nice day.JoeSakr1980 (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes

Hallo Twofortnights! How are you?

Could you possibly change some maps?
+Benin and Equatorial Guinea for visa policy of Chad.
+Russia for visa requirements for Guyanese.
-Moldova. VP of Japan
+Uruguay. VP of Costa Rica

May be better to change colors as national flag?

-Macau +Mongolia, Bangladesh(?), Malawi for Laotian

change the color. Libya for visa policy of Tajikistan. Done. Thank you, Twofortnights.
Visa policy of Ghana. for all AU visa on arrival. Singapore is dark green.
Visa policy of Taiwan. Israel. Thank you.
VP of Rwanda. Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

P.S. Great work with statistics! Thank you. Norvikk (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am fine thank you, how are you? I have now changed the map for visa policy of Chad (kept the flag theme) and I have also added Russia on the visa requirements for Guyanese map.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine, too, thank you. Brilliant! Thank you. --Norvikk (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Norvikk thanks for the notice. I have now added Mongolia and Malawi on the Laotian flag. Macau has a visa on arrival policy - Visa_policy_of_Macau#Entry_procedures_for_visa_nationals and I am not sure about Bangladesh myself. It doesn't mention Laos one way or the other.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you perceive this as a small petition, not as an indication. Translators sometimes distort a meaning. Thank you for the work! --Norvikk (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Could you change some maps?
VP of Russia. the map2 +Bahrain, Qatar (only dip.), Oman, Vanuatu.
Russia-Bolivia visa-free (90 days) - 4 maps.
VP of Belarus. Please change it again. Only Israel without Gaza and West Bank.
VP of Ukraine. +China
VP of Singapore. Kosovo (black)
VP of Brunei. Indonesia, Papua province, some pixels are green.
Belarus-Macau visa-free (30 days)
VP of Israel. -South Sudan, Eritrea.
VR for Chinese. +Costa Rica (public affairs)
VP of Palau, VP of Samoa, Solomon Is(?) -Timatic - Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland.
VP of Vanuatu -Iceland(?) Timatic
VP of Marshall Is. -Liechtenstein
VP of Uzbekistan Kyrgyzstan 60 days
VP of Belarus +El Salvador
VP of Ukraine, VP of Belarus Belarus-Ukraine unlimited
VP of Uganda -Ghana, +Ireland
VR for Ghanaian Uganda
VR for Vanuatuan, for Estonian non-citizens +Belarus.
VP of Russia map-2 +Bangladesh +Senegal.
VP of the UK +East Timor
VR for Nigerian citizens +Barbados
VR for Taiwanese citizens -Burundi VP of Ghana +Morocco (part of the AU again from 30 Jan 2017)
St.Kitts and Nevis - Ukraine visa-free
VP of Israel. Palau (different blue)
VR for Russian Sri Lanka (eVisa)
VP of India map2 +Tanzania +Slovenia (dip. only)
VR for Russian Guinea-Bissau visa on arrival
VR for Andorran, San Marino: Australia (green)
VP of Australia -China
this map perhaps contains several mistakes. Senegal, Cameroon, Somalia, Cabo Verde, Malawi.
VR for South African -Andorra
VR for EU citizens the Bahamas (different green)
VP of Ireland East Timor
Please examine an ability to change the red color to grey color on maps for Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Thanks. Norvikk (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
VP of The Schengen North Cyprus pink(?)

Fixed. Btw not sure why this map is showing all the disputed territories, it's too complicated and we can never show them all.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right. --Norvikk (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

VP of Singapore Switzerland (now other green)
VP of Angola +Brazil
VP of DR Congo +R Congo; VR of R Congo +DR Congo
VR of Eritrea -Kenya. VR for Kenyan
VR for Moroccan -Nigeria; VP of Nigeria
VR for Georgian -New Caledonia +Australia
VR for Emirati +New Caledonia +Moldova
VP of Belarus Macao other green
VR for Kazakh Samoa visa free
VP of China third map green for Serbia, Tuvalu, Ecuador
VP of São Tomé and Príncipe -Guinea
VR for Hong Kong +Benin
VP of China second map +Greenland, Iceland and Iraq (dip); Ghana and Mauritania (dip/ser)
VP of Israel +Botswana and VR for citizens of Botswana
VP of Ivory Coast +Philippines
VR for Ukrainian Singapore and Guinea-Bissau (other color); +New Caledonia and Mauritius
VR for British Dominican Republic (other color)
VP of NZ +Puerto Rico
VP of Malaysia Seyshells <=> Maldives
VP of Tunisia Belarus, Kazakhstan (yellow) VR for KZ BY -Tunisia VP of Malawi Libya (brown); Morocco, Niger, Algeria, Angola, Cuba, Djibouti, Eritrea, India, Ghana, Liberia, Mauritania, Nepal, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan (grey) VR for Uzbekistan. Second map. Seychells, Timor.

Hi. Not sure what needs to be updated here?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

VP of Taiwan. Russia (Kaliningrad region).

Done.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

VR for Bolivian. +Belize, Egypt (VOA).

Done.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

VP of Uzbekistan +France visa free for 30 days; VR for French
VP of Solomon Is. +Israel visa free under visa exemption agreement from 2017; VR for Israeli
VP of Bahrain +Georgia VoA/evisa; VR for Georgian
VP of Indonesia the second map +Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.45.204 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
VP of Serbia Malta other green
VP of India dip/ser +Panama, Jordan and St.Kitts and Nevis
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.45.173 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• VR for Swazi +VOA Iran, Jordan; Hong Kong
• VR for DR Congo +VOA Burkina Faso
• VR for Lesotho +South Korea Bahamas
• VR for Botswana +Guyana -Nauru
• VR for Namibian +Trinidad and Tobago
• VR for Angolan +Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• VR for Zambian -Nauru
• VR for Zimbabwean -Grenada
• VR for Mozambican +voa Guinea-Bissau; Hong Kong, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• VR for South African Qatar green
• VR for Comorian +Tunisia, Panama; voa/eVisa Zambia, Zimbabwe
• VR for Algerian other green Samoa, Micronesia; voa/eVisa Zimbabwe; visa free Dominica
• VR for Rwandan +Grenada
• VR for Tanzanian -Nauru; green St Kitts and Nevis; voa South Sudan
• VR for Malagasy -South Africa; VP of South Africa other green for dip/ser Madagascar
• VR for South Sudanese +St.Kitts and Nevis
• VR for Somali -Turkey
• VR for Tunisian -Eq. Guinea
• VR for Seychellois -Nauru; other color Marshall Is.
• VR for Djiboutian voa Macao
• VR for Ethiopian voa Guinea-Bissau
• VR for Kenyan -Nauru,voa Jordan
• VR for Egyptian visa free St.Kitts/Nevis
• VR for Libyan voa Cambodia
• VR for Moroccan +Belize
• VR for Cameroonian -Nauru
• VR for Santomean +voa Burkina Faso
• VR for Gabonese +Tunisia
• VR for Beninese +voa Iran
• VR for Burkinabe +Tunisia
• VR for Cape Verdean -Burundi +Tunisia, Panama; voa Iran, Marshall Islands
• VR for Ghanaian +Vanuatu; voa Jordan -Malawi
• VR for for Guinean +voa Mauritius Laos St.Lucia
• VR for Guinea-Bissauan +voa St.Lucia
• VR for Ivorian +voa Malawi
• VR for Liberian -Nicaragua
• VR for Malian -Congo
• VR for Mauritanian +voa Nicaragua, Ghana, Congo -Liberia
• VP of Congo voa + Mauritania - Mali
• VR for Nigerian visa free St. Kitts and Nevis - Nauru
• VP St. Vincent and the Grenadines UAE 90 days
• VP of Dominica
• VR for Colombian, Icelandic eVisa only for Ethiopia --109.252.43.155 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• VP Russia +Palau for the second and third maps
• VP China +Niger for the second map
• VP Cuba +Kaliningrad Oblast for the second map
• VR for Bruneian Cambodia green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.44.236 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chaos comes here, if you are away for a long time. I hope you are doing well. Thank you so much.

Norvikk (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I saw a few broken pixels on this map (Russia: where is the Caucasus and Vladivostok (Far East). Could you help to fill pixels? --Norvikk (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC). Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I found the application for my device. I can edit maps. Thank you very much for your help. --Norvikk (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Colombian eVisa

Hi.

Is it Colombia eVisa? https://tramitesmre.cancilleria.gov.co/tramites/enlinea/solicitarVisa.xhtml

Is it right? Colombia. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Angolan_citizens#Visa_requirements --Norvikk (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand this is not an eVisa but an online visa application form that many countries have. There is no electronic visa that is issued, you have to go to the consulate to obtain a sticker.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Visa Requirements - Spanish version & maps colors standarization

Hi Twofortnights, I´ve been following your work and it´s outstanding. Congratulation and keep it up!

I´m a Spanish native speaker, and I´ll be working on creating the Spanish pages with the information. Already have the 1st one: https://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Requerimientos_de_visado_para_ciudadanos_de_Costa_Rica

As you might also have seen, I´ve been updating the Costa Rica map and keeping it up to date. I also want to volunteer with the standarization of color codes for the maps. I read a previous comment from another editor, and you expose the challenges that each country has. I'll get around it and provide you couple of proposals for different countries.

Here's the link to my sandbox. I'd appreciate your feedback: Luiscotiquicia's sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiscotiquicia (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, great work!

Cheers, Luiscotiquicia (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian map

Maybe time to change colors on the Visa requirements for Russian has come? To change the "flag palette" on the"classic green palette".

  Russia

  Freedom of movement

  Visa not required

  Visa on arrival

  Limited visa on arrival

  eVisa

  Pre-approved visa pick up on arrival

  Visa required prior to arrival

I really feel it will be better. What do you think? --Norvikk (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess that is fine too. But weren't you a fan of flag-like color legends?--Twofortnights (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I? No. I thought you are a fan of flag-like color legends. Seriously. Sometimes it looks nice, sometimes not. I like saturated blue color of the Russian flag on the map, but this cold color. Warm color looks better on maps.
I don't like red color for the category "visa required. As this [50] Red hurts on eyes. My opinion - green color is the best of all for a map. --Norvikk (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Could you change the Russian map? --Norvikk (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I just realized there is a big issue about the proposed change of map colors in general not just for Russia. These maps are used through Wikimedia - Wikipedias in various languages but also Wikivoyage etc. How do we fix that?--Twofortnights (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

We see where a map is used. (File usage on other wikis). A problem in that it will be necessary to change interpretation under a map in other articles. Or To transfer interpretation of colors to a map, then interpretation under a map can be removed. --Norvikk (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon. You have found a solution for problem, which has appeared when replacing color of the map? Which is suitable for you or the problem has no decision? --Norvikk (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure. Someone would have to go through all other Wiki projects where the file is used to change the color legend. In addition they would have to know the language to add any new items to the legend. I am not sure how to solve this?--Twofortnights (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Why to change the text (description)? It is enough to change the description of color. blue to #23B14D, and so on. I have found this problem. for Albanian citizens. All it is solvable. --Norvikk (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes but the new legend that is proposed would include new entries like "Limited visa on arrival" or "Pre-approved visa pick up on arrival". Also even if we remove those 2, still someone has to go through the other Wiki projects and edit those legends from blue to #23B14D, it won't happen automatically. Who is going to do that? You noticed well with Albanian citizens map, someone also insisted on changig that one but no one ever changed the legends so it was confusing.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

For using the Russian map I will make it. Let's try. --Norvikk (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, here it is then, please update the map legends. I only didn't include Pre-approved visa pick up on arrival as we have agreed to phase that one out, it's too unreliable.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I updated the map legends. No legend-line in Arabic and other legend-line in Italian. How do you like Green Map? better, worse? --Norvikk (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

For me it's good for as long as readers like it.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I waited it for 3 years. Thank you very much. --Norvikk (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

May be the colors of the Russian flag would be appropriate on the map for Visa Policy of Russia?

  Russia Official color of the flag

  unlimited

  90 days Official color of the flag

  60 days

  30 days

  14 days

What do you think?--Norvikk (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Singapore

Hi, I have a friend who had edited your pages (The other - “Visa requirements for Icelandic citizens”), both twice anonymously. Sorry to trouble you to undo the changes twice. He is working as an immigration officer and he recently realises that Icelandic citizens are to enter Singapore for 90-days visa free with effect from 1st May 2016. May I know how update should be made since you've stated that you know that Icelandic citizens are given 30 days? Now it's after 1st May 2016. Is there any special requirements to approve the changes? -- Nicholas Theodore (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC+8)

Hi User:Nicholas Theodore! All you need is an external published verifiable source as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. As soon as you have a published external source that clearly says there is a change of Singaporean visa policy as of 1 May 2016 the article can be changed. Unfortunately word of mouth falls under Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

e-visa/electronic travel authorization/may apply online

Hi. What about Gabon visa system https://evisa.dgdi.ga? Is it

eVisa

or

Electronic Travel Authorization

? Which is right?

Hi! It's the first one definitely. Keep in mind it's valid only for entries via Libreville International Airport. Cheers --Twofortnights (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights.

Articles contain different information. What information is correct?

Guinea-Bissau. Pre-arranged visa can be picked up on arrival. OR Visa on arrival. May apply online. OR e-Visa? Visa Application System
Rwanda. E-visa for all? [51] "In case where we don’t have a Diplomatic Mission/ consulate, foreign nationals request for a visa acceptance letter online, which will be presented on arrival to obtain a visa upon payment of visa fee ($30)"

I am not sure, I will have to investigate this further.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

British statistics

Hi. U.K. statistics. Now maximum information. How is it better?
1. Top-10, 20, 30?
2. With/without ?
3. years. 2015/2014 or 2015/2011 or other? -- Norvikk (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well I see the problem in the fact that not all data is for the same year. It's easier with centralized statistics like the one provided by the Federal Security Service and the Russian Federal State Statistics Service. But then again such statistics are also prone to many errors. --Twofortnights (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2016

hm.Sorry for computer translate. I asked about style of the section of statistics in article Visa policy of the United Kingdom. I have issued it as in article about the Russian policy. I ask your opinion about style. You can change it if something isn't pertinent.
You talk about the source of statistical information. But the source is always the same - the state statistical service. For all states. There is no other source. The methodology is not perfect at all, the percentage of error is present in all statistics. --Norvikk (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK, sorry about that. Yeah that looks good to me, I wouldn't change it. Thanks for updating the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Western Sahara on visa maps

Why are you removing Western Sahara from the visa maps and portraying it as a part of Morocco? No country recognizes Western Sahara as belonging to Morocco and most maps show it as separate, so why are you changing them? I object to the erasure of Western Sahara from the maps you edited. - ILBobby (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We have to use some kind of objective reference for the maps. Otherwise we will end up with something like this File:Visa requirements for Romanian citizens.svg which is completely insane and impossible to edit. Therefore we ought to use something and that something is the UN membership. At least for the maps as article tables contain information on a wide array of territories with different statuses - autonomous, disputed, colonial etc. I am not saying it's a good option but it's the only neutral option that we have. Otherwise if we include Western Sahara then people will say but what about Abkhazia, if we include Abkhazia soon the issue of Crimea will arise and that's how mess begins. But please remember that this in no way tries to define Western Sahara as part of Morocco or as an independent country. I personally have zero opinion over the issue one way or another. It's just that we need to keep things simple and neutral, that's all.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

By giving Western Sahara to Morocco on the maps, you *are* taking a stance, in favor of Morocco's position, and thus are not neutral. It is by no means daring or provocative to go with the global consensus and show it as separate. The same could be said for Crimea and Abkhazia - both statuses are unrecognized by the vast majority of countries. Kosovo should be added to the maps because a majority of the world's countries recognize it, and Palestine should remain on them for the same reason. You will never please everyone, but you can try not to alienate more people than fewer. - ILBobby (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

By that logic (simple number of countries recognizing some situation as legal) Western Sahara would still be shown as part of Morocco due to the fact that only 47 countries recognize it as independent. As I've said it's the best to keep the criteria the same for all and to keep it neutral and easily verifiable. "Majority" criteria would in no time turn into a major flame war where some discussants would be proposing a majority of countries while others would propose a majority of world population while some would propose a qualified majority across all continents etc. As you can see it would be very difficult to establish such criteria so it's the best to use what we've got. It's not perfect, but at least it keeps the encyclopedia peaceful from edit wars based on plethora of equally valid opinions.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Format

Hi. Which is format correct?
Timatic|nationality=BB|destination=AL|accessdate=6 July 2014 Or Timatic|nationality=BB|destination=AL?
Date no update in many articles. It information is needed? --Norvikk (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Both are fine I think. With date it is more complete.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

André - good find thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have found, but thank André. Life is so unfair... --Norvikk (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Norvikk haha I am so sorry, two messages crossed. Thank you Norvikk!--Twofortnights (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

))) --Norvikk (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi. Please, View visa requiments for Russian - ststistics. The three versions.
1. Main year 2015. In the footnotes 2014 and 2013
2. All the years in the footnotes
3. all year in the table.
Which version is best?

We could perhaps simplify it by using something like this?--Twofortnights (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Foreign travel statistics
Destination	Number of visitors from Russia
England 1	1,000,000 link
Scotland 2	2,000,000 link
Wales 3	3,000,000 link
Ireland 1	100,000 link

Notes

1. ^ Data for 2013.
2. ^ Data for 2014.
3. ^ Data for 2015.

Maybe move the 'source' in the separate column? --Norvikk (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Foreign travel statistics
Destination	Number of visitors	Source
Ireland 1	100,000	link

Well in that case I would also add the column for year.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I returned the old version. Statistics in all the articles in the same style. You looked Portuguese statistics? --Norvikk (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. But I am not sure if it's better.

Yes, I saw that file for Portugal but I am not sure it contains what we need? I can't find the information there.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not ideal. but the changes are not found approval.

Thank you. --Norvikk (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Sri Lankan citizens.png

If you can, Please add e-Visa section for above map. Thank you. --112.134.2.171 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Canada

Hi. The canadian immigration website. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/apply-how.asp This "May apply "online" for all? --Norvikk (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's like Russian online application. You still need to send in the physical documents and visa is placed in the passport. So it's just an easier way to send an application, but it's not an electronic visa.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this is not an electronic visa. They must inspect scan copies of the submitted documents and if the answer is Yes invite with the originals for verification and for visa purposes.

This is a mistake?

Canada

Visa required

May apply online.

I think so, because only one part of application can be done online. If you just say "May apply online." it sounds like you can finish the process online like with Australia but you can't.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. We will not enter to confuse readers. --Norvikk (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Visitors statistics

Visitors statistics of Uruguay I made a request on the website of the Ministry of tourism of Uruguay on the general mail. User talk:Norvikk#Missing countries

They replied that publish statistics for the MERCOSUR countries. But offered to make a request through the mail Department of statistics.
first answer Spanish Buen día a quien corresponda: La razón por la cual aparecen individualizadas algunas nacionalidades es porque las mismas pertenecen al Mercosur y forman parte de la información básica que proporciona la Dirección Nacional de Migración. No obstante nosotros publicamos información más detallada que la que usted comenta; de precisar alguna otra información a la que aparece en nuestra web: /mintur.gub.uy/index.php/es/estadistica le pido nos lo haga saber y le enviamos lo que tengamos disponible Cordial saludo

I did it. I requested the visitor statistics for Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, Russia, United Kingdom, United States. They sent statistics .odt file. (I've never encountered this format) I managed to unzip it.
second answer Spanish Estimado: La información que le brindamos es el total de pasajeros ingresados a Uruguay por todos los puntos de ingreso, son datos proporcionados por Migración, cualquier otra consulta a sus órdenes.
odt Los números corresponden a pasajeros ingresados al país por nacionalidad

This can be considered a reliable source and make edits to articles based on this source? --Norvikk (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you think?

Thanks! I am not sure, this is a tricky one. Wikipedia rules say that every source needs to be published and verifiable which this is not. But I would feel sorry to have this information go to waste. Is there a possibility to ask them to upload this on their page?--Twofortnights (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I asked them. "Why do you not publish statistical information on all countries. This is an important economic and social information."

They replied that they publish only to MERCOSUR, the rest on request. Apparently this policy of the statistical agencie. I do not understand why.

Either to deviate from the rules or without Uruguay. Or look for other sources of information. Or this--Norvikk (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Treasure for you. Can you help with editing statistics?

Micronesia [52]

Cook Islands [53] Done. Englan/UK as UK.

American Samoa [54] page 109-110. Done.

Guam [55]. Done. By air.

New Caledonia [56]

Niue [57] Done

Tuvalu [58]

Malawi 2009 [59]. Done.

Bhutan [60] - Done.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

--Norvikk (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow great finds, thank you!--Twofortnights (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, all done except Guam which doesn't work for some reason?--Twofortnights (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Norvikk (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

PS New Zealand. Check this out! statistics of New Zealand. Arrivals. All countries of the world since 1979. This is the best database. Oh, if all countries had similar statistics, the world would be better.

Amazing work by New Zealand!--Twofortnights (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Norvikk, just to map it out what we have missing:

• Americas: Argentina (unpublished), Colombia (only top10, other on request) El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Peru (2015 unpublished), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Uruguay (unpublished)
• Europe: Albania (from the report I've found they only have statistics on domestic/foreign), Armenia, Belarus, Denmark, Norway, Portugal (there is that huge report that is hard to decipher), Sweden, Switzerland (seems to count only hotel nights)
• Asia and Oceania: Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Gulf countries except Oman, Saudi Arabia tourism data, Bangladesh only tourism purpose page 138, Nauru.
• Africa: Many but from tourist countries Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Mozambique, Comoros.
• Outdated info: Belize, Venezuela, Uganda, Tanzania, Sao Tome and Principe, Lesotho, Lebanon, Pakistan, Oman, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Belgium, Guatemala, Bahamas, Bolivia, Ecuador, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Trinidad and Tobago data (not full), Grenada, Congo, Peru, Timor-Leste, Cameroon.
• 2016 info: Georgia, Iceland, Thailand, Japan, Vietnam, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Fiji, Turkey, Serbia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Ukraine, Chile, Spain, Estonia, Israel, Czech Republic, Croatia, Australia, Moldova, Austria, Cambodia, Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, Finland, Singapore, Canada, Swaziland, Costa Rica, Antarctica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Papua New Guinea, Hungary, Germany, Antigua and Barbuda, Curacao, Latvia, Lithuania

--Twofortnights (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I made requests to several countries. The answers came from Argentina, Uruguay, Antigua (was asked to redirect the request to the migration Department), Am Samoa. Almost no one answers. I write about it here User talk:Norvikk#Missing countries. I think a data that is in the open databases, we all found. Norvikk (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Type is statistics

Hi. What type of statistics is more priority? Number of Foreign Visitor Arrivals by Country of Residence / International visitors arrivals by nationality Norvikk (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I think nationality.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenland

Two sources- [61] and [62]. Information is different. Which source is correct?

UAE

I couldn't find statistics for all the Emirates. We know the statistics for the two Emirates- Abu Dhabi, Dubai. Total.14,200,000+4,105,846=18,105,846 But the total for 2015 by World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) -14,837,000.[63] I think we can use it. What do you think? I made a test edit. [64] --Norvikk (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hi Twofortnights!

I would like to thank you for visa map for Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have added one more category which is visa free "on business" (China) but I do not know how to update the image. Could you do that if you have time?

Sure. No problem.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted duplicate text, which you reverted

Hello,

You reverted my removal of the Israel section on the Visa Policy of Iran page. I believe there are two reason to remove the Israel section from the page:

• It is one line of text. Lets keep things clean and not make a new section when it can be easily merged into the first paragraph.
• It is duplicate since the introductory paragraph already says " Israeli citizens are totally banned from entry to Iran."
• The text that I removed also lacked a credible source for the statement that Iran bans entry to anyone who has any connection to the state of Israel. Although this might be true, I welcome a better source, and suggest that we remove this piece of text until we find one.
• Furthermore, some sources claim that the Israeli Stamp-myth has been debunked: "contrary to popular belief, existing visa stamps in your passport e.g. for Israel or the U.S.A, will not jeopardize your application for an Iranian visa in any way.

I'm not sure whether it's true, but whatever we put in the Wikipedia page, lets at least have at least one credible source (not the Magic Carpet website) to serve as a basis.

I welcome your thoughts

Amin wordie (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Amin wordie, I think you haven't read the article thoroughly as one sentence speaks about the total ban on Israeli citizens but the other talks about foreign citizens who have evidence of travel to Israel in their passports. Those are two different things, and not duplicates that should be merged. Hope it's clear now. As for whether it's true or not, well that can be reflected in the article, that the information is conflicted.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I know that the second sentence mentions that people associated with the state of Israel are not allowed into Iran. Have you even read my comment? My point is that 1) all this information an be merged into the first paragraph, even if you don't delete one charter. 2) Find a better source for the second sentence that claims that no one associated with the state of Israel is allowed in Iran. Amin wordie (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

My problem is not where we place it in the article but the fact that the sentence "Israeli citizens are totally banned from entry to Iran." does not cover both situations. I thought this would be clear, this sentence in no way describes the situation of foreign citizens who visited Israel, only that of Israeli citizens. As for "find a better source", well IATA takes information directly from national governments so it's a good source already. I am sorry but the source is not the problem if it's reliable just because you don't like what it says or you think it can't possibly be true. I am willing however to expand the article with something like "According to some travel agencies this rule is not enforced".--Twofortnights (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I did some research and the source seems reliable. Their website looks like it hadn't been updated since the Reagan administration, which is why I was initially sceptical. Amin wordie (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, oh well it's more of a service system than a website anyway.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Kuwaiti citizens

Dear Twofortnights

Thank you for all the hard work you've been doing on Wikipedia. I'm from Kuwait and its important for me that the information is up to date and simple to follow. I saw your reversed everything that i've been working on. I found that for example Marshall Islands don't give Kuwaiti citizens Visa on Arrival. Australia has a eVisa. some other countries Like Mexico allow Kuwaiti citizens to visit if they hold a US Visa for example. I tired to make things more clear and also double and triple checked before submitting.

I would like to help make this page easy to follow and up to date with all relevant information.

All your help is much appreciated.

TaB TaB AiE — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaB TaB AiE (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For Marshall Islands it's some kind of a glitch, on this page it says that Kuwaiti citizens are eligible for visa on arrival - https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?FullText=1&COUNTRY=MH&SECTION=VI&SUBSECTION=00&user=KLMB2C&subuser=KLMB2C

However, that's not an issue. The issue is in the notes where you added the text that you simply copy/pasted from another website. That is absolutely forbidden under copyright rules.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights

I understand that copying copyrighted materials is forbidden, but the information I added on the notes are policies of governments regarding entry to their borders and are not copy righted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaB TaB AiE (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the information, it's about the text. It's a simple copy/paste of the exact same content.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Jordan

Hello there,

http://www.qaiairport.com/en/content/visa-requirements

According to Timatic, citizens of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, and Palestine can visit Jordan without a visa for a certain period of time. However on Queen Alia's International Airport website it states that all nationalities should obtain a visa on arrival which costs 40 Jordanian Dinars valid for 2 months. (Some nationalities should obtain it from the diplomatic mission though most can get it at the airport).

Where does that fall ont? Should we change the info based on the airport's website or stick to timatic?

Have a nice dayJoeSakr1980 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I would personally stick with Timatic. I have seen this before with other countries, they omit information that was intended for English speakers. Plus the airport is not the primary source, they just interpret the official information.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for writing the statistical sections. The good work! --Norvikk (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk!--Twofortnights (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Qatar-Turkey Visa Exemption Agreements

Hello there, I've been to Istanbul-Turkey on a business trip on Saturday, right after disembarking the aircraft, going up the stairs there's a banner stating the countries whos citizens are required to obtain an e-Visa on arrival. Suprisingly Qatar is on the list. I've taken a photo and uploaded it here https://postimg.org/image/ws3y1683l , Should we again stick with what Timatic states? or is what the airport states is superior to Timatic? Have a nice day. Feel free tell me if I should upload it to Wiki-commons. Regards, Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we should trust the Turkish embassy in Qatar that says the deal was ratified and entered into force. The airport staff just needs to be more diligent.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Last changes of visa policy of Norway

Hi Twofortnights! Thanks for the very good work at Wikipedia regarding visa policies of different countries all over the world. Generally it seems like most of your changes are correct and trustworthy. Changes from other users are more so so... However, your last changes of the Visa requirements for Norwegian citizens (July 1st 2016) seems to be wrong. You changed Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu with references to Timatic. However, when I check the Timatic references, they clearly agree with the old revision of this wiki, i.e. "Visa required" on Kiribati, and "visa on arrival" in Marshall Islands and Tuvalu (not "Visa not required" on any of them). Do you know anything that Timatic does not know? Espen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espenlok (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Espenlok, bilateral visa waivers with Schengen Area and Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu recently came into force. I don't expect those three countries with such limited resources will quickly inform IATA about the changes, it may take some time unfortunately.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then you did know something more than Timatic! However, as Timatic is still used as a reference for the visa regulation, it seems a little strange that the reference does not agree with the written regulation in the wiki. However, I see the actual references on the opposite sites "Visa policy of Tuvalu" etc., and I guess Timatic will also be updated pretty soon! Thanks again for your good work with these pages! It is very nice for a travel nerd like me. And I especially like that one difference between us and our neighbors in Sweden regarding visa-free countries has now disappeared (ie. Kiribati). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espenlok (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I expect the information on Norway will be especially slow to show on Timatic, because usually these contracts are signed by the EU first and then minutes later by Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. However the press release of the EU always says how the contracts with Norway, Switzerland and Iceland will be signed later and then the impression is it's going to happen who knows when. In reality it happens immediately (it wouldn't make sense not to sign it anyway as all those countries are part of the Schengen Area and not only they have to follow the Schengen code, they also have border free zone with the rest of Schengen).--Twofortnights (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Visa requirements for Russian citizens.png

May I politely confess that I have done some graphical changes to that map? That is not a personal insult to your great work, but a little discontent with the graphical outcome. In my humble opinion, it is easier to discuss about a graphical work that is already visible. However, some people have asked me whether I am a vandal. Feel free to join the discussion on Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Russian_citizens --Benutzer:Kapitän Nemo (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

There is currently a question at the Teahouse regarding your revert at Visa requirements for Egyptian citizens. It is tremendously helpful to new editors if you provide an edit summary when reverting their contributions, especially if they can plausibly interpreted as good faith. From WP:ES:

It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text.

The two seconds it would take you to provide one both helps editor retention and reduces the burden on the Teahouse and similar forums. Thanks. Joe Roe (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Heyyyy buddy ! Did you read the text and had the feeling that it was personal analysis, Then your logic and feelings are totally messed up !

I am writing facts and you keep deleting them. What's your problem? Are you OK?

You can ask anyone who has gone to mexico international airport, the arrangement is different from all other international airports and that causes problem for people who need visa to mexico.

You don't ask for evidence. you just keep deleting my text. You really have problems ! I bet you won't even read this ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moskovitskaya (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saint Kitts and Nevis passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Saint Kitts and Nevis passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	The idea to add the "statistics" section to the visa requirements articles was amazing, I hereby award you this barnstar. Nice work! Norvikk (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk!--Twofortnights (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ID Cards for Dominica

This is a tricky issue - I asked IATA to look into this last summer and their sources apparetly said only French cards were accepted.

However, I mailed the Dominican head of immigration im March this year, asking specifically about French, Swedish and German cards (also attaching images). He then said all of these were OK.

Correspondance

When asking if this applied to all EU citizens, I got no reply.

I then went to Dominica by ferry, and getting in was completely painless.

I've sent my IATA contact guy another mail, attaching the correspondence with the head of immigration. This needs to be clarified.

André Devecserii (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess sometimes, some information we won't end up including because of the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule. But thanks for looking into it, it sounds like Dominica has very lax entry procedures.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Multiple Barnstar

		The Multiple Barnstar
		Thank you for your hundreds of hours of work! Norvikk (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Norvikk thank you so much! You deserve all those barnstars for your dedication as well!--Twofortnights (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Canadian ETA for permanent residents of the US

Hi, It says on the Visa Policy of Canada article that US permenent residents are exempt from holding an ETA.

This is false - although a national who normally needs a visa for Canada but holds a US permenent resident card don't need a Canadian visa, they do need an ETA.

Consequently, once the leniency period ends, a passport (or US Refugee travel document/I-571, or US permit to re-enter/I-327) will be required to fly to Canada (as opposed to only bringing the green card, which will now only be possible when entering by land or sea)

Source here

André Devecserii (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I suppose the exemption for French citizens residents of Saint Pierre and Miquelon still stands?--Twofortnights (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights Only if flying from St Pierre and Miquelon - otherwise the airline is to deny them boarding without an ETA. Also US nationals remain exempt André Devecserii (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Serbia

Hi, just wanted to let you know that there are two significantly different versions of Serbia's visa policy, and both should be mentioned in the article, similar to how it's done in the one about Bangladesh.

I will contact the Serbian MFA about this and ask for an explanation, and if they insist their info is the correct one, I'll write to my IATA contact guy. André Devecserii (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

IATA list:

Indefinitely: Monaco, Montenegro

90 days: South Korea

90 days in a 6-month period:

• Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland (Rep.), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Malta, Mexico, Moldova (biometric passport), Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vatican City.
• Holders of a visa or residence permit of an EEA state or Switzerland, or a US visa, or a US Permanent Resident Card.

60 days: Macedonia

30 days: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia

30 days in a 2-month period: Ukraine

14 days: Hong Kong

MFA list

Indefinitely: Albania, Monaco

90 days: Andorra, Argentina (tourism only), Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova (biometric passport), Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vatican City.

90 days in a 6-month period:

• Brazil, Turkey, United Arab Emirates
• Holders of a visa or residence permit of an EEA state or Switzerland, or a US visa, or a US Permanent Resident Card.

30 days: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia

30 days in a 60-day period: Ukraine

14 days: Hong Kong

André Devecserii (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights Wow, the Serbs were actually responsive (perhaps because I sent the question with high priority, but still)

They've notified IATA, and low and behold, they updated it almost instantly

None of the lists were 100% right - but Wikipedia put it accurately, so I only made a slight change to Ukraine - they can only visit for 30 days in a 2-month period. NOTE: Nationals of Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan don't have the 2-month restriction. André Devecserii (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

André Devecserii: Great, it seems all was sorted before I even knew about it! Good job! Btw I think all those indefinite stay entries are errors. For example there are a few for Visa policy of Cuba.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Mozambique VOA

Just went on an experimental trip (next-day return) to Maputo, to find out once and for all about VOA.

The US embassy in Maputo claims nationals of countries without a visa (such as me) cannot obtain a visa on arrival.

Timatic says all nationals can.

I can reveal that IATA's version is correct. Absolutely painless - paid 66 dollars and got it pasted in straight away. Passport control stamped me in within 10 seconds.

I don't know anything about the "many Americans" who got refused entry and deported, but to be frank, if this rule was ever implemented, it must have been reverted. Unless you have another explanation? André Devecserii (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Visa requirements for New Zealand citizens

Hi

Firstly, apologies if I've taken the wrong approach in talking with you; this is my first time doing so on Wikipedia.

Secondly, thanks for all your work on the visa pages; it's nice to 'meet' one of the people putting so much effort into making Wikipedia my first go to reference.

As to why I'm talking now... I updated the page "Visa requirements for New Zealand citizens" roughly this time last year following my experiences as a New Zealander travelling to India*. Shortly after my edits, you reverted my changes with - as far as I can tell - no explanation. If you feel that I was vandalising the page, I assure you I was not. Unless something has changed since last year, I still believe my understanding of India's policy for New Zealand travellers is accurate.

I've changed the content back to my original edit. My original edit had a link to India's policy for New Zealand. I am not, however, looking for an editing war. If you feel that my change was wrong in some way, do let me know.

• I'm happy to prove this statement with a (redacted) scan of my passport if you wish.

Kwutchak (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Update

I realised I made a mistake in the ref tag on my original edit. Perhaps that was what your reversion was correcting?

Kwutchak (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Micronesia

Hello there sir, it's been quite a long time, please update the article concerning the visa requirements of citizens of Micronesia as the schengen waiver came into force earlier today. It also applies to Romania Bulgaria and Cyprus too.

Format

Hi. Which format is better from the point of view of grammar and sense in English?
60 days, up to 90 days within 180
60 days, 90 days in any 180-days
60 days, 90 days in a 180-day period
60 days, a max. stay of 90 days within any 180 day period
60 days, a max. stay of 90 days within any 180 day period is granted
Or other? --Norvikk (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I would say "60 days, for a maximum total stay of 90 days within any 180 day period"--Twofortnights (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norvikk (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Are "180 day period" and "180-day period" equal? Norvikk (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi.Yes they are, it's the same thing.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ficticious conditional e-visa for Georgia

Hi, could you please read what I wrote at the bottom of this talk page, and make the relevant adjustments (possibly after looking into the Georgian e-visa system yourself, which I already did) https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Visa_policy_of_Georgia#Conditional_EVISA_for_certain_countries André Devecserii (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess the evisa info page is outdated which is not very professional but nothing uncommon. Should we contact them or immediately remove any mention of the conditional evisa?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights Remove it, because the e-visa form is where you apply, so it cannot be wrong. It directly accepts or rejects you depending on nationality and whether you have a supporting document. The yellow countries should, in other words, be grey, however some blue countries, such as Congo Dem. Republic and Algeria, are now also ineligible for e-visas. The entire e-visa list thus needs to be reviewed, and sadly this can only be done by going through every single nationality in the application form André Devecserii (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I will then remove the e-visa from the map for the time being.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Georgian e-visa nationalities

Alright Twofortnights, here it is: the list of all nationals who are eligible for e-visa. (note that anyone with a visa or residence permit in EU/EFTA/GCC countries, overseas territories of EU countries (except Anguilla, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea or the United States is visa-exempt for 90 days in a 180-day period.)

90 days in a 180-day period:

Bolivia

Cuba

Dominica

East Timor

Grenada

Guatemala

Kiribati

Macedonia

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Paraguay

Peru

St Kitts & Nevis

St Lucia

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Suriname

Trinidad & Tobago

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

30 days in a 120-day period

Angola

Benin

Bhutan

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cambodia

Cape Verde

Central African Republic

China

Comoros

Djibouti

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Fiji

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana

Haiti

India

Indonesia

Jamaica

Jordan

Laos

Lesotho

Madagascar

Malawi

Maldives

Mongolia

Mozambique

Myanmar

Namibia

North Korea

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Rwanda

Sao Tome e Principe

Swaziland

Togo

Tonga

Vietnam

Zambia

Zimbabwe

André Devecserii (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have uploaded a new map, please check it to see if it contains any errors.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights I really think you should yellow-mark the 30/120 nationalities, like in the article on Turkey. That way it'd also be easier for me to spot errors André Devecserii (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Visa map

Hello, Nice work on all of your articles! Please note that Vanuatu don’t need visa for Iceland neither Iceland need visa for Vanuatu (Schengen agreement). Visa requirements for Iceland citizens needs to be updated. Thanks! Ugnius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugniushervar (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you just re-update the map? I adjusted the text pisition slightly - looks much more even André Devecserii (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this message when you sent it.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Reciprocity

Hi there, thank you for your explanation in your most recent edit on Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens. However, may I know on earth is USA reciprocal with Singapore when Americans travelers need no further travel documents other than their personal passport when they enter Singapore? Singaporean tourists can be denied entry in the USA if they do not process a valid ESTA with them. Singapore doesn't ask American tourists to make any payments for their online registration but why is the reverse happening? Hope to hear you clarify on that.

Ivanacurtis reverted my edit on Visa requirements for Venezuelan citizens but he/she didn't remove the "Reciprocity" column on Visa requirements for Serbian citizens & Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens. I wonder what was he/she thinking.

Also, do u edit any articles on Diplomatic Missions? Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, of course the thing is ESTA applies only to arrivals via air but not overland. Also the European Commission ruled that ESTA is not an equivalent of a visa. I know it's not related to Singapore but still adds some weight. As for the diplomatic missions, no I don't, is there any issue there?--Twofortnights (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Map editing tool?

Hello, would you mind sharing how you edit world maps? I'd be interested in also contributing to visa policy maps and could use some guidance. Thanks! —Wingedbeaver (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Visa policy of Brazil

Hi, in the Visa policy of Brazil article it states that Belize is on the list of countries with a visa exemption (and shows this on the map as well). This is not true, we have Belize passports and need to get a visa to travel to Brazil for tourism and business. I made this edit but you undid the edit, can you please change it back?

Source: Brazil embassy in San Francisco - https://sistemas.mre.gov.br/kitweb/datafiles/SaoFrancisco/en-us/file/visa_exception_list.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanaloria (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alanaloria, the information you have is outdated. Please check the latest list by the Brazilian MFA that was updated on 21 September 2016 where it is clearly stated that Belizean citizens do not require a visa for Brazil - [65]. Thank you.

Wow, thanks so much you saved me such a headache of trying to get a visa! There is so much conflicting info about this on the internet, it's crazy. Here is another good source to verify that a visa is not required, from the Brazilian embassy in Belize: http://belmopan.itamaraty.gov.br/en-us/visa_to_brazil.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanaloria (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Twofortnights. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Guyanese

Hello. You have reverted changes that I have made to Visa Requirements for Guyanese Citizens for Vietnam and UAE.

[1] Vietnam: On the reference that is cited, it says: 'Visa required, except for Nationals of Guyana arriving at Phu Quoc (PQC) for a maximum stay of 30 days. Visa required, except for Nationals of Guyana arriving at Hanoi (HAN) or Ho Chi Minh City (SGN) with onward tickets for a connecting flight, on the same day, to Phu Quoc (PQC). THUS, VISA NOT REQUIRED.

[2] UAE: Again, 'Visa required, except for Passengers with a normal passport and a confirmation that a visa has been approved before departure can obtain a visa on arrival for a maximum stay of 96 hours, 30 days or 90 days.' THUS, it was changed to e-VISA.

I have made further changes, but before you revert them, here are the exerpts from the same references you supposedly cited.

[3] Bangladesh: 'Visa required, except for Nationals of Guyana with a return/onward ticket and traveling as tourists can obtain a visa on arrival for a maximum stay of 30 days. They can apply to extend their stay.' THUS, VISA NOT REQUIRED.

[4] Panama: 'Visa required, except for Nationals of Guyana for a maximum stay of 180 days'. THUS, VISA NOT REQUIRED.

I question your thoroughness. Did you actually read the references that you've cited?

Eriochrome (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Eriochrome

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriochrome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eriochrome. Thank you for writing.

Regarding Vietnam, indeed, just as you write, visa for Vietnam is not required only for the tiny little resort island of Phú Quốc not the entire country. Your edit however says that Guyanese citizens do not require a visa for Vietnam. Full stop. This is obviously false and result of you not reading the entire reference thoroughly.

As for UAE, the quote you pasted here has no mention of "e-visa" yet you conclude with "THUS, it was changed to e-VISA." so I am a bit confused where did you read about an open e-visa facility for the UAE? The only electronic application that exists for the UAE is for passengers of certain airlines but that is not an evisa available to all.

As for Bangladesh, you cited a reference that says "tourists can obtain a visa on arrival" and you concluded "THUS, VISA NOT REQUIRED." It's a rather odd conclusion because it goes directly against a very simple information provided in the reference that says visa is obtained on arrival.

As for Panama, your edit is correct and it was not contested.

Hope this was helpful, have a great day.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Additions: [1] UAE 'E-visas can be obtained before departure at www.ednrd.ae. Passengers must have a printed e-visa confirmation and airlines can check the validity of the e-visa on the same site by clicking on "Query GDRFA-D APP". Visa required, except for Passengers with a normal passport and a confirmation that a visa has been approved before departure can obtain a visa on arrival for a maximum stay of 96 hours, 30 days or 90 days.' THUS E-VISA. Did you actually read the reference before you reverted the change?

[2] Bangladesh: I meant VISA ON ARRIVAL, which is what I had on the page. Is it not? Did you change it? I caution you to read the reference before you revert changes. I will make a formal complaint if you continue to do so.

Eriochrome (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Eriochrome

This is unbelievable. I don't know what you meant, I only know what you did. As for the evisa thing, I explained everything. And suddenly you go silent on Vietnam, wonder why?! Maybe because you were 100% wrong but were so aggressive as if you were 100% right? You need to calm down and show some respect to other editors.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I requre you to correct UAE immediately, else I will submit a formal complaint against you. Eriochrome (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Eriochrome

You do that. But please don't forget to attach an explanation on how a person can independently obtain a visa for the UAE through the eDNRD system.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Timatic

Hi. I want to ask a question about Timatic. If I see a mistake, I write them, they check and correct. In the last few times they refused to accept the request, because I do not have them paid account to log in to their database. I have a question. Wikipedia uses a reference to a closed part of a paid Timatic's database. Is it legal? Maybe we are all unwitting accomplices? Norvikk (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the first time I hear this. You can openly access timatic via many airline pages - [66] without any subscription or log in.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. But maybe this is a paid subscription between Timatic and airlane. http://www.timaticweb2.com/register The information is used by agreement. We get information on the airline's website, we do not go to the database of Timatic. No problem. But Wikipedia uses a link to the database directly. (Timatic|destination=|nationality) And if there is no agreement on the use, then there may be a legal problem. I just asked for your opinion. Thanks. Norvikk (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point but I am not sure? There is definitely no password or log in, despite the direct link into the database though. Do you have any suggestions?--Twofortnights (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure too. No, I don't. Norvikk (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Copy and Paste

Hello, my recent edit for Visa requirements for Armenian citizens was reverted by you saying "don't copy paste like that from another website". How should it be copied/pasted then? The source (timatic website) is there and it was taken directly from there. If it's the wrong format then please update the article with the missing info in the correct format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanovski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You ask "How should it be copied/pasted then?" and the answer is - it must not be copy/pasted. Please get acquainted with Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources as it seems the whole concept is alien to you as you are not denying that you took the text directly from another site. Hopefully after reading those two pages you will know more on how to edit Wikipedia without making copyright violations. All the best,--Twofortnights (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

width="18%"

Hi. I changed the visa articles. Add width="18%. It looks better for tablet version. without with
Cheers. --Norvikk (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Why was Philippines removed from the list of Visa required countries on the Cuba Visa Policy page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.97.57 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My bad, sorry, I thought I was placing it back but Beardo already did that.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Plea

First, rare situations don't equal to policy violation, edits which are hard to be "seen in any other article" doesn't mean it violates Wikipedia policy. Also, you would better assuming good faith to other editors, I have made essential explanation for things happened before so you can just take it easy, unnecessary anger is bad for your health. Finally, I don't think which things I should stop because I did nothing wrong here and most of my edits are highly constructive. --Whisper of the heart 04:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

But that's not true and you know it, it's the policy that you can read at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking (External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, articles can include an External links section at the end, pointing to further information outside Wikipedia as distinct from citing sources.) and WP:NOTGUIDE (Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.). But you already know all this and choose to ignore it, and my only guess you do that because you have this urge to cause trouble on Wikipedia. How else would you describe your edit a Visa policy of Cuba article when you just deleted one space, which was your first edit on that article and when the edit summary was something that was described by other Chinese speakers as almost 100/100 on an insult scale? Why would you do things like that? What issues do you have? You simply do uncalled for things, uncalled for aggressive behavior that causes disruption. Why? I have no idea, but I am asking you nicely to stop it or find another victim, I've been at the receiving end for too long, it's becoming ridiculous.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday greetings!

	Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2017!
	Hello Twofortnights, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Sending you and your family a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing! --Norvikk (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Norvikk! Thank you for the wishes! I hope you have a wonderful and prosperous 2017 as well! Happy holidays!--Twofortnights (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Indian E-visa for Armenian citizens

According to the map attached to this article https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Visa_policy_of_India Armenian citizens also can receive E-visa for 30 days. Almost a couple of months ago I asked to edit the maps of this article https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Armenian_citizens but no reactions.

Ukraine - Belarus

Hi,

the website of the Embassy of Belarus in Ukraine. http://ukraine.mfa.gov.by/ru/consular_issues/

• citizens of Ukraine can stay on the territory of the Republic of Belarus without registration in the competent authorities at the place of their stay for up to 30 days
• If the period of stay exceeds 30 days, you must register at the local internal Affairs bodies at the place of stay. With the specified registration of citizens of Ukraine can stay on the territory of the Republic of Belarus up to 90 days to six months.
• In case of intention to stay on the territory of the Republic of Belarus more than 90 days, must apply in the territorial units of the Department on citizenship and migration of the Ministry of internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus at the place of residence for a permit for temporary or permanent residence.

Formal visa is not required for any period of time. --Norvikk (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. So isn't the third point the same as anyone else? If you wish to stay over 90 days you must apply for temporary or permanent residence? It doesn't sound like an indefinite stay to me. For example Brazilian citizen can also stay for 90 days in Belarus but if they wish to stay longer they have to apply for a residence permit, right?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This question demands studying. I will try to find information. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--Twofortnights (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Unlimited for Russians. Union State.
The multilateral visa-free agreement of the CIS works for Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova (90 days), Tajikistan. Visa-free term is defined by the national legislation. Often it is limited to internal registration in local authorities. The information for these countries is different. unlimited, with the possibility of extension of registration/ 90 days/90 days annually. A request to the authorities of Belarus can only do a citizen of Belarus.

it is the law On legal status of foreign citizens and individuals without citizenship in the Republic of Belarus http://demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/zakon/zakon0104.html "Chapter 4 article 39 of the Period of temporary stay in the Republic of Belarus of the foreigner arrived to the Republic of Belarus in the order not requiring a visa cannot exceed ninety days in a calendar year from the date of first entry into the Republic of Belarus, unless otherwise determined by this Law and international treaties of the Republic of Belarus."

I wrote to several embassies of Belarus for refining the rules of stay, but they can refuse to consider. --Norvikk (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Belarus

Hi, I made a request to the foreign Ministry of Belarus and the Belarusian Embassy in the UK. "Visa-free entrance for 5 days extends to holders of passports of BOTC · BN(O) · BOC"?"

the response from the Embassy: "Добрый день, Спасибо за сообщение. Да, на указанные вами паспорта также распространяется безвизовый режим, т.к. в них в графе гражданство указано British Citizen"

the response from the MFA: "...Что касается Вашего вопроса, разъясняем, что Соединенное Королевство Великобритании и Северной Ирландии входит в перечень государств, в отношении граждан которых распространяется действие Указа Президента Републики Беларусь "Об установлении порядка въезда и выезда иностранных граждан". Таким образом воспользоваться возможностью посещения Беларуси без виз смогут владельцы общегражданских паспортов Великобритании, в том числе Британских заморских территорий и Коронных земель, гражданская принадлежность которых определена как "гражданин Королевства Великобритании и Северной Ирландии", то есть в графе паспорта "nationality" (гражданство) которых указано British citizen (гражданин Великобритании). Граждане Китая, постоянно проживающие в специальном административном районе КНР Гонконг, могут посещать Беларусь только по общегражданскому паспорту САР Гонконг либо по паспорту КНР. ... Начальник Главного Консульского Управления" --Norvikk (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, those passports don't say "British citizen" they say "British national" or "British overseas territories citizen".

Another interesting question is do people who arrive on a 5 day visa have to leave via Minsk airport as well, or they can leave at any border crossing?

--Twofortnights (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Queries not clarified the situation. It was all in vain. Perhaps, the MFA doesn't see a difference between "British citizen" and "British national". I don't know.

I saw different interpretations in the press (through all points of the admission / through the airport of Minsk). I couldn't find information on it in official documents. Most likely need to leave through the Minsk airport. I will ask Embassy of Belarus in some European country about it.

"British citizen" is in Gibraltar passport, Guernsey passport, Isle of Man passport, Jersey passport. Maybe they meant only these passports. --Norvikk (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Entrance and departure only through the airport of Minsk. Deputy minister of sport and tourism of Belarus [67] --Norvikk (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The second answer from embassy: "The passport has to belong to the citizen of Great Britain, and these territorial units belongs to the EU. Yes, it is necessary to arrive and leave from Belarus through the airport of Minsk." I have got confused in information. It is better not to specify these passports, otherwise there will be a confusion. --Norvikk (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Australian citizens have to acquire Armenian visas in consulates, not on-arrival or by electronic authorization?

I just came across with this information, though can not be sure on its authentity as I did not manage to find that warning in the official website of Australia's Ministry of Tourism: http://www.armenpress.am/eng/news/854109/australian-citizens-travelling-to-armenia-to-acquire-entry-visa-in-advance.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.141.100 (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. So far Armenian MFA website and IATA Timatic have not been updated to reflect this information but I will keep looking to see if they publish anything.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

VP of the UK

Hi, I have made some changes. I think it is better for mobile version.

was1 now1

was2 now2

Please, change it again if looks bad in desktop version or it isn't pleasant. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Looks better now than before on desktop as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Time for a slight map refresh?

Hello, you might recognise me from some of the edits I have made to Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens and Visa policy of Singapore.

I have been thinking about changing the standard map used in the articles to this one. The layout is similar, except the latter includes islands and national territories (like India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the USA's Hawaii) that are otherwise left out from the standard map. Switching to this version could complement the 'Territories' table included in all visa requirement articles.

The map requires some touching up, which can be done (eg: including circles for microstates, drawing lines to link country mainlands to their outlying territories). I just wanted to know what you think. Also, where do these maps come from? I've tried searching the blank map gallery on Wikimedia commons but to no avail. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing! I think we shouldn't change the map because a detailed was used previously on Visa requirements for Romanian citizens and it turned into a complete disaster at some point. Only a limited number of people knew how to edit it, the number of territories that should be on the map only kept growing and it wasn't readable for users who had no idea what all those spots on the map meant. That's why I would strongly recommend keeping the current simplified map and anything else in the tables below.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program

Hi, Why in the section the general rules of entrance for Russia and China are selected (nore1, note2)? All need to have a machine-readable passport, Form I-736 and Form I-94. Notes 1/2 are superfluous? And one more question. In what a difference between "visa-free" and "visa waiver"? In Russian it translates: entry without a visa. --Norvikk (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I put them outside the box for the box not to stretch for the whole page. Not sure if there is any meaningful difference between Russia and China and other countries in that program?

As for the difference between visa-free and visa waiver I don't think there is much of a difference but perhaps if you really try to find a difference in a meaning that would be that visa-free means entry without a visa and visa waiver means a visa is required but the gracious administration waives the requirement. In essence it's the same thing. In case of the US it's simply the name of the program "Visa Waiver Program" for countries that have met certain requirements. It means you can't call it "Visa Free Program" because it's like a personal name, they named the program "Visa Waiver Program" but could have also named it something else. For the other 3 countries, it's based on COFA and for Canada on some other laws.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Outside the box - it is ok, no problem. What distinctions between Russia and Malaysia? Requirements are identical (passport, forms). Right?

These are the questions which aren't connected with each other. I have used our main conversation (Guam) for specification of other question.I have asked because it is on the map. --Norvikk (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made changes about which I spoke. If I am mistaken, don't hesitate to cancel my editing. Thank you very much. --Norvikk (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

About Visa requirements for Turkish citizens

Hi, Turkey citizens can get Australian visa from the internet (Online Visitor e600 visa). Can you fix the visa policy map? Do you know how to turn australia green? For example, australia is green in the visa map for ukraine citizens. Thank you Emresunay80 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo and Iraq entry ban for Singapore

Hello Twofortnights, thanks for your work on visa pages across Wikimedia sites.

I'd like to know if there was an ICA update regarding Kosovo passport-holders being refused entry into Singapore? I don't see this on the current website which was last updated 19 Jan 2016 (typo of 2017?), nor on any of the copies captured by the WayBack Machine, and the only reference on Visa policy of Singapore is a TimaticWeb source, so I thought you might know where else to look. As far as I can tell, the Iraqi S-series passport denials were due to the phasing out of an old insecure passport type in favour of more secure types, as the UK did in 2006.

May I also ask why you reverted QBear's edit? I'm trying to trace when this change took place to see if there was a publicly-stated reason for it, and saw your exchange in the Wikipedia article history.

Thanks! Icedwater (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I know that the source says under Admission and Transit Restrictions that "Admission refused to holders of passports issued by Kosovo" and that "Admission and transit refused to holders of Iraqi "S" series passports.". Whether this was changed by ICA and Timatic was not updated, or vice versa, Timatic is up to date and ICA website is not, that I do not know. Do you have any suggestions how to find out if there was a change of policy and which source is right?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Passports of Åland islands

Hello, Åland does not issue their own passports. As your lnk clearly shows, those are Finnish passports as the islands are part of Finland. Cover might say "Åland" but it´s still the same passport. KaMeWa2 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It'e Finnish passport of course but you are denying it exists. It does exist just like Danish passport for Greenland residents or Danish passport for Faroese residents. It's simple and no need for you to remove it.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It´s Finnish passport indeed. They are here issued regionally by regional police departments. So should we also list other regionally issued passports as well? KaMeWa2 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Only when the cover is different and clearly states the region. As far as I know this is the case only with Aland Islands, Faroe Islands and Greenland. There are also different British and Chinese passports but this is a bit more complicated as the bearers also have different statuses. But as far as the simple regional passports go, I don't think there are other passports than those three.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

One additional word in the cover doesn´t make it a different passport. KaMeWa2 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course it does. Finland has posted it separately to the PRADO database from the Finnish ordinary passport so it is a different passport.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is issued by the same (regional) authority of a same country, it gives same privilegs of travelling and conditions for issue are the same. Where do you see the difference, except in a database? KaMeWa2 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's physically different.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Which DOES NOT make it a different passport. Or if it does, then the same applies to all other regionally issued passports, what I mentioned earlier. KaMeWa2 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It applies only to passports of Greenland and Faroe Islands.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Finnish diplomatic passport has 2 additional words in the cover. By your definition it is different passport. Should it be listed separately? KaMeWa2 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Diplomatic passports represent a whole different type of passports. But it should not be on that list which is just for the ordinary passports.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Now we´re approaching my point. There are variations of passports, yes. But they do not make it a totally different one. Therefore, it is not relevant to mention those in this kind of listing. It´s better to go into details in spesific articles dealing about each passport in question. KaMeWa2 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree we should mention only ordinary passport variations in that table. Meaning ordinary passport of Aland Islands of Finland should be included.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You seemed to miss my point. Once again, it is in no way different from Finnish passport. One or two words in the cover do not make a difference. Or if they do, then also diplomatic passport is a different one. Btw: article is: Passports of the European union. This should then cover ALL of them, as it is not "Ordinary passports of European union". KaMeWa2 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Also BTW: Faroe islands and Greenland passports are not listed. KaMeWa2 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You are probably right, perhaps the article should include all passports since it indeed does not restrict to just ordinary passports. It might be a big task to update the article though as there are so many different passports - [68].--Twofortnights (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That was ment to be sarcastic. There´s absolutely no point to list all possible passports in that article. As it doesn´t list Faroes or Greenland, it shouldn´t list Åland either. That is misleading. KaMeWa2 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why completing an incomplete list would have no point but OK. Anyway Greenland and Faroese passports must be included in the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Egyptian citizens

Hi, please check references before you attempt to remove edits. Visa is in deed on arrival for Egyptian Citizens coming in Indonesia and Malaysia. Unlike countries such as Sudan which allows Egyptians without VISA and accept their national ID card [69] [70]. M. Hassan talk here 09:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

M. Hassan that is outdated info. Indonesia replaced the 2005 visa on arrival scheme with visa-free regime last year.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Citizenships whose admission is refused list

Hello Twofortnights, do you know if there's any wikipage that lists the citizenships with any forbidden visits? Eg taiwanese cannot enter Georgia, israeli cannot enter Iran, etc ? Thanks, --Bouzinac (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, not that I know of. Many countries don't have comprehensive rules. For example some countries might refuse passports of Taiwan completely because the country does not recognize Taiwan but this would not be listed on Timatic because this country did not even notify anyone that it does not recognize Taiwan. That is why I don't edit the articles on visa requirements of such territories as I think the sources are incomplete and we could easily enter something that is wrong into the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've created the list, if you had some time to review it ? Seems it is difficult to have all the prohibitions with many particular cases. But it is interesting to see that some people cannot even go to some countries.

List of nationalities forbidden at border --Bouzinac (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks promising but I guess the list will always remain incomplete.

Armenian visa on arrival for Indian citizens holding residence permits of 5 GCC countries

I have came across with an information that Armenia is going to make available visa on arrival for Indian citizens holding residence permit of the 5 Gulf Cooperation Council countries (excluding Saudi Arabia). The source is in Armenian though. That newspaper also has an English and Russian sections but I have found that article only in Armenian language. http://hetq.am/arm/news/75525/iraqi-ev-hndkastani-qaxaqacineri-mutqy-hayastan-kheshtacvi.html

Dominican Republic

Hi, You know visa free countries are divided into two categories: 1. Without a visa 2. Without a visa, but with a tourist card. The Dominican Republic is referred to as "visa on arrival" on maps. I think it must be a "visa free" with the note "90 days (Tourist card $ 10 valid for 30 days upon arrival to purchase)".

Map: VR for British - right; VR for Russian - wrong
Table: VR for Russian - right; VR for British - wrong

What do you think? --Norvikk (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting question. I too wondered how to list some of the countries namely Dominican Republic, Sri Lanka and Cambodia. I am not sure about the DR I would have to think more about it.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The DR. In any case, the rules are identical for the visa waiver nationals. Maps and tables must be identical in all articles. We need to find acceptable option of presenting information. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am wondering if we have any other similar examples? Chile had a reciprocity fee and was listed on the US map as visa on arrival and is still listed as visa on arrival on Australian citizens page. --Twofortnights (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont know similar examples. I think Chile should be green on the Australian map. In my opinion a map tells about visas. Table tells about additional terms and conditions - fees, travel vouchers, travel cards and other terms. --Norvikk (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just wondering what is the difference between visa on arrival and supposedly visa-free but with payment of a fee? Most of visa on arrival countries are actually just countries with entry fee.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Criteria are not clear. Probably need to use the official information of the country of entry, the official position of the country. As the EU and Australia. They believe that the evisitor is the equivalent of visa-free entry, well, OK. Some country believes that the entry fee is a visa on arrival, other country believes that it is visa-free, well, OK. That's their visa policy. Articles should be submitted to the point of view of the country of entry. Visa-free agreement between Russia and Nauru says "citizens are exempt from the requirements of obtaining visas for entry". According to the government of Nauru is a "free visa on arrival". I don't agree with it, but Russia agrees, well, OK. The world is not perfect. Norvikk (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverts on Visa requirements for Iranian Citizens

Hey, I told this to the IP editor so it only seems fair to inform you as well - you both seem to be engaging in slow-moving edit war behavior. Perhaps next time instead of reverting, leave a message on the talk page explaining your reasoning and pinging the other editors in order to try to build a consensus. If they fail to respond then reverting may be appropriate, but as of yet there have been no apparent attempts except by me to engage in discussion. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Pishcal. I have actually engaged in that discussion however the IP editor blanked it - [71]. I am not sure how much we can achieve but I guess we can only keep trying.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention - talk page blanking is not appropriate. I've restored the conversation. Pishcal (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The outline of the countries on the maps.

Hi, You probably noticed the outline of Armenia incorrect on a few maps. Please fix this on two maps VP of Russia. If you have free time and desire. Thank you.
Outline of South Sudan. Has a significant difference. VR for UK vs VR for US.
The location of Hong Kong and Macau. Several options for the location. They are close to each other in real life. Very far (VR for citizens of Mongolia), far and different location (VR for UK vs VR for NZ), close (VR for RUS). Which map is the right one? Which map is the perfect? --Norvikk (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, you are right. The idea behind the maps is not to be geographically correct (many islands are not shown such as Hawaii, Tasmania) but to simply show undisputed countries with simplified borders. I agree the maps should be consistent so I will work on this in the future, although it is big work that requires a lot of work. I will prioritize those where it is the most likely to get noticed (for example it's more likely editors will be irked by the incorrect outline of Armenia on VP of Russia than on VP of Sudan map).--Twofortnights (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not big work, it is huge work! It demands great patience. Sorry, I won't be able to help in this case, my device isn't supported by the graphic editor. I always feel awkward when I ask you to make changes on a map. Thank you very much! --Norvikk (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I found a map with perfect contours of Armenia. It is VR for Argentine citizens's map. --Norvikk (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Online pre-arrival registration for Taiwan citizens visiting Hong Kong

Hi, I have already posted this message on your Wikimedia Commons talk page, but figured it would be easier to communicate with you on this talk page instead. Please change the colour of Taiwan to purple stripes on the Hong Kong visa policy map, as Taiwan citizens are allowed by the Hong Kong immigration department to obtain online pre-arrival registration free of charge for a social visit lasting 30 days. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Sure, will do. Can't promise it this week but hopefully next week I can do it. Cheers.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that the Hong Kong visa policy map is not reflecting the fact that Taiwan citizens are allowed a 30 day visa free stay if they have obtained pre-arrival registration (which is free of charge). It would be appreciated if you could update the map to reflect this Thank you! --Agent5514 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Timatic

Hi,

Links format "Timatic|nationality=xX|destination=XX" don't work anymore. It's more than 4000 dead links. The big problem. I don't know what's going on. --Norvikk (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I canceled the edits on the page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Timatic May be these changes became a reason for broken links.

Yes. Everything is working now. --Norvikk (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Two fornights

Hello Two for nights ! This is Kenneth! I like the work that you do greatly ! I like how you take the necessary time out of your schedule to update articles here on Wikipedia ! Keep up the good work... I would like for you to kindly update the Visa Requirements For Bahamas please ! I'm going on a trip so I just want to be updated on the countries I'll be visiting ! Thank you so much.. Calvinck3 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I hope the article is up to date but it is also purely informative so if you need precise information for your trip always check the reference as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Tajikistan

Hi,

Probably Tajikistan has cancelled visas on arrival. Only visa free (9 nations) and electronic visa (80 nations). Information on visas on arrival has disappeared from the database Timatic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan and Airport Dushanbe.

For citizens of Taiwan, Syria, Libya there were visas on arrival. I have written to Timatic. Today they have changed the database - visa is required.

Change of 80 articles and maps will be required. --Norvikk (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Was there any update to the law published in Russian that you can find? On the official website the VoA is still listed - [72]--Twofortnights (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote to the MFA, Dushanbe airport and in a few embassies. No answers yet.

Embassy of Tajikistan in the U.K. visa on arrival Need to fill in the questionnaire. This questionnaire is similar to the questionnaire for the electronic visa. In both cases, need to provide "petition letter of the tourist organisation" . Perhaps Timatic refused to equate this process to the concept of Visa on arrival. Therefore, the information was removed from their database. --Norvikk (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Singaporeans to Egypt

Hi Twofortnights,

According to the IATA data it states that Singaporeans have visa on arrival benefits to Egypt, but this is not reflected on the map. We should update it as soon as possible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.87 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Legend

Hi,
What you think about a horizontal legend? This edit [73]

[74]
[75]
[76]. --Norvikk (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it is in accordance with the manual of style but I personally like it. I think it works great for these legends of the gradient of the same color. Good job!--Twofortnights (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do the changes. If these changes will cause a controversy, changes will be cancel or corrected. Thank you for your opinion. --Norvikk (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

issues regarding bno passport visa free

We have seen from georgia and azerbaijan evisa page, the uk in the country list does include bno passport. Please be note that georgia offers uk passport visa as shown in the webpage. For armenia evisa page, the countries not appear in the countries list is consider as visa free. Dont be silly to provide the false information to everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.164.163 (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for EFTA nationals

Hi,

Look at this article Visa requirements for EFTA nationals

This Talk

The edit [77]

What's going on? Spring? --Norvikk (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Second case. The edit [78]. See Talk on the page. --Norvikk (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back Norvikk! I will look into it.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Visa waiver program, onward travel ticket

Hi, I am wondering why you undid my revisions about the onward travel ticket. This is not listed as a requirement on the DHS or CBP official websites. And when I called the DHS and ESTA offices this month to make sure, I spoke with three different people who all confirmed that this is not required. My wife is in this case, so I needed to know for sure what is correct. Also, we came in before to the US on the VWP and nobody every said anything about seeing this ticket. Would you mind updating the Wikipedia article so people know this is not a current requirement? Otherwise, people may get misled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the official DHS webpage for requirements: https://www.dhs.gov/visa-waiver-program-requirements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.33.59.72 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Macau

I got a complaint. Can you explain this edit? You didn't use an edit summary, so it's not easy to understand your reasoning. El_C 04:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a direct copy/paste of content from the source. It should be summarized in the article to avoid any possible copyvio. For example "Tourist groups of 5 or more do not require a visa for stays up to 30 days if holding an accommodation reservation and a return ticket." or something like that.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Next time, an 10-second edit summary that reads "copyvio of source" can prove a time saver and is just helpful to note for the record. El_C 10:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

British laws

Hi,

I can't find some old British laws.

First British published list of visa states: Home Office, Immigration appeals Bill: Draft Instractions to Immigration Officers cmnd 3830 (November 1968), Appendix

Statement of Changes of Immigration Rules, 1982-1983 House of Commons Papers 66, Appendix

Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Denmark respecting the reciprocal abolition of visas on passports on 29 Jan 1924

Can you help me? Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I can try but maybe they are not published online. In that case a FOI request would need to be filed through https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ --Twofortnights (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I will try. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Registration for inquiry is required. I have sent a request on the website gov.uk.
When I filled in the table about visa history of the Kingdom I have been surprised about existence with visa-free regimes with several countries in the past. It is a surprise for me. Interesting visa story.! --Norvikk (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

about visa requirement and visa policy

visa requirement/visa policy always delete the correct information without any explanation. For example,

someone on Mar 31 deleted Macau in visa free section in visa policy of Tanzania without any explanation, it at least obtain visa on arrival which is the same as China passport

delete Macau in Zambia visa policy on Mar 18, although evisa page shows visa free.

The Uganda visa policy page never shows Hong Kong as visa free without any explanation.

For visa free of Chinese citizen of Macau, the Georgia can be accessed by evisa, same as Hong Kong which can be seen in IATA, but someone deleted without any explanation.

For visa policy of ukraine, it never shows Macau as visa on arrival which confirms by the Macau Government recently.

Please look into the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:C800:9003:8:0:0:0:13 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

India e-Visa

Hi, now that the e-Visa has branched out into three separate categories (e-Tourist, e-Business, and e-Medical), I think it'd be prudent to simply call it the 'e-Visa' in all visa requirements tables. The official site now refers to it as the 'e-Visa' (https://indianvisaonline.gov.in/evisa/tvoa.html). You can see my edit here. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes that makes sense!--Twofortnights (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand agreements

Hi,

I can't find information on visa agreements with Japan, the USA, Argentina, Israel and Uruguay. Maybe agreements of these countries with United Kingdom extended to New Zealand? I don't know depth of relationship between NZ and UK in 40s, 50s, 60s. In article New Zealand passport, passport of NZ (1949-1950s-1960s) with an inscription British Passport. The agreements of United Kingdom with these countries are in the article VP of the UK - Data of visa abolition. I can't translate online, it is the scanned text. Perhaps, these agreements are applied on the right of legal succession. --Norvikk (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that there are no bilateral agreements especially with the US. These countries may be simply listed on the visa waiver list by the parliament/government? But of course it is also possible that the British agreement were inherited. The problem would be finding the other source because Japan and Israel use different scripts where I can't even guess where to look and Uruguay and Argentina don't have a strong online database like the UK does. There is a FOI request possibility here as well - [79].--Twofortnights (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't find the visa agreement with Argentina in the NZ database but it is useful that now I see how British signed agreement still apply - [80] for example the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina for the Mutual Extradition of Fugitive Criminals. applies to NZ.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Found the one for the US - Agreement between the United States of America and New Zealand concerning Visas for Travel between United States of America and New Zealand. effective from 1 April 1949.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an easier way than filing a FOI request, there is a contact form here - [81]--Twofortnights (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found the website with laws of New Zealand. Detailed website. [82]

From 1 November 1987 the visa-free countries are added to the list. This order works still.

Now it is Immigration (Visa, Entry Permission, and Related Matters) Regulations 2010 (see Download) page 41

From 1930 to 1987 it was Immigration Restrictions Regulations 1930 with few amendments page 25. All changes of this document on the site. But main text of 1930 I couldn't find. I did a request. --Norvikk (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Data of visa abolition section

Hi, I assume that we look at content of the section at different angles.

Cuba. USSR -> Russia and Cuba had several visa-free agreements: 1981 - 1985; 1985 - 1994; 1994 - present; in progress negotiations on a new agreement. These agreements are united by one - visas have been cancelled. In your opinion, which date should be in the section - 1981 or 1994? --Norvikk (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say 1994 and then a note saying how previously there were visa-free agreement between 1981 and 1985 and 1985 and 1994. Although I am not sure if Soviet agreements that were never valid in Russia should be mentioned.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Soviet agreement 1985 was valid in Russia. All agreements of the USSR was valid for Russia. In international law, Russia successor of the Soviet Union. Should be mentioned. This fact can't be ignored. Note: Visa-free agreements between the USSR and Cuba was applied from 1981. Or other. --Norvikk (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

But was is the same agreement under the same terms or was it one of those Soviet voucher schemes? Why did they sign a new agreement in 1985 and 1994? Because there was no pause in application when it comes to Cuba. You have to look at the agreements from 1981 and 1985, maybe they were the same but only said "the agreement will be applicable for the period of 5 years", and then it was just extended in 1985?. In that case you can say that the agreement applies from 1981 without a note. If the previous agreements were under different terms then you can say the visa-free applies from 1994 and in the note "Previous visa-free agreements under different terms were applied in period 1981-1985 and 1985-1994."--Twofortnights (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

These are different agreements. Conditions changed. Tourist travels were visa-free in the presence of travel documents. Travel documents were determined with each country separately. Until 1992 it was a voucher - pre-paid travel package. --Norvikk (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia After collapse of Yugoslavia and the USSR were formed 20 states (Serbia and Montenegro as the one state). One agreement has turned into 75 potential agreements. Incredible case. Some countries still enforce this agreement. It's a tangle. --Norvikk (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Templates

User Nthep have killed ALL references on the visas articles (over than 40.000!!). He have changed the Template:Timatic Visa Policy and Template:Timatic.

I think This person has exceeded the authority.

Every day in Wikipedia takes away a piece of nerves. --Norvikk (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you remember our conversation? https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Twofortnights#Timatic

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Is_this_a_copyvio_or_just_a_breach_of_a_website.27s_T.26Cs.3F%7Cit is a sequel.

What can I say. We were discussing this before, it's an openly accessible website, there is no log-in required, links were taken from an open forum (FlyerTalk) so I am not sure how is it a violation of anything. It is only used as a reference so don't see why copyright status is relevant anyway, I've always removed content that some users would copy/paste from Timatic as that is different but simply using it as a reference, don't see where the problem is. For example we can cite a book, the book is copyrighted, it is for sale etc. but we can still use it as a reference. Nevertheless here the links are completely openly available so I doubt it's a subscription service, it would make no sense. Also I don't think the content on Timatic pages can be copyrighted really, in most of the countries information and facts can't be copyrighted. But if a bot can replace all of the links with a link to www.iatatravelcentre.com which is supposedly OK then it should be fine.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights: "But if a bot can replace all of the links with a link to www.iatatravelcentre.com which is supposedly OK". It is not OK, as it is merely based on Timatic, and not Timatic itself, and I've seen a number of cases of the Travel Centre containing outdated info when cross-checked against the actual Timatic.

If the template must be changed, I suggest using the actual Timatic, with the exact same URL but with the username FLIGHTWORX rather than KLMB2C André Devecserii (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Visa reciprocity information for HKSAR passport holders

On 10 May 2014, you edited the Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong article to remove all information about visa reciprocity (in the edit reason you stated 'reciprocity information to be found at Visa policy of Hong Kong'). At present, however, there is no visa reciprocity information in either article. Could you either restore the information to the Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong article or add it to the Visa policy of Hong Kong article please? Bonus bon (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The Timatic issue

Hi there, Nthep has provided a response from Timatic. It seems like they think the use of the template is "reverse engineering" for some reason. However, they did mention that accessing Timatic through a public interface is allowed (e.g., from Gulf Air's website). C-GAUN (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. It makes no sense at all, the links to the database are publicly available and it's been the case for years and years, I don't see where the "reverse engineering" claim comes from. I also don't see which part of the user terms of use are being violated, they never pointed that out. And also I am not sure how we can code the references here to provide access to Timatic through a public interface.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with IATA's claim, given that so many airlines and other organizations provide free access to Timatic for anyone through their own websites. Air Berlin even provides a username and password for anyone to use the Timatic website directly (see the link at the bottom of this page), and the system doesn't even require a password when the variables are typed directly in the URL. Anyway, even if the terms of use don't really suggest a violation, IATA is the owner of the system and it complained directly to Wikipedia, so I think that we should accept its demand. Moreover, it looks like IATA has blocked access to Timatic from Wikipedia links. For example, if you click here, the page says "Forbidden". But if you then click on address bar and press enter, the Timatic page is correctly displayed.

For now, I propose changing the templates to simple links, this one for {{Timatic}} and this one for {{Timatic Visa Policy}}, where the user would have to manually select the desired fields to get the information. At least it would provide a way for the user to see the reference, until someone can figure out how to make it automatic. Heitordp (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a perfect solution. But there is no other option. If you are sure that it is legal, do it. Thank you. Norvikk (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This way the request for Timatic information is done from the subscriber's interface on its own website, which IATA said that is legal. I changed the templates accordingly. Heitordp (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi visa policy map

Hi, there's been an overhaul of the Kurdish visa policy (and I've edited the article accordingly), but the map hasn't been updated André Devecserii (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Tajik VOA

Please edit your Tajik visa policy maps, as VOA is no more. Also eVia eligibility has been somewhat expanded, with Hong Kongers, for example, now being eligible André Devecserii (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I think there were some doubts on whether this was an actual change in Tajikistan or just something on Timatic, I think we were awaiting a reply from Tajikistan authorities.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights: No, it is true. Got it confirmed from my sources at Tajik immigration on the phone André Devecserii (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Their new website still lists the simplified visa procedure though, they ought to update it.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights: The Yugoslav countries are equally lazy about updating their sites, so nothing new really. André Devecserii (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

about visa requirement

Please explain why the recent edit content in Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong is accepted, but it is deleted in Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Macau, be noted that the rules is also applied in both citizens.182.239.72.56 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Just adding some wikilinks. Primefac (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It was an error. The original research info should be gone from both articles and this was agreed before already. People from Macau and HK might be Chinese citizens but not the same rules apply to their passport holders as the ordinary PRC passports, just like PRC has a different visa policy from Macau and HK.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

about visa requirement

The Macau and HK SAR passport holders Chinese citizens. The nationality shown on passport information is Chinese and the MRP shown as 'CHN'. Many countries treated these passports as original PRC passport. You might be wrong in understanding this issue.182.239.69.24 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

C-GAUN - this again.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I left a message for him on the talk page of his last known IP address and haven't heard back from him yet. As he is using a mobile network, the IP address tends to change frequently. I will keep leaving messages to let him know. C-GAUN (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I have issued three warnings in the last few hours but this guy just keeps coming at it. He has not responded to any of my messages either. C-GAUN (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

Hi. I put a maintenance tag on the Visa policy of the Schengen Area article which you removed (without engagement on the issue). The grammar needs to be re-worked in the majority of the sections; complex sentences with complex grammar are making the whole thing entirely unclear. But despite that, there are various content issues which go against WP:NOTGUIDE. I'm referring to the 'Obtaining a visa' section, which is basically a step by step process in how to get a Schengen visa (and in my opinion, should be simplified entirely or else removed). Rather than putting the tag back on the page, I'd like to get your views on the development of the article before I post on the talk page. st170e 20:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi St170e. I removed it because you did not start any discussion on the talk page where you would lay out the issues in detail so that those issues could be fixed. When you tag the entire article with a maintenance tag that says the article is confusing you really need to explain it, this is not something that comes as obvious to other editors I would say. Saying broadly how the grammar is complex will never get the article fixed, because what is complex grammar for one person is very simple for another, so it could remain tagged for years. As for the obtaining a visa section, I agree it needs to be edited, it doesn't mean this section should be removed, but yes you are right, the current look is that of a guide which Wikipedia is not. I suggest opening a discussion on the talk page on how to rework the section to make it more encyclopedic. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Timatic

OK, so now the Flightworx interface requires you to log in, meaning that is no longer an option either. Any suggestions? André Devecserii (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Was it the suggestion of IATA to link to Flightworx? We could replace it with http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/ but the layout is terrible.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights: The problem with that one is that its info isn't always up to date in relation to the actual Timatic. But if that's all we've got, guess that's it :/ André Devecserii (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's annoying. I'm the one who suggested Flightworx. IATA suggested IATA Travel Centre but that interface requires way too much input and only shows individual combinations of nationality and destination, so it doesn't work for the full visa policy. There are other websites with the same interface as Flightworx did, I suggest Pearl Law Group (individual, full), Olympic Air (individual, full) or Surinam Airways (individual, full). Heitordp (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a much better solution.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

What would also be good is to switch to other sources where available when a certain country code is invoked. For example if Georgia country code is invoked it would lead to the following page instead of Timatic - [83]. The real problem is with countries that do not publish their visa policies online but we can at least work with those that do.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

please update 5 maps

Hi, I left message on your wikimedia page , please update those 5 outdated maps. --31.202.25.100 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks but that news article from 2016 says that Turkey is going to lift visa requirements in the future not that it was already done. Please keep following this official page - www.mfa.gov.tr/visa-information-for-foreigners.en.mfa for any changes to Turkish visa policy.

Turkey lifted the restrictions already. They didn't update their own website. Your maps are wrong.--31.202.25.100 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to provide a source for that claim.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Two for nights

Hello Two for nights ! This is Men ! Can you ease update visa requirements of Bahamian citizens.. Please I'll be going on a trip very soon so I would like to be updated about the countries I visit . thank you so much ! Calvinck3 (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The map seems to be up to date!--Twofortnights (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Mongolia Visa policy

Hello,

I think there is a slight mistake in the map for Mongolia's visa policy. The map shades Cuba under dark blue (indicating that Cubans have 90 days visa free access) while the rest of the article states that Cubans only have 30 days visa free access. Cuba should be shade in light blue (30 day visa free countries) as opposed to dark blue (90 day visa free countries).

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs980 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Two for nights

Hello Two for nights ! This is Calvinck3 ! I would like if you would so kindly update the Visa requirements for Bahamian Citizens ! Thank you so much ! Keep up the tremendous work ! Calvinck3 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The article seems to be up to date and I've made some small corrections to the map.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Twofortnights

Hello Two fortnights ! This is Calvinck3 ! I would appreciate if you can update the Visa Requirements for Bahamian Citizens page ! Norviik has deleted his page and can you also update the Visa Requirements Maps has well Thank you ! One last question I have a picture of Bahamian passport and I would like if you can update it for me.. I'm having trouble going about it.. Thank you Two fortnights ! Calvinck3 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have made an update to the Bahamian citizens visa requirements map. As for the passport picture, I think it was deleted by someone for being a copyright violation. Unless you can prove that the Bahamian law allows for the passport picture to be uploaded it would be deleted again.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Israeli stamps

@BushelCandle +Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate to vandalism. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Travel_and_Tourism&oldid=786797087#Template_for_Israeli_passport_stamps BushelCandle (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Surprised

Hello mate,

Who is this user going with the username""BushelCandle"? -He's promoting himself of view requirement wikies, assigning own template or style of writing as if he came up with the bible or something. He keeps adding irrelevant refrences (For instance; French national travelling to Iraq timatic page as a reference to a Lebanese travelling to China section, plus he keeps removing valid validity, vaccination, and passport rejection scenarios without citing a valid reason. I'm onto his undo-practices and will take every chance in reporting him once he gets into 3 undo's. Please be-aware as he's into many other wikipages.

Hi. I would suggest trying to talk to the editor about any issues on his talk page first before reporting etc. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. If it turns out it was intentional you can always take it further.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ask her. She has made good contributions to the site, so is certainly not a troll André Devecserii (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

For your work with maps. Thank you very much! --Norvikk (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk! And welcome aboard the map editing!--Twofortnights (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Map

Hi. Why do you combine Israel and Palestine on a map? 134 UN countries presenly the State of Palestine. International recognition of the State of Palestine

--Norvikk (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Because we only show full UN member states plus Vatican which is not disputed. It's the safest thing to do. No exceptions regardless of how many bilateral recognitions. Because everything else is not objective. If we say we put Palestine on the map, then someone will ask for Western Sahara, if we put Western Sahara someone will ask for Kosovo, if we put Kosovo someone will ask for Abkhazia, if we put Abkhazia someone will ask for Northern Cyprus, and if we put Northern Cyprus on the map then someone will ask for Somaliland and then we end up with this - File:Visa requirements for Romanian citizens.svg which is insane and no one will want to update it. So the best thing to do is avoid such nonsense (which would surely be accompanied with an incredible amount of edit wars and locked files) and stay in the safe zone of depicting only the main table of visa requirements while everything that is in other sections of visa articles ie. territories should stay off the map. I must say it worked quite well in keeping the quarrels off these maps so far, and the success recipe is tying the maps to something that is completely objective.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about VP and VR maps, or only about VR maps? --Norvikk (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well both. Although with VP it doesn't even make much sense as most countries ignore disputed places in their official visa policies (which makes even IATA info notoriously wrong on them too). Sometimes when countries do have a clear policy on certain regions which is different from the main entity, and where it seems to be rather important because it concerns neighbouring countries, for example Russia with Georgia and breakaway republics, I guess we can show it but in most cases it makes no sense. Another thing is that Palestine does not actually control its borders but that's not the main point as we would then have to analyze the situation with all of them which is impossible.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The main reason why the visa requirement map that you cited is too complicated is because it includes many small areas that are prohibited for foreigners, uninhabited, or have special visa policies for transits. These cases can be disregarded. On the other hand, I think that including only undisputed countries (UN members and Vatican City) can be misleading sometimes, because many disputed or dependent territories have different visa policies and people in some of them cannot obtain the same passport as the parent country. I propose the objective criteria below.

For visa policy maps, what matters is the passport. In principle, only undisputed countries would be included, disputed countries would be merged with their claiming country, and dependent territories or overseas regions would be shown only if large enough to not require a circle, such as Greenland and French Guiana. However, if people in a disputed/dependent territory cannot obtain the passport of the parent country to enter the destination on the same terms, or if they can enter the destination on better terms using the disputed/dependent territory's passport, this territory should be shown separately. According to these criteria:

• Palestine would be shown separately on all maps where only Israel or only Palestine gets a visa waiver, because Palestinians cannot obtain Israeli passports;
• Kosovo would be merged with Serbia on most maps but shown separately for the Schengen Area, where they do not get a visa waiver with Serbian passports issued in Kosovo;
• Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau would be shown/colored differently from China whenever they get different visa waivers;
• Abkhazia and South Ossetia would be merged with Georgia on all maps except for Russia and the Cayman Islands;
• Northern Cyprus would be merged with Cyprus on all maps except for Turkey;
• Western Sahara, Somaliland, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh would always be merged with their respective claiming country;
• Other territories, unless large enough, would not be shown because their people can obtain a regular passport of the parent country, with a few exceptions such as Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which can be merged with Cyprus as its native people are Cypriot citizens; Bermuda, which does not need ESTA for the US; and American Samoa, which would be shown only for Samoa.

For visa requirement maps, I propose including in principle only undisputed countries, but adding any other entities in the list of sovereign states, inhabited dependent territories and overseas regions whenever they have a different visa policy from their parent country for the nationality in question. But other subnational regions continuous with the rest of the country (or islands very close to it) would not be shown even if they have a different policy. In this case, the maps wouldn't look too bad because the visa policies of territories and of the parent country only differ for some nationalities. For example, the File:Visa requirements for Romanian citizens.png would only need the following changes:

• Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh shown in gray;
• Gray circles for Tokelau and the Cayman Islands;
• Green circles for Hong Kong and Macau.

If you agree, we don't have to change all maps at once, but just accept future map changes according to these criteria. If you think that my proposal is too complicated, I still think that at least Palestine should be shown separately on visa policy maps, as it's the only disputed or dependent territory whose parent country does not consider the people there as its nationals and thus does not provide them any type of its passport (but Palestine can be merged with Israel on visa requirement maps as it doesn't have an additional visa policy). Also, Palestine and Vatican City are the only UN observer states, so we could make the objective criteria full or observer membership in the UN. I'm not taking sides on the political conflict, just want to find objective criteria that is not misleading. Heitordp (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Heitordp! Thanks for the detailed analysis. I gave it a lot of thought over the last three days. I agree with many of the things that you said. However major concerns still remain. Namely, I am concerned about the objective measure and also on how much we can research in practice. For example "Palestinians cannot obtain Israeli passports" - but is it always the case? Is there a law which prohibits Palestinians from obtaining Israeli passports or do Palestinians refuse to do something that would make them full fledged citizens? Apparently 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs (Arab citizens of Israel) so the matter seems complicated. And if we take that as a measure, we would then have to find out all nuances of obtaining Serbian, Georgian, Chinese, Cypriot, Turkish, Somali, Moroccan etc. passports to find out whether they are eligible or not. For example Serbian passports issued in Kosovo are not eligible for Schengen waiver, but what if a Kosovan gets his Serbian passport at a Consulate of Serbia abroad? Can we realistically get answers to such questions? Then it also means we have to follow recognition and relations as per your suggestion to merge Abkhazia and South Ossetia on all maps except for Russia and Cayman Islands. It means to make those maps we first have to check whether Russia and Cayman Islands recognized them and declared a separate visa policy before creating a map. A huge gap is then for all the countries that have broad visa policies - for example visa on arrival for all coming to the Comoros. But what does "all" mean? Does it mean any passport, so if an Abkhazian passport holder arrives to the Comoros does that also make him eligible or is it just for the countries that the Comoros has diplomatic relations with? We won't find that info on IATA and most African countries don't publish their policies anywhere online. Then we also come to very subjective moments such as Western Sahara should be merged with Morocco on all maps but we would have different policy for Palestine which you suggest should be shown on all maps where only Israel or only Palestine gets a visa waiver. Without going into the fact that most countries do not list disputed countries as described on the Comoros example making it impossible to know what would actually happen with a Palestinian passport holders in such places, it's also confusing why would we show Palestine which does not control its borders separately while Western Sahara which has some land, albeit very small, under control and both places have significant international recognition. Although what is significant international recognition is another question, is it the majority of countries (upper house style) meaning countries that pursue recognitions by small island states get advantage or should we count the population (lower house style) meaning that without the recognition of China and India you don't have much to hope for. Opening that can of worms would then bring the lack of recognition of Israel into the spotlight as well. And then we will also get a question of how do we show Crimea? Do we want to follow de facto or de jure policy here. All of this would attract political commentators and edit wars that we don't care about and don't want. Visa articles have been free of that specifically because they relied on strong objective criteria. Anything else would get us into a labyrinth without a way out.

Autonomous territories with independent visa policies could be included but it's too much of a clutter for a not so relevant subject. If you check the statistics of how many people read which visa policy articles you will see that only a very very small number of readers go to the articles on British, French and Dutch territories. The Cayman Islands visa policy was clicked on by 85 people last month, French territories stood at 2,038 and Dutch at 1,187 views. This is compared with the 9,246 views for the UK visa policy article or the 22,384 views for the Schengen policy article.

What I do agree on however is to include disputed territories where it's extremely relevant, so Georgian breakaway republics could be shown on Russian VP/VR maps. Kosovo could be shown on Albanian and Northern Cyprus on Turkish VP/VR maps. Also Taiwan is geographically always going to be shown separately so that can be shown without fear of edit wars moving the border line around. However I am against any changes across the board as there are a lot of questions and not enough answers. It would make us vulnerable to political edit wars, and I couldn't care less about figuring out the status of Western Sahara, apartheid citizenship policies in Israel or Somali statehood crisis. I would really like to continue keeping the visa articles and maps free of politics and that is why I propose to stick to the most objective criteria as we did so far but also to expand the tables as much as possible with various special permit rules for territories around the world such as Mount Athos, Tibet, Gorno-Badakhshan etc. as I am sure we have missed many. Cheers!--Twofortnights (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Twofortnights, thank you for taking the time to write your detailed response. When I wrote that Palestinians cannot get Israeli passports, I meant Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although Israel gained control of these territories, it did not annex them, so it did not grant Israeli nationality or even residency to people living there. They are allowed to reside only in the territories, and are very restricted from even entering or transiting through Israel. The exception is East Jerusalem, which was part of the West Bank but was officially annexed, so its residents were given Israeli residency with the option of getting full Israeli citizenship. For these people the situation is as you suggest, some applied to become Israeli citizens but most just didn't want it. But those living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are really not allowed to do so. The case of Israeli Arabs is different, many of them also call themselves Palestinians but they are Israeli citizens because they or their ascendants already resided in the undisputed part of Israel when the country was founded.

But now that I think further, the situation does get more complicated because only about one third of the area of the West Bank is actually controlled by the Palestinian government, the rest is controlled by Israel, with many Israeli citizens living in settlements or uninhabited. In this sense it's similar to Western Sahara. Moreover, the nuances of obtaining passports in other disputed countries is also complicated. I'd argue that Palestine is different because unlike all others it's not actually "claimed" by Israel as its own territory but only "disputed" (you can check this terminology in the list of sovereign states), but for example citizens of China and Taiwan can only obtain the "main version" of the other country's passport after establishing residency there, and I imagine that residents of other disputed countries also have to at least travel to the claiming country to obtain its passport. People in Kosovo can obtain a Serbian passport there through the Serbian Coordination Directorate, and I imagine that if a resident of Kosovo gets a Serbian passport elsewhere, such as in the undisputed part of Serbia or a Serbian embassy or consulate abroad, the passport would be valid for the Schengen visa waiver.

In the case of destinations that grant a visa waiver or visa on arrival to "all" countries, I initially thought that it would mean countries that the destination recognizes, but I see that many destinations still accept passports of countries that they don't officially recognize, to avoid burdening travelers. So even recognition by each destination, which can be objectively verified, cannot really be used as a basis to show a disputed country on a map separately or not. In cases like Crimea, I'd prefer to go by the situation de facto, but I see that it's also complicated as residents of Crimea are allowed to choose between Russian or Ukrainian nationality and thus their respective passports.

Anyway, I admit that the situation in all these places is more complicated than what I tried to establish, so now I agree with your simplified practice of showing only undisputed countries on maps, with the exception of cases where the destination is relevant in the dispute as you cited. It's not misleading. I also agree with not showing small dependent territories to avoid cluttering the maps, and only listing them on a separate table in visa requirement articles. But I also suggest adding notes on the main table, something like "see below for disputed or dependent territories" next to each claiming or parent country. Heitordp (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Heitordp! Cheers! I think we should definitely continue to research this though, even if it is something that we can't put on the map, migration rules regarding disputed territories is something quite interesting yet something that is very difficult to write about due to scarcity of information. Passport and nationality rules in such places, but also in territories such as American Samoa where similar but not the same passports are issued and implications of those on visa policies is quite interesting too.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey! Why did you delete the question/complaint about the ban against Qatari citizens? All I wanted to do was to be nice with you and ask WHEN the boycott will be permanently lifted. Please, I want to ask you nicely! :'( --62.63.238.28 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Because I think you are asking at the wrong place. I have no idea when you will be able to travel as I do not decide on this.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Please, forgive me, but HOW should I contact anyone who is responsible for travel ban between Qatar and those 3 countries: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates? I think that the travel ban is so AWFUL! :'( --62.63.238.28 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you should try with embassies of those 3 countries. They should have the latest info.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of Ireland

Hi, I've just noticed that you changed the image at Visa policy of Ireland. A visa waiver in Ireland is only conditional on having a UK visa - this should therefore not be included as a different colour in the map. Russian citizens for example do need a visa for Ireland and it would be misleading to say that they have a visa waiver. To save confusion, it would be best to revert the colour change. Similarly, Schengen/US/UK visa holders can have the visa requirement waived for Albania but this is not reflected in the map. st170e 02:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I called it "Visa waiver" because the Irish Government named the scheme that way - [84]. I agree the title is imprecise but how can we rename it?--Twofortnights (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure we should include it in the map as visas are still required by these nationals. We don't want to overcomplicate the map itself, but we can point out in the body of the article that such a visa waiver exists. Calling it a visa waiver may imply that visas for all citizens are waived, but we should emphasise that it is limited. st170e 02:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess so. I included it only because it is limited to a few nationalities rather than being available to everyone.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just getting around to finally doing this. My software isn't working to change the graphics, could you do that? If not, no problem. I'll update the article and mention the visa waiver for those with UK visas. st170e 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

OK I will do it.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, thank you! st170e 21:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Visa policy of the United Kingdom map

Hi Twofortnights!

I appreciate the work you have done on the map for the UK visa policy. However, there is one issue that I think is worth looking into.

On the map, you have shaded the countries that require a land visa but do not require an airside transit visa in light gray, while the countries that require an airside transit visa are shaded in a darker shade of gray. This is very tricky as the color code is a little hard to pick up due to the similarity in color between gray and this darker shade of gray. I was thinking that we can shade the countries that do not require an airside transit visa in yellow/orange/brown while the countries that do require an airside transit visa in red? Let me know your thoughts.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs980 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We decided to stop using such bright colors as red as it was too aggressive for some readers. But I suppose we could try with a different shade of grey.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy Macedonia

Hi Twofortnights, that MFA website of theirs is never updated ever - it even falsely says Swedes require a visa.

This visa exemption is quite new from what I can gather - so why on Earth would Timatic add it if they weren't notified of it by their sources? André Devecserii (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure, but it's not like there were never erroneous info on Timatic. At least I would expect Macedonia to somewhere publish this news as what would be the point of such a visa policy if it was never publicized at all? Also regarding Swedes it shows the same info as for other Schengen countries, that the visa is not required so I am not sure where you got that info from. The website that keeps switching between English and Macedonian is tiresome though. I will send them an email but until then I think this should be considered dubious.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Twofortnights I'm glad if they reply - already tried many times (not on this issue). Seems they corrected their info on Sweden btw. Timatic also edited their info on the visa exemption, stating that Indians can strictly only come for tourism visa-free. André Devecserii (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit complex as Macedonian embassy in India has no website and their inbox is full while India has no embassy in Macedonia and Ministries in general are not so quick to reply but we'll see.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Animation

Hi. What you think about gif-animation?--Norvikk (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of the Russian Federation

  Russia

  Visa free access

Visa policy of New Zealand from 1978 to the present

  New Zealand

  Visa free access

Awesome! Great job! We could even get some VP articles featured in not so distant future.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The UK. draft - http://gifmaker.me/PlayGIFAnimation.php?folder=2017072721eZ6hVMdjjajjrtva4TRaFc&file=output_2M79Q1.gif

Good, just pay attention to dates when territories and countries that didn't exist appear, namely Hong Kong, Macau, East Timor, Montenegro and South Sudan.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

HK is a part of the UK until 1997. Correct? http://gifmaker.me/PlayGIFAnimation.php?folder=2017072723TVnEkUhO3bX2STQoFOTMBy&file=output_qOZFow.gif

Montenegro I will add, thanks. S.Sudan is correct.

I plan to make a gif for period from 1972 to the present. I need your help with some questions. 1. Bahamas for 1972-map will be a red (part of the UK). 2. All Associated States - St Lucia (until 1979) will be green, not red. 3. Timor. Independent from 1974. Annexation by Indonesia 1975-2002. What color to use for this period?

Step will be 2 sec. as on other gifs. --Norvikk (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a map for 1960. [85] Do you agree? Any comments, suggestions. Thanks --Norvikk (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good, check this map [86] there are a few countries that declared independence after 1960 but I am not sure what their status was before that.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Good map, thanks. The gif will be from 1960 a to the present. Because of the unclear situation with Germany. UK-Germany agreement on 1960. Travel using the internal document and the British Travel Card. [87] I can't figure out what was before 1960. --Norvikk (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the gif. Thanks! Norvikk (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Brazilian passport.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brazilian passport.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens

Heya, I saw that you've added a new category (teal colour) for Electronic Travel Authorisations/eVisas on the visa requirements map of Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens. While this is a good change, I reckon it would also make sense to add the US ESTA to this category and colour the US teal.

The American and Australian ETAs are almost completely identical in terms of the application process and the fee charged, so it makes no sense to separate the two. It would streamline things to have them both in the same category. Besides, lumping in the US ESTA with the rest of the visa-free policies is a bit confusing because it implies that you can stroll into the US without any prior paperwork, which is the case for many of the visa-free countries, but not the US. The US may call it a 'visa waiver' but it is more accurately an ETA that needs to be paid for. I would thus shift the ESTA to the teal-coloured category, and perhaps colour Canada teal as well. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the US, it's not green only because it's called a visa waiver, it's green because in fact you can "stroll into the US without any prior paperwork" - just overland. If you are flying in you need to send some data through the electronic system for travel authorization, but all overland arrivals are completely visa-free. The same goes for Canada. Needless to say many visa waiver countries have the same requirements, the only difference is that the data and payment are done by an airline. Also regarding Australia, not only that there is no such possibility, it also has two systems, one is called eVisitor, which Australia defended in front of the European Commission as a non-visa system, and the ETA, which logically is then to be considered an electronic visa system. Cheers.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thailand

This was the quickest way to try to get you to stop reversing correction of the visa on arrival information for Thailand.

The visa incentive program includes two countries (Fiji and Papua New Guinea) that are not eligible for visa on arrival. See http://www.consular.go.th/main/th/customize/62281-Summary-of-Countries-and-Territories-entitled-for.html for the current correct information. If you still do not believe me, see this photo: http://cdn.airportthai.co.th/uploads/profiles/0000000001/filemanager/images/15%281%29.jpg

The countries eligible for VOA have not changed in many years.

Hi, the photo and that summary were both created before 30 December 2016. Fiji and PNG citizens are eligible for visa on arrival in Thailand since 30 December 2016 - [88]. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand

--- Dear Twofortnights: On signing in tonight, I saw a message from April alerting me that you reverted a posting I made on Passport validity changing NZ passport validity from 5 to 10 year. Unfortunately you have done this in error, perhaps because you relied on current information for new passport holders, rather than researching what in fact is a transition.

Please see

• 

in which I show an actual 5-year passport that remains currently valid. Then please go to the www.nzherald.co.nz article that explains that effective Nov 30, 2015 NZ went back to a 10-year, having used the five year after the 9-11 attacks. This means that New Zealanders will have valid 5-year passports until Nov 29, 2020 and if any bureaucrat relies on your information, they would be misinformed. Feel free to note in your calendar to come back on Nov 30, 2020 to remove the 5-year information.ClassicalScholar 10:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	i would like to update the Visa Requirement page for Kuwaiti citizens, how would we work together ? Roy Shrejmänn (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Roy Shrejmänn! Do you have something particular on your mind? The article seems to be up to date, but there is always room for improvement. Currently there is a plan to update all articles including that one regarding the map in order to add a new category of countries that allow both visa on arrival and eVisa. --Twofortnights (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Yes i would like to change and add to the page more details, i mean more specific details such us the Territories and Islands , South and north poles etc. etc.

what do you think?

Thant sounds great! Looking forward to it!--Twofortnights (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

about visa requirement of Hong Kong passport

https://www.immigration.go.ug/content/visas-and-passes The visa free list from the Uganda immigration, Hong Kong is not included which is not consistent with visa requirement of Hong Kong citizen. Please check and reply.182.239.83.201 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! It seems you are right. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

about visa requirement of hong kong passport

Please check that in the visa requirement of macau passport shows visa required in Georgia, it should be the same as visa requirement of hong kong passport. The IATA shows both passports can apply that country evisa.

Hong Kong citizens not having visa free access to Yemen, the hk immd information is seriously outdated.

Other user shows that the azerbaijan allows hong kong and macau citizen as chinese citizens to apply for AZAN e visa

Another question is in zambia e visa http://evisa.zambiaimmigration.gov.zm/ choose macau, it shows exempted from visa. It only shows eVisa status in visa requirements of macau passport page. Please reply. Thanks.182.239.83.116 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I fielded a question in the IRC channel from an IP user who thought you were reverting their edits without examining the references. Maybe it's the same person who asked the question immediately above. I can't evaluate the contents of these disputed edits, but let me ask two things: 1) use edit summaries to explain why you're reverting when a plausible content dispute exists and 2) respond to their query about checking the refs. Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I mostly undo edits which are notorious long term vandalism. For example users keep changing data on national passports and how many countries it is good for visa-free travel to, especially in big countries which have not so powerful passports, and they very well know what they are doing so I don't feel like I need to spend even more of my time on them by pretending to explain to them that their edits were inconsistent with references when they know this already - [89]. However due to extremely large volume of vandalism in visa related articles mistakes do happen. All it takes is for the user to contact me and we'll sort it out. Regarding the HK and Macau passports, I can only say that it was all so very clearly explained by an expert user on the talk page Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens_of_Macau under Regarding recent edits by the IP address. The fact that someone won't accept that HK and Macau have autonomy in terms of international agreements in the visa sphere is beyond anything I can do. Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Indian citizens

Thank you for the information. AbhishekShenoy (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Serbian MFA not yet finalised start of Visa free regime for India,Iran

Hi , Just want to let you know that as confirmed from Serbia embassy in India, there has been no official date decided for the visa-free regime for Indians to be activated. Also, it not true that after 8th day of it being published into "Official Gazette of RS", the visa free regime will be starting. As a comparison, please view the below link for abolition of visas for Malaysians for Serbia. Although it was published in official Gazette in October itself, it was entered into force from 1st December 2015 only.

http://www.mfa.gov.rs/en/consular-affairs/entry-serbia/news-for-entry-to-serbia/15801-the-decision-on-visa-exemption-for-the-nationals-of-malaysia AbhishekShenoy (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The decision on Malaysia itself probably set out the application date "between 1 December 2016 and 31 December 2017.". The decision on India does not have such additional restrictions. I am sure the Serbian MFA would have informed me of this. But if you have any doubts you may contact them yourself. As it is right now there is nothing to imply a delayed implementation date.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Tajik visa policy map

Hi Twofortnights, I'm not sure how to insert the yellow legend text without it crossing the map. Could you please modify it as you deem suitable? Thanks André Devecserii (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Luxembourgish passport 2016.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Luxembourgish passport 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of Sri Lanka

I am new here. First of all, I have to thank you for your countless contributions here especially to Visa-related articles. You are Awesome! I wanted to request you to please modify the map of Sri Lanka's visa policy and shade Pakistan as it is eligible for an ETA. Albert Dawkins (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to clear a confusion here. Sri Lanka canceled Visa on Arrival for Pakistanis in 2014, this does not mean that it canceled ETA online. An ETA still can be obtained prior to departure (It has to be obtained to land in Sri Lanka). Albert Dawkins (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, we will then need to create a new category on the map, countries eligible for ETA but not for VOA.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please. Countries eligible for ETA online, not for ETA on arrival. Albert Dawkins (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I traveled to Sri Lanka myself. The only requirement is obtaining ETA online, and we will be provided Entry and Visa on Arrival after we land. Albert Dawkins (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Difference: Other nationalities don't need to apply for ETA online. They can obtain the ETA on arrival, and then they will get the Visa on Arrival. Albert Dawkins (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

4 visa articles

Hi. I see the problem.

Articles about visa policy of Vatican, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are redirected on article about visa policy of the EU. Any information on visa policy of these countries is absent in this article. There is no information about open borders which documents regulate open borders.

As I understand, Monaco can't conclude visa the agreement. The visa policy of Monaco is completely regulated by the legislation of France. I can be mistaken here. This assumption.
San Marino and Vatican can sign visa agreements. Between San Marino and China there is visa an agreement. Russia and Vatican have signed the agreement. I assume, there are also other agreements. Information on it is absent. The lack of four visa articles is omission.

I won't be able to write these articles. My knowledge of English is not sufficient for text. I beg you to pay attention to it. You may be able to fix it.

What do you think? --Norvikk (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at this. [90] San Marino has a lot of agreements on the abolition of visas for all types of passports. This information isn't in the encyclopedia. It's wrong. I can try to make the table of agreements of San Marino if it is appropriate..Norvikk (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

HI, Yeah, I think we can have these articles explaining that these countries don't maintain border control but that they do sign bilateral visa agreements. We already have an article on Andorra but it has no information on bilateral agreements. For Monaco it would be interesting to write about whether France is in charge of immigration control of incoming vessels as well. I will assist you with any language issues of course.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, We have the article about Andorra. I couldn't find reliable information. It's harder than I thought. I can't do it now. Maybe in the future.--Norvikk (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked one of the editors to made the three articles. He knows French and Italian. It will be easier for him. I hope he will find time for it.--Norvikk (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Table

Hi. What of options is more preferable to countries with both e-visa and visa on arrival? --Norvikk (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

eVisa	Visa on arrival is also available
Visa on arrival	eVisa is also available

Hi. Maybe go straight to

eVisa / Visa on arrival

details

--Twofortnights (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent!--Norvikk (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at the new proportions of the table. [91]

Old 19%

eVisa / Visa on arrival	details

New 22%

eVisa / Visa on arrival	details

This changes the proportions of all columns of the table. I don't see a problem. What do you think 19vs22?--Norvikk (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

To me it looks very similar. But if it improves the way the table is showing on your device then go ahead.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks different. [92]. To me 22%- version looks better. I use it format. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of Mali

Hi Twofortnights, Thank you for the update of the 'Visa policy of Mali' page. I am aware that the official website (http://diplomatie.ml/?page_id=5522) states that nationals of Andorra and Monaco are exempted from the visa requirements prior to visit Mali, but considering that the copyright year being 2015, is it not possible that the information contained within is not up-to-date? I have contacted Mali representation in India (http://www.maliembassy.co.in/index.php/en/2016-02-24-09-01-34/visa) and yet to receive the response. I have tried looking for some pertinent information with regards to the list, but the website only provides update on the recent visa requirements abolition between Mali and Indonesia.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlies280590 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it is of course also possible that the Mali website is not up to date but I suggest we wait for the official clarification. Regards, --Twofortnights (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted, thank you! I am also aware that Timatic might experience a glitch on their system, such as the case with Indian nationals traveling to Macedonia. There was a period of moment that Timatic enlisted India as recipient country of Macedonia's visa-free facility but I believe it has been corrected not long after. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlies280590 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights, I have received a response from Mali Embassy in India. It is stated here that Monaco nationals are required visa in advance prior to traveling to Mali. I also specifically asked for Andorra but received no response for it. I believe that the website (http://diplomatie.ml/?page_id=5522) is not afterall up-to-date. Regards --Charlies280590 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:VERIFY they really need to publish this information somewhere. Can you ask them to place a visa regime document on their website? This would solve all our issues. They seem to be willing and cooperative. Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights:, Timatic is a published source, and border control at Bamako airport indicated that it's the more accurate list by far - what they told me only slightly differed from Timatic. André Devecserii (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights:, I have sent an e-mail with regards to updating the website, hopefully it is done so in the near future. @André Devecserii:, I noticed that you have updated the page for Mali visa policy, since the United Arab Emirates is on the Timatic list, should it not be included on the page as well? Regards --Charlies280590 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Charlies280590 Thanks! The problem is that Timatic has recently had some very serious mistakes. Not sure why this is happening, could be the new management, not sure. That is why we should be sure. André Devecserii we also can't use your personal conversation in Bamako. There are many reasons why, not just the Wiki policy on having published verifiable sources, there is also the possibility the officer you spoke to does not have full knowledge, that you misheard him, that something changed since then etc.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights:, fair enough. I was connected to the director though and he spoke slowly and clearly (we spoke French).

And yes, I've noticed some grave errors, but my contact has discouraged me from reporting them unless I have it black on white that it is indeed an error (with e-mails from the proper authorities as proof). This is because of their great workload André Devecserii (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now updated the article to reflect conflicting sources.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Error in Map for Visa policy for Azerbaijan

Hi There,

I was taking a look at the map for visa policy of Azerbaijan, and while Singaporeans have visa on arrival access, Singapore is shaded in brown (E Visa only). It should be shaded in blue, indicating a visa on arrival at all airports.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs980 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now updated the map.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fourweeks (Twofortnights). Please update the Sri Lanka Visa Policy too to reflect that Pakistani citizens can obtain visa on arrival provided they have applied for ETA online before. Albert Dawkins (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For the new category "eVisa/visa on arrival" for visa maps! Well done! Norvikk (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk!--Twofortnights (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Pakistani

Hi! I'm working on updating the page. FYI, the guy before me added certain language that I had edited out. Almost all visa Wiki links have such data. I do not see why this page should be excluded.

By the way, I have added visa required for Vietnam. However, last I checked Phuc Quoc was part of Vietnam not mars. Thanks! Faraz (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the above, it clearly states 'Notes excluding departure fees. What I have added is entirely relevant to the subject in question. Faraz (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I moved my reply to the article talk page.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Bermuda

Hi, According Timatic visa policy differs from information in Wikipedia. I changed the map. Visa-free countries and visa free if arriving from or transiting through the United Kingdom (yellow). This is visa-free regime with the conditions. What you think we can trust Timatic in this case? --Norvikk (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I guess it should be right. Is the official version different?--Twofortnights (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I can’t find a modern government visa information.--Norvikk (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong

Hi,

I noticed that you have undone my revision on the visa on arrival for Bolivia and anything else.

I have double checked the reference and confirmed that a 90 day visa on arrival could be obtained for Bolivia, regardless of where the passport holders reside.

It also applies to the Macau passport holder

Please check first before undoing revisions.

Thanks! Trevoronc (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan

Hi! This is the answer from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kyrgyzstan to request. (not mine). On the second page there is an unofficial English translation. [93] I think we can add e-visa for Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. --Norvikk (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Norvikk! That is completely crazy, such persons would have troubles boarding a flight etc. But yeah, now I see Kyrgyzstan has taken such a position (probably stemming from complete lack of understanding of the status of HK and Macau) so I agree with you to add eVisa for HK, Macau and Taiwan.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked a question to the support service on the website of e-visa, but they ignored my request. Someone made a request to the Ministry. There are no doubts, it is their position. I made the change. --Norvikk (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

American Samoa

Hello, Twofortnights, American Samoa changed its visa policy last month. I searched online and found three pages with the alleged new list of waiver countries: 1 (US Visa Waiver Program, minus Ireland, plus Canada), 2 (US VWP minus Greece, Hungary and Ireland, plus Canada), 3 (US VWP exactly). First I combined the lists (US VWP plus Canada) and added the result to the Wikipedia article, with the three lists as references, but later I decided to contact the Immigration Office of American Samoa, which is granting the "OK to board" (okboard@la.as.gov), to confirm the information. They sent me the actual memorandum from the Attorney General of American Samoa implementing the recent changes. The list on the memorandum matches the list on 1 (US VWP minus Ireland, plus Canada). After I received this response, I removed Ireland from the Wikipedia article. However, later you added it back. I just checked the sources again, and now 2 has US VWP exactly, 3 no longer exists, while 1 remains the same. I don't know what to conclude, but I prefer to rely on the memorandum from the Attorney General. What do you think? Heitordp (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Seems like a curious case indeed. What is probably causing it is the fact that they either confuse Ireland and Iceland and just removed one thinking it was a typo, or they saw the full name of the UK and thought they shouldn't have Ireland twice. Sounds ridiculous but probably the knowledge about Ireland, Iceland and Northern Ireland in American Samoa isn't much different to knowledge about Samoa, Western Samoa and American Samoa in Ireland.

Anyway, since the memorandum was not published we have to rely on what is on their website. Since those differ as well, it is the best to note that in the article like at Visa_policies_of_British_Overseas_Territories#Turks_and_Caicos_Islands by saying "According to another government source citizens of Ireland can also arrive without a visa.". Timatic by the way lists Ireland but does not list any eastern EU member states, it's based on the old list obviously, but it's interesting because it included Ireland.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Paraguay confusion

Hi, on the pages Visa policy of Paraguay and Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens, a user has added an edit that claims Singaporeans have access to Paraguay visa-free. I've tried to corroborate the sources, but there doesn't seem to be anything? Tiger7253 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It could be fake?--Twofortnights (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Not fake at all- according to the IATA database (found here http://cms.olympicair.com/timatic/webdocsI/spdbmainv.html) Singaporeans holding ordinary passports now have visa free access to Paraguay for up to 30 days

Hi Twofortnights, a user has added an edit saying that Monaco citizens have access to Paraguay. I didn't find any government source for that but it clearly mentions it from when I looked it up on Timatic/IATA. Is the Timatic site mixed up? DZaidan55 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Paraguay Visa policy

Hi Twofortnights-

Singapore needs to be shaded in blue on the map. Also, I highly recommend that we use a different color for visa free countries vs visa on arrival countries as opposed to a darker shade of blue for visa free countries and a lighter shade of blue for visa on arrival countries to avoid confusion. Maybe green for visa free countries and yellow/blue for visa on arrival countries? Let me know what you think

Kind Regards,

Please take a look at the message directly above. There seem to be some doubts regarding visa policy of Paraguay for Singaporean citizens.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The Multiple Barnstar

		Multiple Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless work. Your work dispels the darkness Wiki as a lighthouse. Wrecks happen without your participation. Thanks for the light!-Norvikk (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk for your kind words! It means a lot to see that my work is appreciated. Thank you again --Twofortnights (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Albania Temporary Waiver Confusion

Hi! In Visa policy of Albania article, I checked all the countries that are under the temporary visa waiver and it was explained that the waiver was from 31 May or 10 June 2017 until 15 November 2017. But according to the visa requirements for those countries, I discovered that the visa waiver only lasts until 1 November 2017. I found different sources in Visa policy of Albania and Bahrain, Belarus, Oman, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia Visa requirements pages. One explains that the waiver lasts until 1 November 2017 while the other mentions that the waiver is still in progress and will end 15 November 2017.(http://www.punetejashtme.gov.al/files/userfiles/Regjimi_i_vizave_per_te_huajt_26.01.2017.pdf) (http://www.punetejashtme.gov.al/files/userfiles/VISA_REGIME_FOR_FOREIGN_CITIZENS_27.10.2017.pdf)

To avoid confusion, which one is correct and more accurate? RoboTitan28 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it seems it is 15 November - [94] at least for Russia, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Georgia, Qatar, Oman.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Tanzania map

Hi! In the map for Visa policy of Tanzania, for some reasons, Sweden is not shaded as countries eligible for visa on arrival. Also, according to Timatic (IATA), Georgian citizens must obtain a visa prior to arrival. Moroccan citizens, on the other hand, are now eligible to obtain a visa upon arrival. It is recommended that the map gets updated with the said information. Thanks! RoboTitan28 (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of Palau

Hi Twofortnights! On the visa policy map, I don't know why you have shaded Bangladesh and Myanmar as countries eligible for visa on arrival. I checked the Timatic website and visas are still required in advance for nationals of Bangladesh and Myanmar. If you were correct, could you provide a source that mentions that Palau introduced visa on arrival for those countries? Thanks! Dunkroll 6 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dunkroll 6! You are correct. I have uploaded an updated file now.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

British National (Overseas) visa requirement

One of the IP user insisted that timatic is the most accurate source over the Government official sites. Please explain it is not always the case. Please also help to revert the article to the correct one. It is considered as vandalism. That IP is used to be banned in other language version of wiki. It is not expected to keep wrong information here.Jekeme (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)a

Visa policy of China

I have requested a protection of the page and was granted. The user involved, Nixiao1983, refused to engage in consensus building and claimed that Taiwan as a part of China. A relevant discussion has been opened on the NPOV noticeboard here, and I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Meanwhile you are more than welcome to leave thoughts on the talk page of Visa policy of China (the user involved has refused to do so thus far).C-GAUN (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

British citizen visa requirement

In the British Citizen visa requirements, someone edit something with government source. For Zimbabwe as it is Cat B countries, only eligible for visa on arrival. The Qatar visa waiver applies to British citizen, also Rwanda visa on arrival countries can choose evisa pay online. If you were correct, could you provide a explanation for this revert? Thanks!Jekeme (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

British citizen visa requirement

In the British Citizen visa requirements, someone edit something with government source. For Zimbabwe as it is Cat B countries, only eligible for visa on arrival. The Qatar visa waiver applies to British citizen, also Rwanda visa on arrival countries can choose evisa pay online. If you were correct, could you provide a explanation for this revert? Thanks!Jekeme (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. For Zimbabwe all Cat B countries are also eligible for an eVisa. Qatar for some reason as the UAE called it VoA so that's why. As for Rwanda, it's optional between VoA and eVisa.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Visa policy of Armenia

According to the website (http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/248829/Armenia_to_waive_visa_requirements_for_Indian_citizens), Armenia announced that visa on arrival would be extended for Indian citizens but I don't know if they have ratified it yet. It seems that holders of all passports from India are eligible.

Hi. Thanks. It seems the decision may have been made on November 16 then but we need to keep following this to see when will it become effective.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. VOA and eVisa for Indian citizens are available from 22 November 2017. [95]
MFA of Armenia [96] - “Citizens of the selected country holding ORDINARY passports are ELIGIBLE to obtain the visa upon arrival in Armenia (at the border) or apply for E-VISA.”

The decision has come into force. Norvikk (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

eVisa Egypt

Hi. Look at this. I think we can make changes. Norvikk (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

[97] eVisa

Hi Norvikk Great but are you sure that the egyptvisa.com is the official one? There is also the https://visa2egypt.gov.eg/ --Twofortnights (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Another question, is Egypt now optional eVisa and VoA for those 41 countries or is it mandatory to obtain an eVisa? Also there is an old problem that Timatic lists so many other countries as VoA eligible.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think your edits are correct. Thanks. Norvikk (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Twofortnights. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Timatic reply

Moved to > Template talk:Timatic

Visa policy of Iran

Hi! In the article, I remember that you mentioned that Egypt and Lebanon were visa exempt according to news reports. However, Timatic now seems to have updated saying that Egypt and Lebanon are now visa exempt. Egypt (20 days) and Lebanon (30 days). I'm confused if Timatic accidently added Egypt and Lebanon to visa exemption. RoboTitan28 (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this update. It wasn't there a few days ago when I checked. I guess they were conducting a regular update of the Iran page. The problem is that Iran doesn't publish its visa policy. But yes the article can be updated now. Cheers. --Twofortnights (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Please stop removing the updated information from this page. I will revert your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon hun ming (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2018

May your world be filled with warmth and good cheer this Holy season, and throughout the year.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! --Norvikk (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk! I wish you all the very best in 2018, may you have a joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year! I wish you many new visa-free destinations for your passport in the next year!--Twofortnights (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norvikk (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Gambia

Hi. I made changes in the Visa article on the basis of the website of the Immigration Department of Gambia. [98] I thought it was a reliable source. But many countries were not on the list. Now I can't open the page. If you can not open the site too, you can see a copy. [99] --Norvikk (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't open the page, there is an error reported. Gambia is one of the worst countries in this regard. I think only Malawi, Senegal, Tanzania, Bangladesh and Egypt are a match.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote to the service Timatic. Hope they will clarify the situation. --Norvikk (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Peruvian passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Peruvian passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year

Happy new year Twofortnights, have a great one! André Devecserii (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you dear André, I wish you all the best in 2018!--Twofortnights (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Updates 2018

• Gambia. Map / Text (unclear)
• Rwanda. Map  Done / Text  Done
• Ukraine eVisa Map  Done / Text  Done
• Dominican Republic. Map  Done / Text  Done
• Benin. Map  Done / Text  Done
• Argentina-Fiji 10 January Map  Done / Text  Done
• China-UAE 16 January Map  Done / Text  Done
• Henley & Partners Passport Index 2018  Done
• China-Bosnia Map  Done / Text  Done
• Brazil eVisa 25 Jan Map  Done / Text  Done
• Belarus regional visa program restricted to some nationalities, extended to 10 days and wider region  Done
• Uzbekistan reform (visa-free expansion) Map  Done / Text  Done
• Serbia visa-free expansion February 2018 Map  Done / Text  Done
• Uzbekistan eVisa system and 5-day visa free transit from 15 July 2018 Map  Done / Text  Done
• Saudi Arabia reform April 2018 eVisa for visitors of sport events
• Zimbabwe visa-free expansion Map  Done / Text  Done
• Azerbaijan possibility to apply for e-visa on arrival from May 15 for 15 countries [100]  Done
• Moldova visa-free expansion Map  Done / Text  Done
• Angola visa-free expansion Map  Done / Text  Done
• Angola simplification Text  Done
• Somalia full VoA reinstated Map  Done / Text  Done
• Iran eVisa 22 Nov
• Oman switches to eVisa only 21 March 2018 Map  Done / Text  Done
• Armenia visa-free expansion 19 March 2018 Map  Done / Text  Done
• Madagascar eVisa
• Tunisia eVisa
• Laos eVisa
• Liberia eVisa
• South Africa eVisa
• Djibouti eVisa Map  Done / Text  Done
• Kazakhstan eVisa Map / Text
• UAE - Tonga 24 May, Honduras 25 May, Brazil 2 June Map  Done / Text  Done
• updating of style of the visa tables Text  Done
• Visa Templates - India, Somalia Text  Done
• Moldova. Total stay period Text  Done
• Albania, Montenegro - Temporary visa exemption - start April  Done / finish 31 October  Done
• Ethiopia eVisa Map  Done / Text  Done
• Saint Helena eVisa Text  Done
• China-Belarus Map  Done / Text  Done
• UAE-Mexico 31 October Map  Done / Text  Done
• Qatar officially reclassifies its policy as visa-free Map  Done / Text  Done
• Turkey removal of eVisa on arrival through kiosks option Map  Done / Text  Done
• Sudan visa on arrival expansion Map  Done / Text  Done
• Ethiopia eVisa/voa Map  Done / Text  Done
• Senegal changes Map  Done / Text  Done
• Swaziland –> Eswatini Text  Done
• Ascension Island eVisa Text  Done
• Papua New Guinea eVisa Map  Done / Text  Done
• Thailand visa-free expansion
• Botswana VoA 24 Nov
• Thailand eVisa
• Benin eVisa Map  Done / Text  Done
• Uniform shape of South Sudan (there is no "correct" shape as the border is disputed but there were at least 4-5 outlines used, some with broken pixels)  Done
• Tanzania eVisa Map / Text

--Norvikk (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Done with text for Rwanda, Dominican Republic and Benin.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Benin

It's called Break logic.
Visa free for passports of Macao and Hong Kong

• Timatic: Macao - No, Hong Kong - Yes
• Department of Immigration: Macao - No, Hong Kong - No (only for Dip/Ser but Macau and Hong Kong do not have such passports) [101]
• eVisa Portal: Macao - Yes, Hong Kong - No [102] section Do I need a visa? /Ai-je besoin d'un visa ?/
  

Stalemate. --Norvikk (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reliable source regarding Benin on Macao and HK. We can have a note like we had for Iran saying "According to some sources" but not in the main table for sure.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! The Department of Immigration could have made a mistake, since HK and Macao don't have diplomatic/service passports. We should probably refer to both Timatic and the eVisa Portal. --RoboTitan28 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Well we are not allowed to guess. If the page says one thing we can't write something else based on a probability that they've made a mistake.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Gambia Visa policy

The map does not shade Visa exempted Malaysia, Australia and Singapore in the right colors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs980 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Algeria

Hi! In Visa policy of Algeria, someone has shaded Syria and Yemen on the map as visa exempt, which does not make sense at all. RoboTitan28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will undo that edit.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Visa policy history

I've just stumbled across the Irish statute books and found the visa policy of Ireland all the way back to the 1930s. It's interesting because Polish citizens were actually banned from transiting Ireland as late as 1992/3. Would this be of sufficient interest for inclusion? st170e 21:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, yeah that would be very interesting. There is a complete lack of historical info in that article.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get on it. st170e 22:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

transcluded sections

Hi.
I used simple sentences to write. I hope you understand the meaning. Translator distorts some things.
I propose to make changes to the editing of articles. Let's use ‘transcluded section’ more often. Now we use ‘transcluded section‘ for the statistics. I propose to extend this to other multiple values.

India. eVisa: was-24 airports; now-25 airports. More than 100 articles need to be corrected information.
China. Transit: Changed conditions 72->144 hours. Added a new entry points. 50 articles need to be corrected information.
Russia. Regional eVisa. 18 articles.
I think these changes are not final. In the future this will change again and again.

The adjustment of articles will take many hours of our time.

I created a page where collected these changes. Template:Transcluded sections for the visa articles I hope I have not violated the rules of Wikipedia. It will be enough to make the change there and they will be reflected automatically in all articles. It will save a huge array of time.

For example [103] [104]

--Norvikk (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Great idea! And it's working, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used. It will make editing much faster for those ever changing categories.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In the future we could hopefully make the entire database centralized, meaning that all VR articles would pull info from one central VP table. Then when one country adopts a new visa policy we don't need to go through 100 articles to change it, but just change it in one table, and this would reflect in VR articles which would be connected to that one central table. For example Benin VP table would have all nationalities listed and then next to them it would have been Visa required and we would change it to eVisa. VR articles would be connected to show green visa not required, red visa required etc. based on what they see in that main and only table.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure it will work as you are testing it for India. What if for example India changes it just for the British, Canadian and Brazilian citizens. You have to edit those three articles. What I had in mind is one visa policy database table per country from which all visa requirement articles pull information from. And then based on what the database table says for British, Canadian or Brazilian the VR shows it as green, red, teal etc. And if there are any changes, it's done only in that one table.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This would be great, but I don't know how to do it. --Norvikk (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the massive update! Well done! Norvikk (talk) 5:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Norvikk! Much appreciated!--Twofortnights (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

British passport

Please be noted that all information come from reliable sources. You have to explain why revert all edits without any reason.Cceobus (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made only one edit to that article recently and it was definitely not involving any reverts.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cypriot passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cypriot passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Henley Index

Hi. Did you see the designer of the index? Now we can see what countries they consider in the rating.

https://www.henleypassportindex.com Improve My Passport - Select a Passport - under a cover See more - View list

I see two problems:

1. Selective calculation.

• Montserrat. They have considered visa-free entrance for South America and Europe, but haven't included for India, Pakistan, Some countries of Africa. Though Timatic and the government website speak about visa-free for these countries.
• Gabon. Gabon has begun to provide visas on an arrival since October. This event is reflected only in rating for the USA. It is ignored for Russia, Australia, Great Britain.
• Guam and Northern Mariana Islands. The Islands is Visa free for Russia and China, Guam - for Russia. In the Index: for China - yes, for Russia - no. Russia hasn't got two points.

Not the objective index. Probably, policy has won against honesty.

2. Criteria.

• eVisa. They don't consider the electronic visas of India, Myanmar, Monserrat, Gabon, Benin, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, Singapore, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan.
• Albania. They have given one point for the temporary visa free list (May-November)
• Somalia. They give one point to all countries for the visa on an arrival of Somalia. Nonsense.

--Norvikk (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's interesting. Still better than Arton who makes a list based on the HDI index of the UN among other things, but still so many mistakes on Henley. What should we do? Is there a way to contact them?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have asked about these mistakes the Russian office of Henley. There is no answer yet. I have written to you that you knew current information. I don't think that we can influence them.--Norvikk (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Answer: «Здравствуйте! Спасибо за внимание к нашему индексу и желание его улучшить. Мы обязательно проверим и довнесем данные. Индекс будет обновляться в течение года регулярно, потому что данные меняются очень часто.» --Norvikk (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me weighing in here. If they're going to update the index throughout the year, would it be erroneous to suggest that, for example, the German passport is the most powerful passport in 2018? Should it not state, rather, 'As of January 2018, the German passport was ranked the highest on Henley...' or something like that? st170e 19:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, yes I think so, but don't most articles already use that language "As of January 2018"?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was looking at the wrong thing. st170e 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Update on 16 Jan. Russia. before 110 -> after 113 --Norvikk (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Update on 22 May. They continue to ignore Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna. --Norvikk (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if any French territories should be counted separately as they don't have independent visa policies, but if they count one then they should count them all.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand it is a commercial organization. It have no obligations. It has own methodology. Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico in the list. This means all French territories and Tokelau can be in the list too.--Norvikk (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Visa policy of Brazil 2

Hi, I noticed that you recently changed the "note 3" on the visa policy of Brazil, from 90/180 days to 3/6 months. It's true that the agreement between Brazil and the EU specifies 3/6 months, but the "note 3" also applies to some other countries on the list, not just the EU, and all those other agreements specify 90/180 days. In any case, the official visa policy of Brazil clearly says 90/180 days for all of these countries, including the EU. Sometimes what gets implemented is slightly different from the agreement, for example the agreement between Brazil and Belarus says 90 days per year, but Brazil decided not to impose the yearly limitation. In the article, I think that it's better to list the visa policy that is actually implemented by the destination country than the text of the agreement. Heitordp (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Heitordp. Yes I changed that because the Schengen Area which adopted the 90 days in preceding 180 days rule as a general rule, still applies the old 3 months during a 6 months period following the date of first entry rule where the bilateral agreements saying that were signed. Namely such agreements are still in force with Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Mauritius and Seychelles. As you can see on the European Commission website - https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/border-crossing_en:

A clearer definition of short stay of non-EU citizens in the Schengen area ("90 days in any 180 days period") is applicable from 18 October 2013. Since then a new method of calculation of short stays applies.

This change does not apply to the visa waiver agreements concluded between the EU and Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Mauritius, and Seychelles, with respect to which the old definition of the preceding ("3 months during a 6 months period following the date of first entry") continues to apply.

Now I understand the info sheet of the Brazilian Government does not reflect this, but I would also say that the info sheet does not take precedence over bilateral agreements ratified by the Parliament. Moreover, the info sheet under " Legal Basis : " does not list any bilateral agreements but is based solely on the general acts. Unless of course one of those decrees says that Brazil implements more generous rules than what the bilateral agreements prescribe.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, we can keep the note saying 3/6 months for the EU. However, the agreements between Brazil and Albania, Dominica, Georgia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Seychelles, Switzerland and Ukraine all specify 90/180 days. In the list in the article, these countries were using the same note as the EU, so now they should have a different note saying 90/180 days. Heitordp (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Travel advice

As per Visa requirements for Canadian citizens, should we roll out the 'government advises against all travel' to all articles or remove it from the Canadian article? I would say it violates WP:TRAVEL but I'd argue against that because it effectively limits the consular assistance the government is willing to provide citizens in that country (which is certainly the case for the British situation). st170e 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I would say remove travel warnings, unless it's a travel ban. South Korean Government for example bans its citizens from visiting certain countries. The US recently imposed something similar regarding visits to North Korea. Australia also has a policy that means a person visiting certain areas without approval is subject to prosecution. However simple travel advise against all travel and such should be removed IMO.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Somalia

Hi. I suggest using two templates [105] and [106] for different types of tables. If they make changes, we don't have to re-edit all the articles. they can change the number of airports. --Norvikk (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, thanks, great idea!--Twofortnights (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For this type Somalia. VOA [107] and for this Somalia. VOA/2 [108]

VOA/3 for Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Kuwait, Monaco, New Zealand, Oman, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, United States, United Arab Emirates or an EEA Member State

VOA and VOA/2 for all others

Information sources of Timatic

Hi Twofortnights, do you happen to know who Timatic's source of information in Albania is?

The problem is, my IATA contact suddenly stopped replying to my last few well-founded review requests, despite the ones before that leading to corrections.

On 26 January, after I contacted the Albanian MFA, they updated the list of nationals whose ID cards constitute a passport exemption.

However, Timatic still uses a list which they claim to be based on what the border police at Tirana airport uses.

As I'm soon going to Albania by air with a group of friends of different nationalities, I would really like to get in touch with whoever supplies info to Timatic directly, as I doubt that the lists are meant to be different. Rather I think there's been poor communication between the local police and the MFA.

To be exact, the MFA says Bosnian and Croatian IDs are accepted, and the MFA told me the Irish passport card is as well.

Meanwhile, Timatic doesn't list Bosnia, Croatia and Ireland, but does state American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealander IDs are accepted. American ones have never been listed by the MFA at least for the past year, and the other three were removed from the MFA list after I informed the MFA that they don't actually issue national ID cards. The Albanian embassy in Canada used to claim the Canadian citizenship card is accepted, but Canada was also removed by the MFA.

So do you know by any chance whom to contact? André Devecserii (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure really. But perhaps you should try contacting the timediting@iata.org instead of your contact.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Twofortnights, I used to send requests to the main address in the beginning, but was eventually assigned the sourcing manager as a dedicated contact, and was told only to send requests to him.

They now made an update regarding Gibraltar I requested a month ago (though he didn't notify me as usual - not that it matters that much)

Going to try getting the flow back with a few major review requests (the Macedonian visa policy contains one certain error, and I believe it needs a complete review, which is why I've messaged the MFA), and then try tackling the Albanian issue. André Devecserii (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed they included Georgia in Turkmenistan page as a visa-free country. It is almost 100% an error.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Twofortnights I agree, but am not going to message him about it without solid proof of it (an e-mail from the authorities inside Turkmenistan). Once got "told off" by him for that.

He finally replied to a request from mid-January btw, regarding Irish passport cards and Albanian ID cards now being valid for Bosnia. So my next priority is the Macedonian visa regime, which looks like an utter mess in Timatic atm. I told him about a clearly obvious error (proven by the MFA website), and let him know I've messaged the Macedonian MFA asking for a complete review. When I did the same regarding Serbia, it gave real results. André Devecserii (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Twofortnights, I mustered up the courage to ask IATA about Turkmenistan. He wrote that their Turkmen sources re-confirmed that Georgians are visa-exempt, but only if entering by air. André Devecserii (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

André Devecserii interesting, there is literally not a single other source to confirm this including [109]. Norvikk, is there anything at all regarding this on Russian language pages?--Twofortnights (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Embassy in Russia.[110] Общая информация о правилах получения визы в Туркменистан. Для оформления визы по прибытию в аэропорт города Ашхабада необходимо предоставить заграничный паспорт, а также оригинал или ксерокопию приглашения от юридического или физического лица, оформленного в установленном порядке и согласованного с Государственной службой Туркменистана по регистрации иностранных граждан. Norvikk (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the general pre-approved visa pick-up. But Timatic claims that there is a special visa policy for Georgian citizens and that they do not require a visa when arriving by air.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy in Georgia do not contain visa information! Only the consular manual. Turkmenistan is a closed country. I think this is another mistake of Timatics. I made a request yesterday, but the chance of a response is minimal. I asked about statistics earlier, but no one answered. Norvikk (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Norvikk, did you e-mail timediting@iata.org? And did you attach substantial evidence pointing towards it being an error? If so they should reply, but like I said, I was informed that the Turkmens had re-confirmed the visa exemption, and that no airline has complained so far André Devecserii (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Georgia-Serbia

Hi Twofortnights, I am writing regarding Georgia-Serbia visa free agreement. As it written here ► link The Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic announced that the agreement would come into effect before parliament’s completion of certain administrative procedures.--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 07:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, we'll follow since no date has been provided.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze according to [111] the unilateral exemption is in force.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Visa requirements for algerian citizens

Please stop deleting right informations and putting erong information ! Algerian citizens need to apply for e-visa for turkey ! Dengel91 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

UAE - Kazakhstan

Hi. Visa agreement between the countries was signed in 2010. This agreement on diplomatic passports. It has been changed twice. Service and ordinary passports have been added in 2017. Changes for ordinary passports have come into force in March 2018. I don't know why Timatic considers that it is a visa on arrival. [112]
"Граждане государства одной Стороны - владельцы паспортов, указанных в пункте 2 настоящей статьи, за исключением сотрудников дипломатических представительств и консульских учреждений, находящихся на территории государства другой Стороны, вправе без визы въезжать и выезжать с территории государства другой Стороны, пересекать ее и пребывать там на срок, не превышающий 30 (тридцать) дней с даты въезда, через пропускные пункты, открытые для международного сообщения".

I think we have to return former information. --Norvikk (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. User:André Devecserii could you inform the IATA source that the info on UAE is likely wrong regarding Kazakhstan? Even in general I am not sure how the differentiation is made between VoA and visa-free for UAE when it's de facto the same thing.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Twofortnights, too little substance to justify a review request according to IATA's standards. I also find the UAE immigration department too hard to contact (or else I would check with them), and besides, the difference between visa-free and VOA has little practical meaning at the end of the day during check-in, except in those cases where VOA is subject to conditions, which it isn't here. André Devecserii (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi André Devecserii, yes, but Kazakhstan published the text of the agreement and apparently it says that there is a visa-free regime. Regarding VoA there are different conditions regarding extension even though it's a similar thing on arrival - [113].--Twofortnights (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Twofortnights I see. Tell you what, I'll keep this issue in mind. André Devecserii (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stats

Countries have slowly started publishing visitor statistics for 2017. So far I've found Georgia, Cyprus, Seychelles, Iceland, Japan (partial), Taiwan, Maldives, Mauritius, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Fiji, Antigua and Barbuda, French Polynesia, Netherlands, Jamaica, Hong Kong, Serbia, Slovenia, Grenada, Turkey, Bulgaria, Sri Lanka, Spain, Mexico (partial), New Zealand, Estonia, Czech Republic (partial), Chile, Australia, Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Colombia (partial), Macao, Bermuda. Hope more countries will follow soon. A few rather big countries haven't published 2016 reports tough, China, France, Greece to name a few.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Freedom

Hi, could you please look at this page [114]. What's the right option? For St. Kitts and Nevis or St. Lucia? Thanks! --Norvikk (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well we use blue in EU and GCC articles so I guess that one if it's really freedom of movement like in those two examples.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Hi, I consider that we should create the Visa Disclaimer Template and add it to the top part of each visa article.

“The information provided in the article is not intended to be binding, and visa information must be verified with a travel agent or embassy representative before travel arrangements are made.”

Many people use articles as a reference book. Sometimes authoritative sources provide opposite information. It creates a confusion and disputes. We can't ignore any options. Who knows what information is correct? Especially for some countries in Asia and Africa, which do not respond to requests or not provide information on government websites. I think this template will remind readers of their responsibility for a choice of information. What you think? --Norvikk (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Good idea, but I am not sure if it's in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style? They could say it's against WP:NOTGUIDE, we need to check with one of the admins working on style issues.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't hold a conversation with administrators in English. I can try to create the template if it violates the rules then administrators can always delete it.--Norvikk (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:No disclaimers. --Izno (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree there izno reason to carry such a disclaimer. EEng 03:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft

No. First, Wikipedia takes pains to say that it's not a reliable source. The template essentially says that the article is not a reliable source. (Which alert readers already know.) If certain pages had this template (or something like it), would there be a risk that readers that infer that those pages without it (or something like it) were reliable? Secondly, the matter of, er, bondage. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a nation can be said to publish binding information about which classes of person (nationality, intended length of stay, purpose of stay, etc) require which kind of visa, if any; but it should be pretty obvious to anyone who understands both (i) the way the world works and (ii) the word "binding" that, as long as they are sane, the editors of no mere encyclopedia can publish information about visa requirements with any intention that the information should be binding. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for yours opinions. --Norvikk (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, and we should have one in articles in which we appear to giving medical advise. --RAN (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Unclear situations

Here I propose to list all countries where visa policies remain unclear.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Egypt - absolute mess, dozens of overlapping policies
• Lebanon - absolute mess, overlapping policies, no trustworthy source
• Gambia - similar to Egypt, unclear policy and no trustworthy source
• Tanzania - the information changes often on Timatic and Immigration website while it does not seem any new regulations are adopted
• Angola - eVisa, VoA or simplified policy, remains unclear
• Tajikistan - VoA exists or it doesn't, no one knows for sure
• Myanmar - VoA exists or it doesn't, no one knows for sure
• Iran - eVisa required or not, does it exist in parallel with VoA or what's the deal
• United Arab Emirates - differences between free VoA and visa-free and which nations belong to which group
• Qatar - visa-free or free VoA
• Malawi, Bangladesh - inconsistent information
• Iraq - inconsistent information especially on Kurdish region
• Malaysia - inconsistent information on the allowed length of stay
• Schengen Area agreements and applications regarding EEA and Swiss citizens
• Kenya - inconsistent information
• British Overseas Territories - conflicting information
• Togo - conflicting information
• China - absolute mess, overlapping policies of entering China visa-free in transit to a third country and a "free transit visa on arrival"
• Sudan – inconsistent information for certain countries according to Timatic
• Cambodia - inconsistent information on eVisa eligibility.
• Guinea Bissau - unclear VoA and eVisa status
• Senegal - information changes often on Timatic while it does not seem any new regulations are adopted and there is no official website with visa information
• Syria - conflicting information
• Ghana - inconsistent information
• Pakistan - using VoA, eVisa and visa-free interchangeably for the same policy which does not seem to be either one of those
• Check RW>SKN reciprocal policy.

Twofortnights, tried explaining the Iranian system to my IATA contact, but nothing's been done about it.

There's no e-visa; instead you make an application on the e-visa site and present a printed submission confirmation at the VOA desk

Regarding Angola, it's a pre-approved VOA. Tajikistan officially has the Iranian system, but actual practice is, at the moment, to issue VOAs even if you didn't apply on the e-visa site André Devecserii (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks André Devecserii! And what is the practice of Iran for people who do not apply through the website but arrive without a confirmation like before?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Twofortnights Not sure, but I read about one person who was about to be sent back but was let in after hotel staff convinced the visa officers André Devecserii (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Swedish ID card 2017.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Swedish ID card 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Afghanistan visa specimen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Afghanistan visa specimen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In the article Visa requirements for Dominican Republic citizens

Hi Twofortnights, does not this count as a verifiable source for you? https://noticiassin.com/2018/03/dominicanos-podran-viajar-sin-visa-a-nicaragua/ Oli (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The link is broken, it doesn't lead to an article.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

What about this one?

https://www.listindiario.com/la-republica/2018/04/07/509597/no-tiene-visa-estos-son-los-paises-donde-los-dominicanos-pueden-viajar-solo-con-su-pasaporte?platform=hootsuite Oli (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this does not seem very reliable, it lists some of the countries where DR citizens need a visa as "no restriction destinations". Therefore it would be the best to have an official source, gob.ni, as a reference.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Afghanistan visa specimen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Afghanistan visa specimen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Hi. I think we should use the full name of the countries. Not USA, UAE, UK, St. Lucia and other. The only exception is DR Congo. Do you agree? --Norvikk (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I guess, I only shortened UAE in that table because it stretched the frame too much.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not the longest name. Precedent may be a problem in the future. It is possible to use compulsory transfer of a word on a following line where it is necessary. --Norvikk (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Democratic Republic of Congo

Central African Republic

Bosnia and Herzegovina

São Tomé and Príncipe

Saint Kitts and Nevis

United Arab Emirates

Antigua and Barbuda

Trinidad and Tobago

Visa requirements for Israeli citizens

Why did you cancel my edit? Wikiped201820 (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Because the link does not seem to mention a visa waiver for Israeli citizens as you claimed in your edit summary. It says "Nationals of Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Rep., Chad, Comoros, Congo, Congo (Dem. Rep.), Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe for a maximum stay of 90 days. " - no mention of Israel. --Twofortnights (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Take a look- Israel is mention in the 11th place in the tab Wikiped201820 (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly? Israel is not mentioned in the list, 11th country in the row is Congo.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.dei-benin.com/visa.php Wikiped201820 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It says that Israeli citizens who are holders of diplomatic, official and service passports are exempt.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Visa policy of Uganda (Condition for Somalia)

Hi. I checked Timatic and it did not list Somalia as countries eligible for visa on arrival. Instead, it lists that holders of non-biometric passports from Somalia are refused admission and transit. Would biometric passport holders have to obtain a visa in advance? I'm a bit confused.--Dunkroll 6 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It is very difficult to ascertain visa policies of some countries. Please see above User_talk:Twofortnights#Unclear_situations for various such situations that me and other users have been collecting. You can add this one to the list.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Visa requirement for the Chinese citizens of Macau

Hello,Twofornights,I am a Chinese citizens of Macau,therefore,I offen check for the visa information of Macau SAR passport.But I have found some mistakes about the information that you have signed:

• Seychelles:The government of the Republic of Seychelles has agreed to grant Macao SAR passport holders and travel card holders visa-free access to Seychelles for up to 30 days. The above arrangement took effect on February 23, 2007.

https://www.gov.mo/zh-hant/news/68530/

• Barbados:According to the visa requirements form of the Barbados government, Macau and Hong Kong are included in China as part of the visa-free scope of Barbados, but Wikipedia has not changed yet.

http://www.foreign.gov.bb/documents/foreign-policy/54-june-2012-visa-list-for-barbados/file

• Equatorial Guinea:There is an agreement on mutual visa exemption between Equatorial Guinea and China. This agreement also includes two special administrative regions, Hong Kong and Macao.

• Qatar:In August 2017, some people in Macao asked Qatar about visa information. The country responded that their visa-free policy for China applies to Macau because the nationality of the Macau SAR passport is Chinese.

http://bbs.qoos.com/viewthread.php?tid=1749302&extra=&page=56

I hope that all the above information can help you,and Please modify it as soon as possible.I absolutely do not have the willingness to damage the authority of Wikipedia, and finally thank you for your reading, and I hope you work well.

If you read this message, please reply as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentkpopme (talk • contribs) 03:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Also refer to the following website:https://test17089.wordpress.com/ vincentkpopme (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems Seychelles and Barbados should be changed. There is no reference to back up the claim on Equatorial Guinea and as for Qatar it's just a message board. --Twofortnights (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Twofortnights,I hope that all the above information can help you,By the way, the Chief Executive of Macao has granted all the necessary powers to the Chief of the Department of Administration and Justice to sign a mutual visa exemption agreement on behalf of the government of the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Republic of Kazakhstan,the visa policy of both parties will change in the future. http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/2018/15/ordem59_cn.asp Thank you for your reading, and I hope you work well. —- Vincentkpopme (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiStat 2017

WikiStat 2017 visa policy articles

more 300,000

more 200,000

more 150,000

more 100,00

more 85,000

more 70,000

more 55.000

more 40,000

more 25,000

more 10,000

more 5,000

less than 5,000

Hi! How are you? I think this info will be interesting for you. This is the wiki statistics for the visa policy articles in 2017. I used fuller data (with redirects).--Norvikk (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Most popular visa policy articles in 2017

• United States 355,387 [115]
• the Schengen 312,523 [116]
• India 219,169 [117]
• Russia 190,550 [118]
• Australia 186,141 [119]
• Malaysia 169,618 [120]
• China 167,510 [121]
• Canada 162,265 [122]
• Singapore 159,560 [123]
• Thailand 138,471 [124]

The least popular:

• Faroe Islands 1,102 [125] (created in September 2017)
• San Marino 2,023 [126] (created in October 2017)
• Monaco 2,103 [127] (created in October 2017)
• Vatican 2,199 [128] (created in October 2017
• Somaliland 2,745 [129]
• South Ossetia 3,956 [130]
• Congo 3,852 [131]
• Comoros 4,604 [132]
• Sierra Leone 4,944 [133]
• Transnistria 5,120 [134]

The Overseas articles:

• British 40,807 [135]
• French 26,021 [136]
• Dutch 15,114 [137]

WikiStatistics 2017 without Redirects [138] Total: over 7,200,000 viewings

Most popular visa requirements articles in 2017

WikiStat 2017 visa requirements articles

more 850,000

more 400,000

more 300,000

more 200,00

more 150,000

more 100,000

more 75.000

more 55,000

more 40,000

more 25,000

more 10,000

less than 10,000

• India 978,461 [139]
• United States 896,880 [140]
• Canada 428,540 [141]
• Malaysia 421,451 [142]
• China 378,696 [143]
• Australia 371,872 [144]
• U.K. 339,506 [145]
• Pakistan 330,846 [146]
• Russia 318,169 [147]
• Ukraine 300,846 [148]

The least popular:

• Sourh Ossetia 2,340 [149]
• EFTA nationals 2,581 [150] (created on March 2017)
• Transnistria 2,634 [151]
• São Tomé and Príncipe 3,211 [152]
• Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) 3,635 [153]
• Central African Republic 3,943 [154]
• Sovereign Military Order of Malta 4,069 [155]
• Equatorial Guinea 4,316 [156]
• Niger 4,590 [157]
• Estonian non-citizens 4,785 [158]

WikiStatistics 2017 without Redirects [159] Total: over 16,300,000 viewings

Hi! Thanks! That is really great, motivation to keep perfecting these articles for sure. Maybe it's time to start a WikiProject as well.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The unexpected article

Hi, have you ever heard of this article? [160]

Huge surprise! 15,585 viewers in 2017, 162 place from 214 [161] 8,556 in 2018 Jan-Jun [162] --Norvikk (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow interesting, I don't think I ever saw it? I guess it should be expanded to include both air crew and maritime crew as the rules are not the same, often the rules concern only specific companies even.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

changes as of July 1st

Dear Twofortnights,

Can you please make sure that as of tomorrow there are changes in the page of VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR CROATIAN CITIZENS regarding the UK, the Netherlands and Slovenia - freedom of movement full! Also, please put correct colors on the map. Thank you for your work!

MM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.46.104 (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Updates to the Visa policy of Armenia map

Tajikistan should be Visa Free (90 days), similar to the shades of Iran and Macao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.141.100 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Correcting Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens map

On that map Armenia's colour is visa-free, while on the section below it is stated that eVisa / Visa on arrival is required from Lebanese citizens.

Romania, Moldova and Colombia are listed as eVisa, but the links from the websites of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of respective countries state, that Lebanese citizens are required to obtain a visa beforehand at embassies/consulates. [163] [164] [165].

Hi. Fixed the table.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Visa policy of Myanmar

Hello Twofortnights,Myanmar will grants free visa for some Asian citizens soon,Chinese is one of them,although they did not explicitly point out that the scope of visa exemption includes Hong Kong and Macao, the official website of the Myanmar government did not see that the e-visa policy implemented by the Burmese government did not include Hong Kong and Macao, but it was clearly stated on Wikipedia that Hong Kong and Macao were covered by the e-visa policy.On Wikipedia, all visa information about countries around the world is subject to IATA supervision and authority.,it means that Myanmar's e-visa policy is for Chinese citizens including Hong Kong and Macao people.Does this mean that the Myanmar government’s visa-free treatment for China also applies to Hong Kong and Macao?

Thanks for your reading,good luck with your work!

Please reply me as soon as possible.

https://evisa.moip.gov.mm/noticetotourists.aspx

vincentkpopme (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It's hard to tell, we've seen Governments take different approaches regarding HK and Macao passports. Hopefully Myanmar Government will give an official explanation.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cypriot identity card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cypriot identity card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unusual case about Visa policy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Hi! For Visa policy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, there's something unusual about Taiwan [166] and Palestine [167]. It doesn't say that these territories are exempt but it still lists "Extension of stay possible for visitors eligible for the 1 month visa exemption." Timatic doesn't list them as exempt at all. I tried to check some other sources but I can't seem to find anything. Could those websites be glitched?--RoboTitan28 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Usually there are glitches regarding such territories. When you have countries saying "citizens of all countries except x" don't need a visa, it doesn't necessarily mean that Palestinian passports are recognized, the same goes for "citizens of all countries can obtain visa on arrival". If they are not mentioned explicitly then it should say N/A.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Updates 2019

• Cape Verde visa-free expansion 1 January 2019 text / map
• Ukraine VoA until 1 Jan text / map
• Maps without eVisa/voa map

--Wikivisa (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

without a title

Hi. Please pay attention. --109.252.45.173 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

1. Cambodia eVisa. [168] On the website there are no restrictions for citizens of 10 countries. Timatic says banning the issuance of electronic visas for Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh and others. I think timatic is wrong. I filled out the form as a citizen of Afghanistan, reached the moment of payment. No problem. I asked on the website in the livechat section. - no answer. MFA - no info [169]. Unclear situation.

Hm. Another one I will now add to User_talk:Twofortnights#Unclear_situations.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

2. VP of Russia. The page has limitations for editing without an account. The page hasn't been attacked in a long time. How to cancel this restriction?

I am not sure? It doesn't seem to be locked for editing, just some odd restriction in place but I am not sure how that works.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

3. Renaming. Page for citizens of St. Lucia is called VR for Saint Lucian citizens (not Saint Lucia citizens). I think that's right. I suggest renaming the page VR for Saint Kitts and Nevis citizens - VR for Kittitians and Nevisians citizens. The government website uses this name. [170] I can't rename this page without an account.

We can't say "Kittitians and Nevisians citizens" in English, it can be either "Kittitians and Nevisians" or "Saint Kitts and Nevis citizens". We can however say "Kittitian and Nevisian citizens" but in that case Saint is dropped. What do you think about that?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

4. VP St. Kitts and Nevis for Omani. Government site says visa free [171] Timatic says no. Unclear situation.

I will try to find out more.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

5. Template:Visa policy by country MERCOSUR and ASEAN are highlighted in a separate line. I think this is a huge mistake. These are economic and political associations. They do not have a common visa policy. Thus, many political, economic and customs unions can be distinguished. This is wrong. I can't edit this page without an account.

I agree, I don't understand why they were listed together.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

6. I can't do mass editing because almost every edit needs to be confirmed by typing in a spam code. It's tiring. Also I can't edit maps without an account. Sorry. And thanks for your help.

No problem, you are welcome!--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

7. Rwanda. I'm guessing the news sites misrepresented the information. Perhaps the Cabinet has ratified the agreements. We know the three agreements (China, Mozambique -dip/ser, St.KittsNevis). This source only refers to diplomatic and service passports. [172] --109.252.43.147 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope it will soon be on official pages or Timatic so that we can know for sure.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

8. Hi. Australia- eVisa. A few years ago we removed Australia as a country with a evisa from the all VR maps. This is the only country that is not marked on the maps. E-visa is not a simplification of the visa regime. E-visa is a simplification of the process of submission of documents for consideration of the request. Each country has its own set of documents, somewhere it is several forms, somewhere a huge package of documents and certificates. To obtain a visa-the Same package of documents in paper or electronic form, then there is the processing of the package and a decision - a paper sticker or an e-mail with a bar code. Just a simplification of the process, but the process is not changed in its essence. Australia requires a large package, but it's still an electronic visa. I believe Australia should be painted on the maps again as an e-visa country. Now Australia is the only country that has an electronic visa and is not painted on the VR maps. This is a distortion of the essence, if we note the e-visa on the maps, it should be done for all countries with e-Visa without exception. What you think? --109.252.43.147 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think not because for other countries there is a clear distinction between visa and eVisa, it's never one and the same thing that can be obtained as a sticker in consulate or online. For Australia it's the only country that has the same visa, its 600 visitor visa, that can be obtained by submitting documents in person or electronically. But doesn't change the fact that it's not a different visa. Australian eVisa is called ETA (that's definite) and then there is some disagreement over the nature of its eVisitor system because by all means it is an eVisa system but both Australia and the EU officially claim it's not a visa at all.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

9. Hi. Senegal changed visa policy again. Visa free/voa. --109.252.43.147 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added them to the list of issues. They keep changing data on Timatic.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

10. Hi. Could you please change the table for the VR for Ukranian. Qatar 90/18 and Senegal voa 90. Changes are possible only with an account. Thanks. --109.252.45.190 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no problem.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

11. Hi. Could you please change tables for VR for Ukranian and VR for US. Swaziland –> Eswatini. Changes are possible only with an account. Thanks. --109.252.43.152 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, done.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

12. Hi. I need an advice. Ethiopia eVisa/voa. Which option is preferable? --109.252.45.226 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Country	Visa requirement	Allowed stay	Notes (excluding departure fees)
Ethiopia	eVisa / Visa on arriva	up to 90 days / 3 months	eVisa holders must arrive via Addis Ababa Bole International Airport. Visa on arrival only at Addis Ababa Bole International Airport.
Ethiopia	eVisa / Visa on arriva		eVisa holders must arrive via Addis Ababa Bole International Airport. eVisas are available for 30 or 90 days. Visa on arrival up to 3 months only at Addis Ababa Bole International Airport.
Ethiopia	eVisa / Visa on arriva	up to 3 months	Visa on arrival only at Addis Ababa Bole International Airport. eVisa holders must arrive via Addis Ababa Bole International Airport. eVisas are available for 30 or 90 days.

13. I suggest adding the “Other " section to the table. For article Visa requirements for crew members. This article has its readers. 01.01.2018 - 27.11.2018 · 19 912 views. We must stop ignoring this article and include it in the register. What you think?--109.252.45.226 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think either eVisa or VoA have preference but most African VR maps have not been updated to include this optional group so it's either or as you choose. As for the length of stay info I guess "up to 90 days" covers all those options?--Twofortnights (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I will change the articles - up to 90 days - for “Allowed stay”

Transcluded section for “Notes“. --109.252.45.226 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

For crew members, I think it should be added but not necessarily as another column. I would add it the same way as information on diplomatic or service passports - Visa_requirements_for_Russian_citizens#Non-ordinary_passports as another section.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I mixed up the template. Visa requirements Template - of course. --109.252.45.226 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to include it in the template under other.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

14. Hi. What type of passport is an emergency passport? Ordinary or service category passport? 109.252.44.236 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It should be ordinary, it's the passport obtained in last minute situations for example British emergency passport or Dutch emegency passport. It's mostly similar with a travel document--Twofortnights (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed VP of UK. Please make changes if the information is not correct. Thank you very much. 109.252.44.236 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Vatican passports are a bit different. They are usually issued to foreign nationals serving in Vatican and have a status of diplomatic passports - [173] or service passports for dicastery under-secretaries, members of the clergy or lay persons who regularly travel in the course of service - [174]. There is also a temporary service passport template [175] which is I guess the Vatican equivalent of emergency passport that they are referring to. Swiss guard members and such get regular passports as they are regular citizens - [176]. In general for the UK if you check for any nationality you will get "You won’t need a visa to come to the UK on official government business for your country if you’re a serving government minister.". So high ranking diplomats on official business do not require a visa. It does not apply to all diplomatic passport holders. But no Vatican passport holder requires a visa anyway - [177] The page you linked to is a web archive from 10 years ago.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.109.252.44.236 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

15. Hi. I added Politics template to the visa articles. I am convinced that this is the right step. Visa policy is part of a foreign policy of a state. The template allows you to go directly to other articles about the policy. I add a foreign section to the templates if it is missing. The template complements a visa article. Thanks. --109.252.44.236 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OK but make sure that those templates actually include links for visa policy articles. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mexican passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mexican passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Cambodia

Hi dear buddy,

Cambodia gives e-Visa to Iranians. I have myself granted an e-Visa from Cambodia by this Iranian passport. Do not you want to see ya!?

Anyways, Iran is already in the e-Visa country lists on its e-Visa portal: https://www.evisa.gov.kh/

P.S. IATA states Iranians can grant a VOA and e-Visa: https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/KH-Cambodia-passport-visa-health-travel-document-requirements.htm Please follow the instruction and insert Iran there and see the result!

The other source Timatic website however shows contradiction which I do not care. IATA website has the superiority! P.S.S. It is no data about the exclusion of day trip to Cambodia by those other nationals. I did not find this tab even on Timatic so I made fundamental changes in the article of "Visa Policy of Cambodia".

Please write here before making new edits to at least the article of "Visa Requirements for Iranian Citizens" until we reach a solution, because I will revert the changes again. Regards Milad Mosapoor (talk) 14:47, 03 Nov 2018 (GMT)

No it doesn't, you are claiming your data is coming from IATA and this is the screenshot of IATA Timatic service info on Cambodia - https://i.imgur.com/TYnoAjW.jpg which clearly states that Iran is not eligible for eVisa and Iran is not listed among VoA eligible countries. You also don't seem to understand that Timatic is a web service of IATA, not "the other source" that you "do not care" about and to which you consider IATA to be " the superiority!". And no I do not wish to see your supposed eVisa, in fact I wish that you would read WP:NOR as it says - Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.. That's a Wikipedia policy which is something that is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. If you reinsert false information to the article I will have to tag it as a disputed article containing original research.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

First, I have to revert the article "Visa Requirements for Iranian Citizens" since I wrote earlier "do not change that until we reach a solution".

Second, it is already mentioned that Iranians are both eligible for VOA and e-Visa in this link of IATA: https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/KH-Cambodia-passport-visa-health-travel-document-requirements.htm Please follow the instruction and insert Iran there and see the result! I have already made an easy photo for you here: http://uupload.ir/files/2qh_iata.jpg Regards Milad Mosapoor (talk) 16:33, 03 Nov 2018 (GMT)

Hi. OK as you wish, I will tag the article as disputed now, and the discussion may continue on the article talk page.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Twofortnights. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming

Country	Type of change	Text	Maps
Cape Verde	Visa-free expansion - 1 Jan 2019	Done	Done
Ukraine	Visa on arrival termination - 1 Jan 2019	Done	Done
Pakistan	ETA	Done	Done
Pakistan	eVisa	Done	Done
Saudi Arabia	eVisa	Done	Done
Madagascar	eVisa	Done	Done
Thailand	eVisa
Iran	eVisa
Tunisia	eVisa
Laos	eVisa	Done	Done
Liberia	eVisa
South Africa	eVisa
Japan	eVisa
Tanzania	eVisa	Done	Done
Equatorial Guinea	eVisa
Botswana	Visa on arrival expansion
Thailand	Visa-free expansion - 14 April 2019	Done	Done
Thailand	Visa on arrival expansion - 14 April 2019	Done	Done
Uzbekistan	Visa-free expansion - 1 Feb 2019	Done	Done
Uzbekistan	eVisa expansion - 1 Feb 2019	Done	Done
Sudan	VoA fix	Done	Done
Oman	VoA phase out
Vietnam	eVisa expansion	Done	Done
North Macedonia	renaming		Done
Sri Lanka	Visa-free expansion - 1 May 2019
Uganda	Check
Suriname	eVisa	Done	Done
Suriname	E-Tourist Card	Done	Done
New Zealand	ETA	Done	Done
Brazil	Visa-free expansion - 17 June 2019	Done	Done
Mongolia	Conditional VoA	Done	Done
Congo	eVisa
Sierra Leone	VoA	Done
Barbados	Visa-free expansion	Done	Done
Namibia	VoA	Done
Papua New Guinea	eVisa expansion	Done	Done
Chad	eVisa
Belarus	eVisa
Uzbekistan	Visa-free expansion - 1 January 2020	Done	Done
Haiti	Update
Senegal	Update
Kazakhstan	Visa-free expansion	Done	Done
Haiti	Visa restrictions
Guinea	eVisa
Suriname	VoA phase out	Done	Done
United Kingdom	Brexit

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you very much for the settlement of problems!--83.220.237.156 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Twofortnights (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Visa policy of Uzbekistan

Hi! Uzbekistan from February 1, 2019 cancels visas for 45 countries. Also increases the list of 76 countries that can enter with an electronic visa. Could you add this to the article and the map? Thanks! Akhemen (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Working on it. Thanks for the info.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Djibouti visa policy

The visa on arrival is still available. The faq #21 of eVisa page is not correct. It's "as of" May 1, 2018.

Here is the picture of my visa on arrival. It's issued at the airport.

I just traveled to Djibouti 2 months ago and successfully applied the visa on arrival at the airport. Before I traveled, I had emailed to the Djibouti embassy in Japan and Djibouti Office of Tourism. Both confirmed visa on arrival was available. --Parinya71 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I see but including this in the article would be a violation of the WP:NOR. The official source says that "no visas will be issued at the airport or any other border point as of May 1, 2018.". And we don't know why your visa was issued at the airport, maybe you have a diplomatic passport, maybe it was pre-arranged, maybe it was issued under a different set of rules, we simply don't know and have no way of verifying.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I just found a source from Djibouti Office of Tourism for your consideration. https://guide.visitdjibouti.dj/formalites-dentree/ --Parinya71 (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Djibouti Visa on arrival page from Office of Tourism 1.jpg

Orphaned non-free image File:Slovenian passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Slovenian passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Visa Policy of China

Hello, I'm Liberty Pedia. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Visa policy of China have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Please stop reverting recklessly without any references or with outdated sources!

There is no visa-free access for Bangladeshi citizens to China. There are some false media reports but please check the website of the Chinese embassy in Dhaka for further information - [178]. The visa exemption applies only to holders of diplomatic and official passports. There is also a possibility to collect visas on arrival in urgent cases which is what the articles you linked to describe.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The website of the Chinese embassy in Bangladesh is outdated, as indicated by the issue dates of the embassy documents. You must be confused. Visa exemption and visa on arrival are two entirely different things. Regular or ordinary passport holders of Bangladesh do not get a visa exemption or "visa free access" when entering China. Instead they get a 30 day "port entry visa" or a visa on arrival issued at the Chinese port of entry after arriving in China. No prior Chinese visa is required before travelling to China. This is a recent development which occurred after the signing of a bilateral agreement between Bangladesh and China in October 2018. It came into force in November 2018. What makes you say "there are some false media reports?" Have you verified any of them? --Liberty Pedia (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to debate your original research here. There have been no agreements on visa-free access to China that you mention, otherwise you would provide a valid official source to back it up. The only truth is that there is no visa-free or visa on arrival access for Bangladeshi citizens to China except for emergency visa on arrival which is issued to anyone anyway if the conditions are met. Emergency humanitarian visa on arrival is not the same thing as a common visa policy for all travelers. Whether Bangladeshi tabloids made huge headlines out of this is irrelevant, you need to do more research, past the headline, before including things to an encyclopedia. And yet you keep bizarrely adding Bangladesh to the list of countries with visa-free access to China - [179], while at the same time claiming here that "Regular or ordinary passport holders of Bangladesh do not get a visa exemption or "visa free access" when entering China.". So what is it? In your edit you say it's visa-free. In your comment you say that it isn't visa-free. And then you add a reference to "back it up" which if you read it says " “The law stipulates that foreigners who need to enter China urgently for humanitarian reasons, or who are invited to enter China for urgent business or rush repair work, or have other urgent needs, or who are organised to visit China as tourists through Chinese travel agencies, may apply for port visas with the visa-issuing authorities entrusted by the Ministry of Public Security at the ports approved to issue port visas by the state council,”". I will consider as of this post that you have been sufficiently informed about the poor understanding of things and I will consider any further reinstating of this false information as ill intended editing. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me reiterate. Visa exemption and visa on arrival are two entirely different things. Regular or ordinary passport holders of Bangladesh do not get a visa exemption when entering China, instead they get a 30 day "port entry visa" or a visa on arrival issued at the Chinese port of entry after arriving in China. Unlike previously, no prior Chinese visa is required by Bangladeshis before flying or travelling to China nowadays, thanks to a bilateral agreement between the two nations. Perhaps this time you might get the point.

This is fiction not supported by any sources as of today.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My edits do not mention visa exemptions for Bangladeshis. Instead they mention visa on arrival only. This is also backed up by proper references. You cannot just make offhand remarks and disregard bilateral agreements between Bangladesh and China because, according to you, they were supposedly reported by so called "tabloids" and not the regular press. Your attempts at discrediting my additions, edits and references simply reveal your ulterior motives. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You just said " My edits do not mention visa exemptions for Bangladeshis. ". Well I am sorry but this link proves that you are lying. You added Bangladesh to the list of visa-exempt nationalities. And above you also specifically say that "no prior Chinese visa is required by Bangladeshis before flying or travelling to China" while in this paragraph you say that your edits "mention visa on arrival only". From all this I understand you are just trying to troll and annoy.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I was made aware of this conflict via WP:RFPP. I've checked out many of Liberty Pedia's edits and have come to the conclusion that they are misinterpreting sources.

For example, this edit misrepresents the source text: Chen Wei said this through a statement issued on the port visa system. “The law stipulates that foreigners who need to enter China urgently for humanitarian reasons, or who are invited to enter China for urgent business or rush repair work, or have other urgent needs, or who are organised to visit China as tourists through Chinese travel agencies, may apply for port visas with the visa-issuing authorities entrusted by the Ministry of Public Security at the ports approved to issue port visas by the state council,” the statement says. “The duration of stay for port visas shall not exceed 30 days. Bangladeshi citizens who are qualified and able to provide relevant supporting documents can apply for port visas at relevant Chinese ports,” according to the statement. It does not follow from the source text that Visa on arrival for Bangladeshi citizens who visit for tourism, business, medical care or other humanitarian grounds, as the edit states. One point of misinterpretation is that all tourists qualify; in reality, only tourists through Chinese travel agencies qualify.

This edit also misrepresents the source text, which is as follows: On Nov 22, the embassy said in a statement that Bangladeshi citizens who are qualified and able to provide relevant supporting documents can apply for Chinese visa on arrival at its ports. It also laid out criteria for the visa on arrival at its ports that apply to foreigners, including Bangladeshis. The eligibility includes foreigners who need to enter China “urgently for humanitarian reasons, or who are invited to enter China for urgent business or rush repair work, or have other urgent needs, or who are organised to visit China as tourists by Chinese travel agencies”. It does not follow that Visa on arrival for Bangladeshi citizens who visit for tourism, business, medical care or other humanitarian grounds, as written in the edit.

While these sorts of edits may be initially unintentional, failure to rectify such behavior is considered disruptive editing and is grounds for sanction, such as a block. @Liberty Pedia: please consider this a formal warning to be more careful when using source material. Continued disruption through source misrepresentation could lead to a temporary block. Airplaneman ✈ 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Thank you for your interest in this edit war! Unlike previously, no prior Chinese visa is required by Bangladeshis before flying or travelling to China nowadays, thanks to a bilateral agreement between the two nations. This is a recent development which occurred after the signing of the bilateral agreement between Bangladesh and China in October 2018. It came into force in November 2018 after both governments ratified it. My references clearly mention this (Ref 1 & Ref 2). Before November 2018, Bangladeshis had to obtain a visa before being allowed to fly or travel to China (Ref 3). But now all Bangladeshi passport holders get a Visa On Arrival at the Chinese port of entry – also known in China as a Port Entry Visa – without having to obtain a visa beforehand. The only supporting document required by Bangladeshis after arriving in China is the Invitation Letter from the Chinese company inviting the businessman or the Invitation Letter from the Chinese Tour Operator arranging the tour. Instead of issuing threats of permanent blocks or temporary blocks against me, if you had only checked the last disruptive edit of Twofortnights on the Wikipedia page "Visa requirements for Bangladeshi citizens," you would have noticed that the references are improperly formatted! Perhaps you can get Twofortnights to fix these issues instead of threatening me with blocks. Good day! --Liberty Pedia (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The source link you gave says "Wei said foreigners who need to enter China urgently for humanitarian reasons, or who are invited to enter the country for urgent business or other needs, or are set to visit China as tourists, facilitated by Chinese travel agencies, are eligible." and yet you still insist there is a VoA for "all Bangladeshi passport holders" which is a complete and obvious falsification. What's the point?--Twofortnights (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Liberty Pedia: Yes, I did check the three references you cited, and I also reviewed all of the edits in this conflict. Took me about an hour. My warning stands: continuing to misrepresent sources is considered disruptive editing, which will result in a block to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Airplaneman ✈ 21:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:RFPP request for Visa requirements for Bangladeshi citizens

Hey Twofortnights, I've procedurally declined your page protection request. Page protection (we would need full protection in this case) is usually considered too heavy-handed if the conflict involves just two users. Full protection is generally reserved for disputes where three or more editors cannot agree. The edit-warring noticeboard might be a more appropriate venue for this kind of stuff in the future. That being said, there's no need to start all over again there. I'm just going to investigate this dispute now and see if there's any action I can take. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks Airplaneman. Please have a look at the recent history of Visa policy of China as well for further insight and the conversation right above. In couple of words the emergency visa issuance for humanitarian reasons is being confused with a full visa-free regime. I am aware of the titles in Bangladeshi press but even in those articles it's quite obvious there is no visa-free policy and that the emergency visa issuance seems to apply to most nationalities (and perhaps Bangladesh was restricted in some way before although it is difficult to confirm). There is no reference backing up any visa-free agreement between the two countries. A blurb of this policy "Visa can be issued on arrival for those who need to enter China urgently for humanitarian reasons or have other urgent needs. Relevant supporting documents must be provided." should be sufficient for the article Visa requirements for Bangladeshi citizens IMO.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a look and responded above. If I happen to not log in for a few days and there continues to be trouble, please take a look at WP:DDE.

On a separate note, I strongly encourage you to archive your talk page. It's a bit cumbersome to navigate at the moment due to its size. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 02:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this proper response.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Visa policy of Azerbaijan and Visa requirements for Chinese citizen of Hong Kong’s photo problem

Azerbaijan let Hong Kong citizen have electronic visa, but your photo hasn’t updated please change Azerbaijan as light green 維多利亞-伊恩 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Image from Singaporean passport

Hi there. Can you please provide a clear link to the image in this edit so I can check that it corresponds to a passport issued in Singapore? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I already linked to it - [180] but if you can't open it that way just go to the image file and look under File history. The image clearly shows stamps on these two pages - [181]. In addition it is an own upload of a Singaporean user.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Enough for me, thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Please revert move from Visa requirements for Macedonian citizens to Visa requirements for North Macedonian citizens

Hello, please revert your move. The adjectival use, nationality and other topics will be debated in a proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. While officially the name of the state is changed, the official nationality is Macedonian / citizen of North Macedonia. Thanks in advance. --FlavrSavr (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure I understand what you are saying and the policy seems to be still under development. Since the country recently changed names I think it only makes sense to call its citizens North Macedonian citizens, for example Visa requirements for North Korean citizens or Visa requirements for South African citizens. But since I am not an expert on this subject I will accept the other name you proposed and move the article to Visa requirements for citizens of North Macedonia.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Haitian passport

Haitian passport holders do not need visas to get into Hong Kong for 14 days[182]. Please carefully check the reference before removing what I added on the article of Visa requirements for Haitian citizens. Thanks. 2607:FEA8:BC9F:F4C8:A477:B976:E2A3:4728 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Hong Kong needs to be added to a separate table like in other articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A separate table has been made for Hong Kong. But why did you remove it instead? why didn't you create a separate table and put Hong Kong in it? Please respect other editors' effort. 2607:FEA8:BC9F:F4C8:A852:8E96:3A66:8E25 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And I guess I could ask the same questions.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Visa policy of Saudi Arabia

Dear User:Twofortnights, you undid my edit in Visa policy of Saudi Arabia without mentioned reasons. The new information is notable with a credible source, it is about a new special visa designated for events in Saudi Arabia. Please provide your reason for deleting the new edits so we can discuss more about it.

Thank you Jaseromer (talk)Jaseromer —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jaseromer: - Hi. I already did, I said the information you are trying to add is a direct duplication of what we already have in the article under Visa_policy_of_Saudi_Arabia#Reform_plans where it says "On 2 March 2019, Saudi Arabia announced a new visa category that will be issued for foreign visitors to attend sport, entertainment and business events in the country.".--Twofortnights (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

visa requirements for Turkish citizens - Laos

hi, I don't know why you undid my edit. There is no visa on arrival for ordinary passport holders in Laos. Recently a diplomatic visa exemption agreement was signed for diplomatic passport holders but a visa is still required for ordinary passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furkthevagabond (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Furkthevagabond . Because Turkish citizens are now eligible for visa on arrival - [183] That's a new policy since November. And in addition to that there is a visa-free agreement for diplomatic passport holders. --Twofortnights (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No we are not and you can't give an inaccurate news page as a reliable resource. I checked the Turkish foreign ministry's website and IATA and visa is required for ordinary passports. I also checked the Turkish news and the recent agreement is only for diplomatic passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furkthevagabond (talk • contribs) 22:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So unless you can provide a reliable resource (and save me from 50 dollars as I will visit Laos soon) please edit the visa information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furkthevagabond (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Furkthevagabond. I am so sorry that you consider Anadolu Agency, the main news agency of Turkey, to be unreliable. But by definition it is reliable so we will have to take their word over yours that the visa policy has been updated.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you have no idea about press freedom in Turkey or the quality of it. I don't care if you re-edit it or not as it has no effect on my life but that visa information is incorrect and you obviously can't provide any reliable resource eg from an embassy or foreign ministry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furkthevagabond (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

British passport

With regards to this edit, the new British Citizen passport has the same design as that of the BN(O) passport – their front covers are the exact same. st170e 18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I guess in that case that should be clearly stated. Something like Depicted BNO passport has identical design features as the new British citizen passport or something like that.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering the front covers are the same, I think the caption should be something like: British Citizen passport (March 2019 series) and British National (Overseas) passport. The only difference between the two passports is the citizenship category on the bio-data page, but the image doesn't show that. st170e 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that wording seems OK too.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Visa policy map of Brazil

Hi, I noticed that you uploaded a new version of the visa policy map of Brazil, and the only differences are Moldova and the shade of green. However, the visa waiver agreement with Moldova is still in the process of ratification with no expected date to take effect. Was your intention only to change the shade of green? If so, please mark Moldova as gray. Thanks. Heitordp (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Heitordp. Thanks for the heads up, I will change Moldova back to grey, my mistake.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Twofortnights

Twofortnights is to Wikipedia what Einstein is to Physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.59.199 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect colour scheme for the "Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens" map for Egypt

Hey @Twofortnights:, I hope you've been doing well. I just wish to bring your attention to the fact that on the "Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens" map, Egypt is coloured grey; however on IATA and the Wikipedia article on the visa policy of Egypt, both indicate that Singaporeans can receive a visa on arrival (hence it should be coloured light green). Seeing as you are the main maintainer of the visa maps, I came to you (I don't really know how to edit the maps myself yet).

Additionally, on the "Visa policy of Egypt" map, Malaysia is coloured pale green, but should be coloured green as its citizens do not need a visa to visit Egypt. You might also want to edit that map.

Cheers! JaventheAldericky (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @JaventheAlderick:! Thanks for pointing this out, I will look into it definitely.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Possible shared account/paid editing?. --194.207.146.167 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Henley Passport Index/The Passport Index. Thank you. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove ETIAS

Can you explain why did you remove ETIAS?

I think it's obvious but OK, you were adding links to a fraud website through references.--Twofortnights (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Visa policy of Sierra Leone

Hi. Please pay attention to the discrepancy between the info of IATA and the Public notice of Ministry of Internal Affairs. IATA might have misinterpreted "Commonwealth".
Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth of Independent State.

Could you please add Luxembourg on the map. Sorry, I can't help with a massive update.

Have a nice day. --83.220.239.143 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It seems like Timatic made a mistake indeed. I will go ahead and remove those countries from the main table and the map. No official website from Sierra Leone has been updated yet but in case they add those countries we will place them back.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Visa requirement for algerians citizens

Why do you keep reverting stuff like the passport covers Nasro19dz (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Nasro19dz, Because the image you inserted is a drawing of a passport. You replaced an image of an actual passport with an artistic depiction of it which makes no sense. If we have the real passport image why would we use an artist's impression?--Twofortnights (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Saudi visa policy map is missing New Zealand!

Thanks for the changes, but you seem to have missed old NZ in the map.--Nay1989 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You are right, thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, good sir! I also urge you to remove Taiwan from the evisa/voa countries because it isn't on the list of eligible countries on visitsaudi.com or TIMATIC.--Nay1989 (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jamaican passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jamaican passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

About Visa requirements for Ecuadorian ctitzens

Dear Twofortnights: I am starting using Wikipedia and i want to get to know why did you delete Galápagos in Visa Requirements. As you put Puerto Rico in United States i put Galápagos in Ecuador. Greetings from Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejitao123 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for pointing this out. I have now removed PR and USVI from the visa requirements for US citizens article.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Visa policy of East Timor for Indonesian

Hi twofortnights,

Just to let you know that Indonesian passport holder can already enter East Timor without visa for 30 days. This changes has been in force since the end of September 2019. IATA record in this matter is outdated. So far there seems to be no official statement in English language from Easst timor authorities (maybe there is in Portugese or in Tetum, but I don't speak both languages), and their immigration office website is not updated very often, but this change in the visa regime has been confirmed by Indonesian immigration office in Kupang on their official twitter account (In Bahasa Indonesia, unfortunately) and also by a member of the Indonesian national Parliament Mr Fadli Zon in his official twitter. Can you please update the wiki page of Visa policy of East Timor and also Visa requirements for Indonesian citizens to reflect this change?

All the Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blasty3 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you so much for keeping the Wiki pages for visa requirements updated regularly! This is an amazing work and I know thousands of people are grateful for all our helpful work! Ayeshrajans (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your appreciation Ayeshrajans!--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

eVisa eligibility of Hong Kong and Macau

The general rule of eVisa eligibility is the website only mention China, however it shows in IATA https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?SpecData=1&VISA=&page=visa&NA=HK&AR=00&PASSTYPES=PASS&DE=GN&user=GF&subuser=GFB2C and https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?SpecData=1&VISA=&page=visa&NA=MO&AR=00&PASSTYPES=PASS&DE=GN&user=GF&subuser=GFB2C https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?SpecData=1&VISA=&page=visa&NA=TW&AR=00&PASSTYPES=PASS&DE=UZ&user=GF&subuser=GFB2C https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?SpecData=1&VISA=&page=visa&NA=MO&AR=00&PASSTYPES=PASS&DE=UZ&user=GF&subuser=GFB2C which is also eligible for the two territories. Someone misunderstood the issue and try to vandalize the related page. Please look into the problem and reverted to a correct version.Shillart (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens 2019

Dear Twofortnights, you have now reverted my contributions twice in the above-mentioned article, and as an experienced wikiuser, you know better than anyone that this kind of behavior that doesn't include any explanation is to say the least annoying. Servitas Vitae (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mouath14. I thought the reason was obvious, but here it goes. The source you link to doesn't back up the claim that Tunisian citizens do not require a visa for South Africa. It clearly says it is just an announcement and that "The date of implementation of this decision will be decided and communicated after the two countries have agreed on a date." (La date de mise en œuvre de cette décision sera décidée et communiquée après que les deux pays se seront mis d’accord sur une date). Hope you understand now.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, now i understand the reason behind your revert, however, would you state the same "reason" for the country of Equatorial Guinea ? Since the Tunisian Foreign Affairs already announced taking the necessary steps for allowing EG's citizens to enter the Republic of Tunisia "under the condition of reciprocity". Ministry's webpage in Arabic Servitas Vitae (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

For as long as it's just an announcement it doesn't apply. Reliable sources should be checked regularly for both countries to see if the implementation has commenced.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan visa policy for US passport holder

Since the page is for "Visa requirements for United States citizens", the reference should be based on either US or Taiwan governmental policy or website. From US Department of State website:( https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Taiwan.html), you can clearly find Taiwan in "country information" and is not required for Visa. Thus, listing Taiwan in China visa tab is incorrect and has no supporting evidence or appropriate citation from either US or Taiwan government. I believe Taiwan should be removed from China's visa requirement tab. I understand you devoted a good amount effort in reviewing and maintaining all visa related pages and I really appreciate these efforts. I believe you will agree that all information provided on the this page for US passport holder should be based on US or corresponding government. This is the only way we can prevent misleading or false information disseminating to Wiki users. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auhiy1224 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. There are 190+ articles in the series and the style is uniform. It has nothing to do with the US policy. Visa articles are not even attempting to determine the political status of Taiwan, I suggest focusing on this article - Political status of Taiwan for that purpose. Visa articles simply divide territories by objective criteria. So if a territory is widely regardes as disputed then this is how it is classified. This is no way suggests anything about the outcome of the political dispute, it merely stresses the fact that the status of a certain territory is disputed and that's all to it.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights, Thank you for your response and explanation. I'm not try to discuss or determine the political status of Taiwan since there might be some very different perspectives. Actually, I understand why Taiwan was listed in "Territories or administrative subdivisions" because the undetermined political status. However, I think we should still better remove Taiwan from China tab or edit it since it says "Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan do count as third countries under the 72 and 144-hours visa-free visit transit policy." but US citizen do not required VISA to visit Taiwan and according to "Taiwan Transit Policy" (https://www.roc-taiwan.org/ph_en/post/2788.html), US passport holders do not required transit visa no matter the hours. Thus, the statement "Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan do count as third countries under the 72 and 144-hours visa-free visit transit policy." is incorrect and misleading since US passport holders do not require visa to visit Taiwan and also do not require transit visa regardless the hours. Hopefully, we can provide some practical and legit information to Wiki users whoever visit this page. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auhiy1224 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point but still, a person might read that and decide to use the visa-free transit with a ticket to Taiwan via some city in PRC. What would happen is they wouldn't be able to do that and they wouldn't know because we had removed Taiwan from the policy note.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Even though this might be an uncommon case but I respect your idea and appreciate your time for maintaining all visa pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auhiy1224 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visa policy of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EEA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Recent changes" section on some Visa Requirements articles are excessively bloated - time for some standardisation?

Hey there Twofortnights, long time no talk. Hope you're doing well.

If you've kept up with my edits on Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens, you'll know that I occasionally trim the "recent changes" section by clearing out changes that took place more than two years ago. This prevents the section from getting excessively bloated and detracting from the main focus of these articles, which is the map and table.

I recently took a look at Visa requirements for Indian citizens, and it would seem as if the recent changes section in that article has ballooned beyond what is considered reasonable. The section takes up the entire screen and includes changes from as far back as 2013. I'm sure it's the same for a number of other visa req articles. Which necessitates the question: Should we mandate a set period of time for these changes to be displayed before they get removed to make way for more immediate changes? "Recent" is wholly subjective and is open to interpretation, so perhaps we could figure that out. Cheers! Regards, Tiger7253 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tiger7253. Thanks, how are you? I think I would just change the section title to historical information or something like that. It's not just the recent changes that can be of interest to readers, but also a historical perspective.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

US B visa validity

Hi, I noticed that you changed the legend of the B visa validity map, but that doesn't seem right. Some countries marked in red, such as the Republic of the Congo and São Tomé and Príncipe, have a validity of 6 months. Are you also planning to change the map? Also note that some countries have multiple validities depending on the issuance fee or specific B visa type. I thought that it was better to show in the map the maximum validity available for the general B-1/B-2 type, for example in that case Cuba would be 6 months, and no country has less than 3 months. Do you prefer to show the minimum validity instead? Heitordp (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Heitordp. I was looking at the table that says DRC and PNG have visa validity of 1 month and Comoros of 2. I may have missed something?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Twofortnights. These countries have more than one validity, depending on the issuance fee. DRC has 1 month for $150, or 3 months for $250. PNG has 1 month with no fee, or 1 year for $163. Comoros has 2 months with no fee, or 1 year for $307. There are a few others like this, Malawi even has 3 validities. When nationals of these countries apply for a US visa, they can choose which validity they prefer and pay the corresponding fee (see [184], step 8). In the map, I propose the following alternatives:

1. Color each country based on the maximum validity available.

2. Color each country based on the minimum validity available.

3. Create a new color for countries with variable validity.

4. Color all countries with validity up to 1 year in the same color, which would cover all variable validities.

Which way do you prefer? Heitordp (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. Not sure how to go about this, but it should be noted somehow.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a color to mark the variable validity (option 3 above) and adjusted the map legend. Heitordp (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bangladeshi passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British passport data page.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British passport data page.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean (on Venezuelans)

Hi there. I did some updates on the page regarding Venezuelan citizens who want to enter the Caribbean Netherlands. It must be understood that the visa requirement for Venezuelan citizens are temporary in response of the ongoing crisis and to control the influx of Venezuelans entering that country following the Venezuelan refugee crisis. Also, Venezuelans must apply that visa through VFS Global agency, not directly with the Dutch embassy according to the official government website. Thank you --cyrfaw (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Visa policy map

Just wanted to get in contact regarding how visa policy maps on Wikipedia are created? South Korea’s visa policy map is now outdated since it was their policy changed on the 13th of April. Any help would be more than appreciated. Ire96 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Holiday?

Your 5 months absence is getting me worried. We need you here. Hope it is just a break and that you'll be back with renewed energy. JMK (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Guinean passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Guinean passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Malian passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Malian passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bosnia and Herzegovina passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bosnia and Herzegovina passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Need information

Brizton (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "Country information (visa section)". Timatic. International Air Transport Association (IATA) through Olympic Air. Retrieved 1 April 2017. https://cms.olympicair.com/timatic/webdocsI/countryinfo.html

Please, do you have any information why this link does not work? Thanks

Orphaned non-free image File:Luxembourgish biometric passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Luxembourgish biometric passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Documento Nacional de Identidad (Spain).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Documento Nacional de Identidad (Spain).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Finnish identity card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Finnish identity card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maltese identity card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maltese identity card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Latvian identity card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Latvian identity card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Honduran passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Honduran passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Luxembourgish passport 2016.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Luxembourgish passport 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Luxembourgish identity card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Luxembourgish identity card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Passport of Djibouti.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Passport of Djibouti.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Fake

Claiming that he made the visa policy article of Mongolia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzyeon (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Mauritius passport

Good evening, I searched the owner of the file of the Mauritian passport. I would like to add this file (photo) to the next article: List of passports. If you're not the owner, I'll be glad if you'll be able to connect me with the owner. Adir David (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Adir David: That file identified as "non-free" by its intrinsic nature--the thing that was photographed. It's not up to the photographer or uploader. If there were possible that a free image could be made, we would not be allowed to have the non-free one at all. The rules on use of non-free images are quite strict. In particular, they cannot be used in galleries or "list of..." types of articles. DMacks (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yemeni passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yemeni passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Passport of Bahrain.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Passport of Bahrain.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Passport of Syria.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Passport of Syria.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dominica passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dominica passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cameroonian passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cameroonian passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello, @Twofortnights, I think that the changes you made to the visa policy of Azerbaijan with some countries are not correct because the countries you have added with free visas for Azerbaijan are located in the e-visa section, while the citizens of Azerbaijan can enter without visas in these countries, so it is a unilateral decision of these countries and not a bilateral agreement. There is also information on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, but also on the pages of the corresponding Foreign Ministries of, for example, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thank you Brizton (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Brizton. Thank you. The wording on the website of the Azerbaijan MFA is indeed unfortunate but I think they are trying to say for those countries, for example Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, that they unilaterally exempted citizens of Azerbaijan and that Azerbaijan reciprocated without a formal bilateral agreement. There are many other countries not requiring visas for Azerbaijan citizens but those are not listed on that page, it's just those countries where Azerbaijan decided to mirror the policy. In any case this is supported by IATA Timatic. If you look up the requirements for Montenegro citizens traveling to Azerbaijan it says under "Visa Exemptions" - "Nationals of Montenegro for a maximum stay of 90 days." and "Nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a maximum stay of 90 days.". You can check here - [185] --Twofortnights (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Twofortnights, I checked the link, but unfortunately it can't be trusted because it remains unupdated like Henley Index Passport, Passportindex.org, www.emirates.com, which claim to receive accurate data from IATA, but if you look, they have many inaccuracies in their data. I have written to them several times to update the information, but I have not received much feedback from them. Regarding the visa policy of Azerbaijan, I can say that they are very rigid and they are not very open to canceling visas without any bilateral agreement at a high level. For example, also for Serbia and Albania, which had removed the visas for the citizens of Azerbaijan many years ago, only recently they removed the visas with these two countries. (And this only happened with a high-level lobbying). I have also checked the two websites of the foreign ministries of Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina and both of them say that an online visa is required to enter Azerbaijan. Brizton (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Brizton. Thanks. I am not sure what are you referring to when you say Timatic IATA cannot be trusted because it is not updated? According to their page it says "We make on average around 70 updates per day in Timatic." (Source). I gave you the link through the Korean Air, because it's simpler to use, but it connects to the same IATA Timatic database, it even says © IATA at the bottom of the result page. I understand your analysis of the Azerbaijan visa policy, however we have the duty here to use only verifiable sources without original research. In reality you could be totally right, but also Azerbaijan may have changed their approach. In any case, their page and IATA suggest the same thing.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Similar case

Citizens of Saint Kitts and Nevis and citizens of Albania can move to each other without the need for a visa, for 90 days every 180 days. This was confirmed both by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania and the authorities of Saint Kitts and Nevis, as well as by travelers who have traveled to these countries, meanwhile on sites that provide information on travel and visa policies such as: emirates.com, koreanair.com, passportindex.org, it is said that in these countries you have to apply for an e-visa to enter!! What do you say to this case? Brizton. (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Brizton. Well, it depends. The "travelers who have traveled to these countries" - that is completely irrelevant as per both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. As for Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Albania and the authorities of Saint Kitts and Nevis - did they say this over the phone or through email or is this published on their websites? If it's just someone claiming they received this information from them (but they could have made it up or Photoshopped the evidence) then it's not verifiable and we can't use it, but instead we have to rely on their websites, even if they haven't updated them. If they did update them, this takes precedence over any other source. Please note that when you refer to emirates.com, koreanair.com etc. it's not actually those websites or companies that provide the data. It's IATA that gets information from national governments whose visa policies are in question. They specifically state that on their page, that they do not rely on websites as they are known to contain inaccuracies and that national governments can only be held to account (airlines face fines when they transport passengers without visas) for the information they provide directly to IATA. Given the 70 updates per day, there is a likely situation with some countries that have poor online presence, that the information on their websites would be seriously outdated and that we would have to also mention other sources and explain the discrepancy. This usually applies to countries with very few international visitors that rarely update their web portals in general. This would not be applicable to Albania and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Both countries rely on tourism a lot, and generally provide accurate and up to date information on their websites. I would be surprised if they provided information over the phone and through email which was different to what they provide on their websites, unless it was a change which took place in the past few days. Albania also publishes its official journal Fletorja Zyrtare online where any bilateral agreements would be published. This is what I found - [186] --Twofortnights (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Visa policy of Grenada

Cristiano Toàn (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC) I have added some countries in Grenanda's visa free list because I have looked here: https://grenadaembassyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Visa-Requirements-for-Grenada-final-UPDATED-April-2024-Approved1.pdf. Furthermore the United Kingdom should be listed separately because they already left the European Union

Hi Cristiano Toàn. Thanks. Please make sure to include the updated reference in the future because it seemed like you made edits without any source to back it up. I have now reinstated most of your additions, except for the UK which was already listed separately. I made it more prominent now.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Visa requirements for Albanian citizens

Hi, @Twofortnights, I made this change because the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs made the latest updates and data on the movement of citizens dated 23.08.2024 and it is said that Albanian citizens must be provided with a visa to go to the state of Guyana. (https://punetejashtme.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1-Regjimi-i-visave-per-shtetasit-shqiptare-23.08.2024.pdf)

This has now entered into force because a decision was taken on 17.07.2024 by the Albanian government to suspend the agreement (https://www.kryeministria.al/newsroom/vendime-te-miratuara-ne-mbledhjen-e-keshillit- to-the-ministers-date-July-17-2024/).

A part of the article about the suspension of the agreement in the media (...The sudden decision, the Albanian Government suspends the agreement for visa-free travel with the South American country. All Albanian citizens who travel to the country of Guyana in South America, either with diplomatic passport, service or ordinary passport, must first be equipped with a visa, writes newsbomb.al.

For unknown reasons, the Council of Ministers has accepted the request of Minister Igli Hasani for the suspension of the agreement with the state of Guyana, for exemption from visa requirements. The decision entered into force immediately this Wednesday and was ordered to be published in the "Official Gazette", but as newsbomb.al reports, the reasons that pushed the head of Albanian diplomacy, Igli Hasani, to request the adoption of this measure are not known. ..).

Meanwhile, the source of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Guyana that you received is from last year, so it is not updated, because I also saw it before making the changes, but the information above verifies what I have changed. Brizton (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Brizton, that is very useful. Could you please update the article to include those specific new references which show that this was actually a new decision? Also we need to update the articles on Guyanese citizens as well as both visa policy articles. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Visa requirements article ledes

Just a heads up–I noticed you rewrote the leading sentence of visa requirement articles to the format of Visa requirements for X are administrative entry restrictions by the authorities of other states that are imposed on Y. These sentences should be removed per MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:AVOIDBOLD. The lede does not need to be a definition, and in this case it should not. Northern Moonlight 02:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Northern Moonlight, thank you for reaching. Where did you notice this? Are you talking about articles intro style that has been around for 10+ years in all articles in the visa requirements series?--Twofortnights (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Where did you notice this?

Article history. See #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7. I can name more if you want.

that has been around for 10+ years

WP:BEENHERE: On Wikipedia, nothing is set in stone. If material is not suitable for Wikipedia according to the current standards, it will be deleted or corrected regardless of how old it is. Any text on any page is subject to change at any time, no matter how long it has been that way. If there is a good reason to remove long-standing text, the length of time it has been there should not be an obstacle.

Northern Moonlight 19:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Northern Moonlight. I was a bit confused with your wording that you noticed I rewrote something, I thought it was something recent, yet the links now show you are referring to edits from 2013. That was my point.

As you can see in those links, the first and third edit replaced an obviously inappropriate intro beginning with talk about Henley Passport Index which definitely cannot be a proper lede. The second and fourth edit introduced a lede where there was none at all. And so on, it's mostly the same, either there was no lede or there was a "According to Henley" and then an inline URL.

Feel free to suggest changes but we can't go back to pre 2013 article content, which was neither uniform in style nor appropriate from an Encyclopedic lede point of view.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean you did rewrite those sentences, just a very long time ago. I don’t blame you for not remembering them. To be clear, I’m not asking you to remove them–I just want to give you a heads up before doing it myself so you won’t be surprised. Northern Moonlight 21:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you remove ledes without seeking consensus on the article talk pages first, that will be reported and reverted. I just want to give you a heads up before so you won’t be surprised.

First, please note that Wikipedia operates on the principle of Consensus. These ledes have been in place for over a decade and are part of a consistent style across a series of nearly 200 related articles. Significant changes to this established content should be discussed and agreed upon by the community, especially when they affect a large number of articles with a uniform style.

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, every article on Wikipedia is required to have a lead section that provides a concise overview of the article's topic. Removing or significantly altering these ledes without proper discussion disrupts the structure and readability of the articles.

Additionally, on Wikipedia, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it. The current ledes appear to be functional, informative, and in line with Wikipedia's standards. Unilaterally removing them without a substantial reason goes against this reason, which discourages unnecessary changes to content that serves its purpose.

It's also worth noting that the content of these ledes from 10 years ago violated WP:ELNO and WP:ADS as they contained bare URLs that functioned as advertisements for a private company. The current ledes were part of a concerted effort to improve these articles and bring them in line with Wikipedia's policies. Removing them would undo this progress and potentially reintroduce content issues.

Finally, your actions could be considered WP:DE. While it's true that Wikipedia's content isn't set in stone, willfully removing well-established content without a clear consensus or compelling reason is not constructive and may be seen as disruptive editing or even WP:VD.

I therefore strongly encourage you to engage in discussion on the relevant talk pages before making further edits. This will ensure that any changes reflect the consensus of the community and maintain the integrity of the articles in line with Wikipedia rules.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s a lot of bad faith accusations here. I haven’t even touched any article and you immediately threw out WP:DE and WP:VD. I’ll remind you that accusing misconduct without evidence is the textbook definition of WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have actually read the policies you quoted, you would know that not even edit warring is considered vandalism. You immediately assumed the worst and decided to intimidate a fellow editor. I am here on your talk page discussing the change and you spent half a page accusing me of–and I’m not even making this up–not engaging in discussion. The long rant at the top of your talk page makes me think you own the visa articles (which you were warned before), but we’ll talk about that in another day.

You mass rewrote all the lede sentences, without prior discussion, and still managed to distance yourself from it (I thought it was something recent–in what world does “being old enough” mean “I didn’t rewrite it”?)

that will be reported and reverted

You already received two 3RR blocks before. If I were you, I would tread carefully and not revert before using the talk page.

a decade and are part of a consistent style across a series of nearly 200 related articles

How many of those rewrites are from you alone and decided by you? Can you point me to a discussion where we established using the “administrative” wording?

Furthermore... every article on Wikipedia is required to have a lead section that provides a concise overview of the article’s topic. Removing or significantly altering these ledes without proper discussion disrupts the structure and readability of the articles... Unilaterally removing them without a substantial reason goes against this reason, which discourages unnecessary changes to content that serves its purpose.

Good news! I am not removing them. I am rewriting them.

It’s also worth noting that the content of these ledes from 10 years ago

Where have I said I’m putting back the old lede?

The current ledes appear to be functional, informative, and in line with Wikipedia’s standards.

No it isn’t. This is literally in the first message I gave you. See MOS:REDUNDANCY:

Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title need not appear verbatim in the lead if it is descriptive.
For example:

Iraq–Pakistan relations are the relations between Iraq and Pakistan.

Iraq and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947.

Northern Moonlight 07:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Significant changes to this established content should be discussed and agreed upon by the community, especially when they affect a large number of articles with a uniform style.

I took a look at the all “administrative entry” changes of visa requirements. Out of the 206 changes, 156 are initialized by you and without a corresponding section on the talk page (see 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155). 18 edits were done by an account who is now blocked. Can you show me where you have built this consensus? Northern Moonlight 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You mention rewriting ledes rather than removing them, but it's important to remember that major changes to long-standing content—whether they are removals or rewrites—must be discussed with the community. Wikipedia operates on the principle of consensus, as noted in WP:CON. Changes impacting multiple articles and long-established content, especially across a series of articles with uniform style, should not be done unilaterally. The WP:BRD cycle also underscores this, with the emphasis on "Discuss."

While you state that you're not removing the ledes, rewriting them without prior discussion also constitutes a significant alteration. You should seek input from the community, especially when this involves 200+ articles, before proceeding with any changes. Failing to do so risks being seen as disruptive editing, particularly when consensus has not been sought or obtained.

Regarding your point about bad faith, this policy cautions against making accusations of bad faith without evidence, which I certainly aim to avoid. However, it is equally important to warn users proactively when there is a potential for disruption based on past behavior, and providing a heads-up about potential issues is acceptable and even encouraged. Your proposal to rewrite large portions of ledes that were developed over a decade ago warranted my response to ensure proper adherence to consensus-building.

Your reference to MOS is valid but should be applied carefully. The current ledes are in line with MOS, providing a succinct overview, and follow the guidance on being functional and informative. Ledes should not only avoid redundancy but also serve the purpose of introducing the article’s subject clearly and concisely. This has been achieved with the existing format, and any large-scale rewriting without clear reason and consensus would potentially disrupt readability and structure, which is why prior discussion is critical.

You brought up past 3RR blocks, but let's be clear: My actions, like any editor's, have to conform to Wikipedia policies, and I'm fully aware of WP:3RR and the importance of working collaboratively to avoid edit wars. My intention here is to prevent such situations by advocating for a discussion-driven approach, as I’ve always done. If you are proposing changes, I suggest opening a detailed discussion on the talk pages of the relevant articles before proceeding with edits.

Finally, regarding the claim that I "own" the articles—this is simply not the case. Wikipedia forbids editors from exerting ownership over any content on Wikipedia. My concern here is about preserving consistency, policy adherence, and the community-driven approach to editing that underpins Wikipedia. I have no desire to control these articles, only to ensure that changes are made appropriately, and I welcome collaborative input from others, including yourself.

I encourage you to start a Request for Comment (RfC) or open a more detailed discussion on the relevant talk pages. This would be the best path forward, allowing other editors to weigh in on the proposed changes and ensuring that whatever edits are made reflect a broader consensus.

Please keep in mind that we should all here to improve Wikipedia, and that process works best when we collaborate through respectful discussion and adhere to established guidelines. I look forward to seeing your contributions in that context.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Why does this read like something written by ChatGPT?

Let me repeat my question, you said Significant changes to this established content should be discussed and agreed upon by the community, especially when they affect a large number of articles with a uniform style. And you made 158 unilateral changes without prior discussion. You mentioned long-standing content as if it were a result from a spontaneous trend instead of mostly just one person. Can you show me where you have built this consensus? Northern Moonlight 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Your comment suggesting that my response "reads like something written by ChatGPT" is a form of casting aspersions. Accusations or insinuations about another editor's conduct, particularly without clear evidence, is disruptive and goes against Wikipedia's principles of collaborative editing. The WP:ASPERSIONS states it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.. Engaging in good faith discussions is essential for maintaining the constructive atmosphere that Wikipedia relies on. Instead of making baseless claims, I would encourage you to focus on addressing the content and policy-based arguments presented, as this will lead to a more productive discussion. If you have any concerns about the validity of the arguments, please refer to the specific policies or guidelines that apply. This will help keep the conversation constructive and focused on improving the encyclopedia, rather than on personal accusations. If you disagree, I’m willing to discuss this and your accusation in an alternative dispute resolution channel. Until you do that, consider this conversation over.

You're absolutely correct that significant changes should be discussed with the community. The edits you're referring to were made over a decade ago as part of a broader effort to improve and standardize these articles. While there wasn't a formal RfC at the time, these changes have stood for years without significant objection, which could be seen as a form of implicit consensus.

Regarding the long-standing content, your assertion that it is the result of a single person's work is inaccurate. The content has evolved over time through contributions from multiple editors, and the current state reflects the collective consensus of the community.

Your insistence on discussing diffs from 10 years ago in accusatory manner is unproductive and time-consuming. If you believe these edits are outdated or incorrect, you should provide specific evidence to support your claims. Without concrete examples, you seem to be here merely to harass me. I can only repeat that as per WP:AINT if there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it. I’d also like to highlight that Wikipedia is not a place for personal battles or grudges. Your approach, particularly with repeated questioning and insinuations, could be seen as verging on a battleground mentality. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia discussions are meant to be collaborative, civil, and focused on content, not on pursuing personal conflicts. As the policy outlines Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.. Repeatedly challenging edits that have been long-established without substantive policy-based reasoning can create an unnecessarily adversarial atmosphere, which is counterproductive to the collaborative spirit Wikipedia strives for. Instead of casting aspersions or pursuing a confrontational tone, the proper path forward is to address content issues calmly and engage in polite, constructive discussion.

Going through my edits to bring up dozens of my edits from 10 years ago could be seen as hounding, as described in the WP:HOUNDING. Wikipedia defines hounding as the act done with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. You have brought up many of my older edits without providing a clear policy-based reason for revisiting them, and this pattern of behavior—tracking and confronting me over edits made a decade ago—appears to align with the definition of hounding. This behavior is disruptive, not only to my ability to contribute constructively but to the collaborative environment Wikipedia strives to maintain. Hounding is not tolerated on Wikipedia because it disrupts the editing environment and can become a serious issue if done without constructive intent. The policy emphasizes that even if individual edits are not inherently disruptive, following another user around, especially with confrontational or tendentious behavior, can become problematic if it serves no constructive purpose. I urge you to focus on content improvements in line with Wikipedia's policies rather than continuing this personal focus on my past edits. If you believe there are legitimate content issues, discussing them in good faith on the relevant article talk pages is the appropriate way forward. Otherwise, this behavior can be considered a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on editor conduct.

Again, I can only suggest you start an RfC about the general format of the ledes of the visa requirement articles. Based on the outcome of that discussion, we can then work together to implement any agreed-upon changes across the article set.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Visa

Sorry but an "e-Visa" is more precise than just a "visa". In visa requirements terminology, when we see the category "visa required", it means visa in advance at a diplomatic mission (countries like Algeria, China, Sudan or Turkmenistan). Otherwise it is written "e-Visa", "visa on arrival" or "visa-free" (or something else). 109.164.195.131 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from with the distinction between "visa" and "e-Visa." However, it's important to clarify that the term "visa" is a broad category that encompasses all types of entry permissions, including those that can be obtained electronically (e-Visas), on arrival, or through traditional diplomatic missions.

An e-Visa is indeed a specific method of obtaining a visa, but it falls under the broader category of visas. When we use the term "visa required," it generally refers to the need for a visa of any kind before entering a country, whether that visa is obtained electronically, on arrival, or through other means.

Therefore, using the term "visa" is accurate and comprehensive because it includes all the methods by which a visa can be obtained, including e-Visas. Referring to it as simply "visa required" correctly covers all possibilities and avoids unnecessary confusion or specificity in contexts where the method of obtaining the visa is not the primary concern.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Northern Moonlight 03:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Undoing my edits

@Twofortnights Hi, why did you undo my edits on the Visa policy of Argentina article? I updated Albania and Moldova as these are the two countries in Europe that Argentina requires visas for them, but they are in negotiations process with Argentina and Argentina will soon remove visas with Albania and Moldova. So, I need to update again this article with this information. Like all the other European countries enjoy free travel to Argentina, including the countries that aren't part of EU but candatate countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) also Albania will remove visas with Argentina. Is the Albanian's right to travel without visa to Argentina, as Albania is one of the oldest countries in the world with a rich history, culture and society. Thanks Hi Mzeka95. (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mzeka95. I undid your edits because they were not supported by any sources. For changes to be made to Wikipedia, especially concerning visa policies, it's crucial to provide reliable, verifiable references. Without proper citations, it's difficult to verify the accuracy of the information and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. If you have reliable sources indicating that Albania and Moldova are indeed in negotiations with Argentina to remove visa requirements, please include those sources in your update. You can add references from official government statements or reputable news outlets. Feel free to make your edits again once you have the necessary citations. If you need help with formatting citations or finding appropriate sources, let me know! --Twofortnights (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion for confusing info

Hi, @Twofortnights, I wanted to discuss about the issue of visas of the state of Iraq. I made some changes to the map of visa requests for citizens of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, but I am not sure if they are correct. (I believe that the information provided by others in Serbia and North Macedonia must be incorrect) From the information I read, there are visas on arrival and e-visas for the Kurdistan region in Iraq, which is not related to the visas of the Iraqi state, which is based in Baghdad. And the Iraqi government based in Baghdad does not say about visas on arrival or e-visas for the countries of the Western Balkans?! So there is some confusion about this. The title in the forum is the visa policy of Iraq and not the visa policy of the Kurdistan region in Iraq! Brizton (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Brizton. Thank you. I think the point here is that the region of Iraq called Kurdistan Region has its own visa policy. But from what I can see, there is no mention on the Visa policy of Iraq that the countries which you mention are eligible for visa on arrival in either Baghdad or Kurdistan? As for the Kurdistan eVisa, when I opened the eVisa portal eligibility checker it shows me the same information for almost all countries. Does that mean that almost all countries are now eligible for eVisa? For only a few countries it shows "No data is available" (Iran, Turkey, Lebanon) also a few countries are not listed (Afghanistan, Nigeria, Yemen).--Twofortnights (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jordanian passport cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jordanian passport cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kuwaiti passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kuwaiti passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Omani passport.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Omani passport.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)