User talk:Travelsaround
Welcome[edit]
Welcome!
Hello, Travelsaround, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Visa requirements for United States citizens. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Wikipelli Talk 11:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
May 2012[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Visa requirements for Romanian citizens do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- Unfortunately, you did not stop, so that I had to report you contribution to the attention of administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Travelsaround (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- Travelsaround (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi.Please unblock me. I feel this is unfair and not totally correct. I do contribute and find site which is lack of proper information about visa to Vietnam and add details and corrections. I have so far stayed neutral. No recommendation, no favour nor negative words.
The first one I got reported is from Romanian visa page (Visa requirements for Romanian citizens). This page had (bad English, worst than me:)) They did not have correct information about visa to Vietnam, and I did some research and changed it and add additional info and also the referal site, and got reported. The details is still in used and the link was deleted. Is this wrong of me?
Even the Russian visa page (Visa requirements for Russian citizens), which was reported from. The page still use my details, but report me and admin blocked me, without any question? I do contribute about details that has been retreived from the referal site. starvietnamvisa.com. The page "Visa_policy_of_Russia" deleted all my info and details and are still lack of information of visa to Vietnam.
I also put the link so users may retrieve more infomation from this site.
Compared to other users who just delete or replace links for instance vietnam-visa.com www.getvietnamvisa.com or vietnamvisa.com and others without contributing. Is it not accepted that you refer to site you retrive the information from? I try to keep the information about visa to Vietnam updated regularly.
I don't ever recommend users to use the site, but just refer to the source. I stayed neutral. No positive or negative words about it. Please re-consider my status and open my account again. For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Vietnam. You can see that vietnam-visa.com just add links, while I did add additional information retrieved from starvietnamvisa.com Again, please re-evaluate my account. Thanks. Travelsaround (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Basically, you spammed your sites on Wikipedia. This is not permitted. Max Semenik (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Travelsaround (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- Hi, sorry for another new message. Please re-check.
- I am a newbie and I have choose the field Vietnamese visa. That is why all the contributions is about Vietnamese visa. The information should be correct and they are still in use and relevant on the page. I am not putting a lot of links everywhere. I use the link as referal to the source and also to provide more info if user need it. Each countries has their own page, and I make productive contribution to relevant pages. I do correction and add information if needed.
- The block is considered in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
- The informations which I provided are not wrong and it should be correct informations. I update new regulation about Vietnam Visa on different page. If information is not correct or not available, I add the informtaion, when available. - I do my research and add neutral and neccessary information with referal to the source. Maybe I do it wrong, but then please advice me rather than blocking me. I am still a newbie. I am learning more and more how to edit Wiki. The information that has been written is still in use and usable for users looking up this topic. So I consider this as not damaging Wiki. I think I am not spaming. It is a fine line of definition, but I don't damage nor create disruptive information in Wiki eitheri. - How should I then refer to the source. Again, maybe I am doing it wrong? - Should I rather use "ref" instead of "href"? Please let me know rather than blocking me.
- The block is not necessary because I make productive contributions.
- I wish to be unblocked because I wish to use this profile for a long time and kep track on my contribution. I learn to handle more and more "complexed" templates. And plan to expand my contributions and be + users.
Please un-block me. Thank you. Travelsaround (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You really need to study WP:SPAM to see why what you did -- inserting two dozen or so links to one website -- is unacceptable. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Travelsaround (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't insert doczen of links on one site/ page. Have any of you not ever refer to the same source? We are talking about each countries have different regulation and when it is extracted from one source, then it is normal to refer to it. The information is valid and correct, isn't it? I do understand if the information I provide is faulse, but it is not the case. How should you do it, when each page represent a different country? My focus is on the vietnam visa to begin with. You can't just refer to another page for another countries do you? It means refer a visa regulation for one country to another. Each country has different regulation. I respect your answer, but do disagree. Please tell me how I should do it? Should you ask a user from UK to look on visa requirements for US? Please look on each case, and not the number. See if my contribution overall is correct or not. See if my information is correct or not. I have listed earlier that I do not damage or disruption of Wiki. So how is it wrong? I know I that I am the underdog in here, but still it is unfair. When you really don't look into the case and just look on numbers, then I understand. The basic for Wiki, as I believe it, is a source for all to contribute and refer to the information. To provide correct and usefull information not damage Wiki. When you have an topic that you really know and want to contribute, and comment on relevant pages with referal to the source and links to more information, and get blocked. Is it correct? If you know about a case and contribute on different relevant pages, is it wrong? Does it help that several users do it? Why is it different? The case is that AM I really damage or create faulse and disruptive inormation? I believe I don't. So why am I blocked? Probably I am the underdog and the newbie. AM I damage Wiki? Am I giving users wrong information? Am I create faulse information? Am I contributing or not? Should I go and delete all the information that I have been added? It seams like the case is that I am damaged Wiki. If so, then all the information is wrong. I have have not contribute to Wiki. Therefore the information I provide is spam? We are all users of the site, and we all have some knowledge about differnt topics. The wisdom and the knowledge is not the same. If a page has lack or no information, then it is normal that we contribute, isn't it? And if you contribute on same topic, then you are spaming? Even if your are not giving any faulse info or are neutral to the source? The person who reported me, still use the information and not deleted it. Why? It is sometime strange that if you provide information and refer to many times to one source, and you are spaming? Who of you have not refer to a source more than one time? The basic is, am I really damage or productive contributing Wiki? Again, I am the underdog and newbie, so please, can anyone really go into it and have a look and not just have a brief look? Imagine if you want to contribute information about Vietnam visa. Is it not normal that you write and refer to the place you get the information and the source you trust? And how are you going to do it for each countries? Probably the same more or less or write everything on the page? Again, the pages normally are in tables and there are no room for description or detailed information. Again, I really urged someone to have a closer look rather than just have a brief look and blocked me. It is not right.Please... Travelsaround (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you have been told, and pointed to many times, the "source" is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's WP:SPAM. It's not a reliable source. It's promotional. It does not belong on Wikipedia, period. As you are unwilling to read the policies provided to you yet, I will be locking this talkpage from your access for 1 week to give you the opportunity to READ THEM ALL, and then return in 7 days to try again ONCE, and ONCE ONLY. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Have you tried actually reading the policies you've been pointed to? Doesn't seem so. Max Semenik (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's SPAM - you are adding links to take readers off this site, rather than give them the full information here. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)