Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Television in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maastricht railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HEMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• month–years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

(This even applies for infoboxes.)

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Netherlands, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dutch, English and Frisian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schiphol Sternet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel. 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) 09:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well, it's complicated but i'll give it a go. As an Amsterdam-native I hope I can explain it. With basic communication I mean as in: you can report a crime in English, there are English-language forms at municipality desks, you can speak to government officials in English at desks, those kinds of things. But it is on a lower status than Dutch i.e not everything is translated (i.e reports, guides etc.) as opposed to real bilingual cities like Brussels where street signs and advertising has to be done in both languages. I clarified it to reduce confusion for some one reading the article into thinking Amsterdam is a fully bilingual city. It isn't In Amsterdam official (government) signs are first and foremost Dutch but there are some in English as well. As for governing language I think it's quite usual in the Netherlands to switch to English when someone doesn't speak Dutch (i.e. if there's a council meeting with a lot of monolingual English-speaking persons in for example The Hague city council, they don't keep going on Dutch but will likely switch to English) I'm not a governing official but speaking from experience. Hopes this clarifies and I'm always open for a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gati123 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From how I take it, your experience is the same as mine. We just have a different definition of "basic", I think. ;) Having lived in Amsterdam, but originating and now living elsewhere in the Netherlands, I can tell there is a lot more in English in Amsterdam than anywhere else in the country (except probably Statia and Saba). English is on a lower status than Dutch, but so is Frisian in Fryslân and Papiamento in Bonaire. Amsterdam, as any other place in the Netherlands, is not really comparable with Brussels or other Belgian cities. Whereas Belgium doesn't have a national language (Dutch is only official in Flandern, French only in Wallonia, German only in the east-kantons, with Brussels als bilingual region), the Netherlands actually does (Dutch is the official national language and there is no place in the Netherlands where Dutch is not official, even in areas where Dutch is hardly spoken). The law clearly places the national language Dutch above the regional languages Frisian, Papiamento and English. Hence, traffic signs, if not using symbols, are always in Dutch (as set in traffic laws), even on Statia and Saba or in the Frisian countryside. And hence, also in De Pijp or the Bijlmer. However, reporting a crime in English is, for what I know, only possible on Statia and Saba and in Amsterdam and Schiphol. This indicates a clear difference. PPP (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made some changes at Languages of the Netherlands, feel free to discuss/change them Gati123 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I did remove "and education" though, as education in English is not that hard to find in Amsterdam. PPP (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I add "A large majority of Amsterdam schools use Dutch as their language of instruction, but there are some bilingual schools." As most schools use Dutch as language of instruction and most bilingual tend to offer the majority of classes in Dutch. Schools only using English as language of instructions do not receive government funding so they're only three I think Gati123 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit and ROC I believe do actually receive government funding, but yes, they do form a very small minority. Also, the number of schools teaching bilingual is relatively small indeed (though far greater than in other municipalities with the obvious exception of Saba and St. Eus.). However, as I was left to understand, the number of schools to teach bilingually is set to grow, so the text as you wrote it is good for now, but we should keep an eye on future developments and adjust when necessary. PPP (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but Esprit only has two schools teaching in English-only, we cannot see if they receive government funding. As for their international school, it is not intended for Dutch citizens their website states that the school is for expats or people moving abroad in the future: "An employer’s declaration or contract stating that you intend to move countries within the next 2 years, extensions need to be approved by the Management." and "If you are self-employed you must provide evidence that you intend to leave the Netherlands within the next 2 years for business purposes, this can be in the form of an official business plan quoting your KVK number and outlining your intended" This makes sense as to make clear only Dutch citizens have to receive Dutch-only or bilingual education. Their tuition fees are much higher than average Gati123 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When speaking of English-only schools, I didn't mean international schools. Those are indeed not meant for Dutch children and I would be very surprised if there were any Dutch children to be found there at all. Esprit is however not an international school; they have an international departement but for the rest it is a Dutch school. Normally, Dutch schools receive government funding or they are simply shut down, with only very few exceptions. Although it is of course possible that Esprit is one of those exceptions, it is very unlikely. PPP (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: I think all secondary schools in Amsterdam that teach in English-only are international schools save for the occasional ROC, but they can be considered to be tertiary education for which different criteria apply like with Dutch universities where education seems to be 50/50 Dutch or English Though the majority of ROCs remain Dutch only. For the Esprit schools: I meant as in Esprit schools do receive funding but English-only Esprit schools are international schools, as is clear with AICS^[1] However their other internationals school the 'DENISE' schools is tricky to place because the school does give priority to non-Dutch citizens, but the school's mission is to learn expat/immigrant children Dutch to better integrate in society and can be considered either bilingual or immersion classes like in Quebec for example where English-Language education remains restricted save for the university (McGill) or immersion classes. We cannot check if the international schools receive government funding or if they receive as much funding as the other Esprit schools, but I think they do not receive as much as the others as their fees are much higher than the average Dutch-language Esprit school Gati123 (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International schools are usually funded by parents, indeed, and not by the government, although some international schools do receive some funding from a government (i.e. the British international school receives funding from the British government, as does the Dutch international school in Germany from the Dutch government). From what I understand, it's mostly the pilot school at ROC that teaches in English-only, which makes sense IMHO, and I doubt they don't get governmental funding. It is however for the rest listed as a bilingual school, so they should have other bilingual trajectories as well. But actually, why are we discussing governmental funding here? It doesn't say anything about that in the text nor did it ever... ;) PPP (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PPP! I see you have reverted to your version. However, the source states: "Though it is generally accepted that the Netherlands is referred to as Holland in many different languages, some Dutch people, especially those not from North or South Holland, do not like the habit". This implies that: A. The source also covers the first part of the sentence so a citation is not needed, and B. It is a misrepresentation of the source to state that many people dislike this use. It might well be true and personally I wouldn't be surprised if it were so but you'll have to find another source to back this up. Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source indicates that it's generally accepted in Sweden to call the Netherlands 'Holland', this is certainly not the case in the Netherlands. Furthermore, your source does not imply that only "some individuals" find it offensive to call the Netherlands "Holland". In fact, it states that especially people from outside of Holland think that way. That's the majority of the Dutch population. In fact, it also says that the website given as source used to use "Holland" in the menus to make the menu items shorter, but changed it to the Netherlands (as indeed they should) due to the many objections they received from Dutchmen. Furthermore, Holland simply isn't the same as the Netherlands. I see no reason why at all we actually mention that in other countries, it's accepted to call the country Holland. There's no remark on England stating that it's commonly accepted to call the entire U.K. "England", even though this is what commonly happens in other countries and languages, too. If it was for me, the whole line would've been removed. PPP (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood the gist of the sentence. Its point is not to indicate that people worldwide have no problem with calling The Netherlands "Holland". They know that quite well, of course. But they are probably not aware that people in the other Dutch provinces find this objectionable. So it is a point of interest to mention this.

You are correct in objecting to the ambiguity of the original text, which did not make it clear that the general acceptance does not include The Netherlands itself. I'll change that. However, "some individuals" should not be read as "only some individuals" but in the strict logical or literal sense of the existential quantifier: at least one — but perhaps all. I'm not aware of any empirical research indicating how many exactly object. There might well be a study covering this subject. Until we can add such a source, its seems safest to stick with the "some".--MWAK (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer "many", as the text suggests that most Dutch people from outside of Holland object to this. As such, we're speaking of millions of people here. "Some" indeed indicates that it concerns "at least one, but perhaps all" people, but rather is understood as meaning "not so many". However, again, in this case, it concerns the majority of the Netherlands. "Many" would indicate that not everybody objects to calling the Netherlands "Holland", but the group of people who does is rather large. This better reflects reality, I would say. PPP (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would agree, but we have to keep to the sources. With "those not from North or South Holland" obviously not the entire population of the rest of the provinces is meant, the full eleven million of them. So the sentence must be read as "some Dutch people, especially [among] those not from North or South Holland". It does not imply a "many".--MWAK (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading it over again, and I think it's mostly the word "individuals", and moreover the combination "some individuals", that I think makes it seem too much like we're talking about one or two per cent of the population here. It is therefore that I'm rewriting this part again, anyway, and try to avoid both "some" and "many", making it more neutral in how many people would find calling the Netherlands Holland disturbing. PPP (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you sure the Amsterdam to Moscow train service still exists as of 2015? It's nowhere to be found in the train timetable at CP SK (which lists all European trains) and neither is it featured in the CNL network maps here. Besides, if it's only a through car, it shouldn't be listed in the artice Longest train services anyway. THX for explanation. Johnnyjanko (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was wondering myself, but at least it's still on the NS International website, so I guess it still runs... Perhaps only during the summer? PPP (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the information page https://www.nsinternational.nl/en/nighttrain-citynightline/euronight-to-copenhagen-prague-moscow is outdated. Train to Moscow cannot be found in the provided timetable (http://hafas.bene-system.com/bin/query.exe/en?L=ns_hispeed&ld=atr). I even tried putting date of journey into July, to no avail. It might have existed until 2014 as a through car, connected to the Paris-to-Moscow service somewhere in Germany. But it doesn't exist even in that form nowadays. There's simply not enough evidence. If you disagree, please try to find the train number and exact departure and arrival times. It cannot be listed without these information anyway. Thanks. Johnnyjanko (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, so I guess NS forgot to remove it from their site. Or should we say "the removal of this part from their site has been delayed"? ;) PPP (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Television in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the Dutch Caribbean was not in the Netherlands Antilles? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ???? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba has stepped out of the Antilles in 1986, hence has been a seperate country apart from the then-still existing Netherlands Antilles ever since; the other islands remained part of the Netherlands Antilles until 2010. PPP (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So all parts of the former Netherlands Antilles were in the Dutch Caribbean? There was no other island in the Dutch Caribbean that was not part of the former Netherlands Antilles? If so, then where is the gap? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The gap is in the fact that for a period of 14 years, the Dutch Caribbean has consisted out of two countries (Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles). Another gap is in the fact that the Netherlands Antilles no longer exists, but the Dutch Caribbean does (now consisting of four countries: Aruba, Curaçao, St. Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands). PPP (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is in the Dutch Caribbean that cannot be found in the Netherlands Antilles article? The lead spells out any differences. Nothing further is necessary. A separate article on the Dutch Caribbean would be a complete duplicate of any info in Netherlands Antilles. That's a waste and only serves to confuse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what's in the Netherlands Antilles article that isn't in the Dutch Caribbean article. The two are simply not the same. If all about Ireland would be in the UK article, would you support a merger? The two are simply not the same. As I said, if one of the two should be merged with another, it should rather be the Netherlands Antilles article redirecting to the Dutch Caribbean, as the Dutch Caribbean actually does still exist, and the Netherlands Antilles does not. But luckily, the normal procedure in these type of situations is to put a template on both articles requesting a merger, allowing different people to share their opinions on it, and if consensus is reached, act accordingly. As you have failed to do that, I will always revert your edit on either of these articles. PPP (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PPP. As I noted you've edited a lot of pages about English in the Netherlands, you may find this thesis interesting: https://alisonedwardsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/phd-thesis_edwards.pdf Gati123 (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very interesting indeed. Thank you! PPP (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dutch Caribbean , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He PPP, you were involved in reverting changes made regarding FIFA membership and Bonaire national football team. My edit that started the reverts was accompanied by a talk page statement. Could you react there as well to see if the editorship can find some middle ground or at least consensus? L.tak (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:VPRO Backlight logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Holland times cover.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]