User talk:Fnorp/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Fnorp/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 13:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Henry Laurens

In general, I appprove of changes of Hollland to The Hetherlands when that is the meaning. But, in Henry Laurens case, the U.S. Congress and his corresondence both called it Holland, as did most of the English world at the time. We might say (now the Netherlands) after the reference, but I think this link was correct the old way. I wanted to let you think about this before simply reverting it. Any comments? Lou I 14:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Lou I 14:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holland

I know the difference between Holland and the Netherlands, in the same way as the difference between England and the United Kingdom. The problem if you change references to fit political boundaries, then you actually make something harder to look up. See [1]. Then try following the ISBN link. --Henrygb 09:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Library of Congress thinks it was published in Holland, the National Library of Australia thinks it was published in Holland, both presumably because the publisher or the book itself say so. So looking up the reference is more likely to work using Holland rather than the Netherlands. --Henrygb 21:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dutch cricket team

Hi - I've reverted your insertion of the word "incorrect" in the Dutch cricket team article because there are some specifically cricket-related conventions that mean that the use of "Holland" is not as strange as it may appear. I've explained them more fully on the article's talk page, but as an example, the English cricket team actually represents England and Wales, yet is almost always simply called "England". Loganberry (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Netherlands

Thanks for changing 'Holland' to 'Netherlands' in Greek diaspora.i had not noticed it.btw,i did not know that there is a big difference about the two names.the user who editted it was probably infuenced by the Greek name for your country,which is Ολλανδία(Hollandia).anyway...cheers!--Hectorian 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,not exactly.Greece and Hellas are synonymous.just we use 'Hellas' and the non-greeks use 'Greece'...strange,he?:)perhaps if someone was calling Greece 'Peloponnese' or 'Thessaly' we would feel the same as u do.btw,i guess we call the Netherlands 'Hollandia' maybe cause this was the most famous region of your country for us.--Hectorian 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Gold

You claim in the article that it is in fact Orangeboom that manufactures the beer. Have you a citation for this? Also, you claim that the brewery mentioned on the can is a fictional one. Is this true? I find this all very interesting, and as you are Dutch you know better than I do, but I'd like some references if at all possible. regards. Jayteecork 17:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mag ik dan vragen wat het verschil is tussen Holland en Nederland?

Dat mag, maar wie bent u? Holland is de oude naam voor een deel van Nederland. Fnorp 11:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion

I can understand your desire to change "Holland" to "the Netherlands", but you need to be more careful. Of the two changes you made to Invasion, one ruined the sentence structure and one was the title of a book, which should never be changed. If it's important to you to make these changes, please take the time to do more than just cut and paste. Kafziel 13:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the book title, I try to leave those alone but can make a mistake of course. However, I wasn't aware I ruined the sentence structure in the other case, I just thought the "the" should be there were I put it. Fnorp 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flemish

Hi Fnorp, I've started to answer here but then changed the subject, so I moved it to the Talk of the County of Flanders — which appears to have moved to Flanders (countship). Piet 10:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But its a direct quote...

Hello. I saw that you changed "Holland" to "the Netherlands" in this this edit. The trouble is that the passage in question is a direct quote. In other places where I quote from those Combatant Status Review Tribunals I don't clean up other lapses, like missing articles, redundant or missing plural "s", incorrect use of the apostrophe, etc. And I don't think we should correct the geography, but rather let the quote stand as it was first written.

I hope you agree. -- Geo Swan 21:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam School

Thanks for adding those pictures from the nl: wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 18:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Stuyt

Dank je wel, was er zelf nog niet aan toegekomen, daarom had ik de site als source vermeld en niet als ref Mach10 12:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Cuyper

Many thanks for the translation - no I don't mind at all - in fact if you'd like to finish Berend Tobia Boeyinga I think I could be persuaded to have your children! --Mcginnly 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Wellington's Regiment

With regard to your edits of the wording Holland to Netherlands. Please note that this is English Wikipedia and in English Holland is used to refer to the Netherlands, and therefore should remain worded that way. As per the article Holland, in the same way that the English spelling of 'Tyres' is spelt the American way of 'Tires' in some articles. I would therefore urge you to revert your phrasing as it was. As an archivist at the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, and a person who lost a relative from the 7th Battalion in action against the SS around Haalderen please note that I understand your thinking. However having supplied historical information to the Mayor of Haalderen on the action involving the 7th Bn in 1944 I note that his Book, written by local historians, also used the wording Holland, as that was the name used in that period of history. Our regimental records also show that our first battalion, then known as the 33rd Regiment of Foot, was also involved in action in 1702, in 'Holland' in support of the King. Richard Harvey 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have noted your comments and those of Yorkshire Phoenix and replied to both of you on my talk page. Richard Harvey 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your User page was not vandalised. A message was left there for you in error. It should of course have been placed here on your Talk page. For the error I apologise. However, you would benefit from noting the content of the message, rather than prematurely making an allegation of vandalism. You might also benefit from reading Wiki policy with regard to assuming good faith on the part of those contributors you disagree with. The thousands of allied soldiers didn't strive to liberate Holland so that language purists were free to rewrite history. Brian.Burnell 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kriek/Geuze

I noticed you keep removing the reference to Kriek on the Geuze page. Kriek can most definitely be considered a variant of Geuze. Often, the Lambik that was fermented in the presence of sour cherries is blended with jonge lambik, just as Geuze is a blend of jonge and oude lambik. Traditional Kriek also undergoes a re-fermentation in the bottle, just like geuze. Reference (just one of many: Michael Jackon's The Great Beers of Belgium). Best regards.

Tomixdf Fri Sep 15 11:48:28 CEST 2006

Romanesque architecture

Thanks for your corrections Amandajm 03:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

's-Hertogenbosch

I've left you a message on the talk page of the cathedral article. Amandajm (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sint Jan's, would you mind fixing it, in whatever way you think best. But we do need a cathedral there, representative of Holland.

I must be mistaken about the dates. I thought it became a cathedral much earlier. I have to take your word for it that it represents the Brabant style.

My particular association with that building is that I have a dear friend who loved that cathedral and often reminisced about it when he was homesick in far-off Australia in the 1950s.

Amandajm (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to add something about Utrecht cathedral soon. Fnorp (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fnorp (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your edits

Please do not arbitrarily change "Holland" to "the Netherlands" without explanation, you doing it on a massive number of articles is inappropriate. On the Clan Mackay article the references specifically say Holland so changing it to a more broad and unspecific designation is inappropriate. You appear to be a single-purpose account who is only here on Wikipedia to make this single change across articles, so please cease doing so and discuss your changes before making them. You changed 17 articles in 20 minutes, and I very much doubt you even so much as looked at the articles for context or looked at the references, so I'm going to revert these edits and if you wish to make the change, you are more than welcome to start a talk page discussion on each of these articles and get a consensus for your change before trying to reinsert this unexplained change into what looks like hundreds of Wikipedia articles.. - Sudo Ghost 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To use the example you gave on your user page, ignoring the fact that Texas is not perfectly comparable to Holland in regards to the United States and the Netherlands, if an editor started going across Wikipedia and changing all instances of "Texas" to "United States" they would get reverted in a heartbeat; while technically correct, Texas is within the United States, so there's no reason to change it to a less specific geopolitical grouping when there's no need for that. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be concise, so such an arbitrary broadening is unhelpful, at best. The point is, it isn't as black and white as "all instances of holland should be changed to the netherlands" is an inappropriate way to go about it, and as rapidly as you're changing the articles, it is highly unlikely you are able to find the article's context and sources, edit the article, and move to another article in well under 60 seconds. - Sudo Ghost 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Fact is, Holland is a historic region within the Netherlands. There is currently NO country by the name of Holland. Check the Holland page yourself and compare it to Netherlands. Whenever the word is used correctly, I'll leave it alone. Problem is, there are thousands of pages linking to the region while they should be linking to the country. You really want me to start a discussion for every single page? Because of the ignorant fools who can't tell the difference between a country and a region? Oh, and BTW, by one of you're reverts you are now actually claiming there was a state of Israel as early as 1933. If you don't know shit about a subject, leave it alone. Fnorp (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thank you very much for making me having to revert all of your useless edits. That will be a few more hours well spend. Thank you very much indeed. As you say, and I quote "Wikipedia articles are supposed to be concise, so such an arbitrary broadening is unhelpful, at best." Yes they bloody well are supposed to be concise! Then what the hell is your arbitraty NARROWING good for? No, it's not even narrowing, it's shifting! You're relocating places to a totaly different part of the country! Why do you insist that places like Eindhoven and Zeist are in Holland when they're not? It's incorrect for christ sake! Is his supposed to be an encyclopedia or what? Oh, and here's a nice one. Do you even see what you did here? While I perfectly explained why I made the change you simply let a bot run wild without any further thinking. Fnorp (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, since you reinserted the edits yet again without explanation I've reverted them again, because they are inappropriate and appear to be changed without looking at the context or references, unless you suggesting that you can read, check references, edit, and move to another article in less than 60 seconds for each one. When your edits are reverted, discuss them and get a consensus for your edits. If you continue to make blanket changes like this, they will continue to be reverted. You "perfectly explained" nothing, there was no explanation, no edit summary, no talk page comment for a few hundred of your edits, all of which are nearly the same edit. I'm not the only one that thinks there's an issue here, so you need to stop with your blanket changes, and discuss them before reinserting them again. Also, please see WP:NOTVAND before you accuse someone of vandalism, and WP:SPA before you use that term as well, it makes your edits look inaccurate at best, which is in part why I've reverted them again. To suggest that the edits are vandalism, or that I am a single-purpose account, brings into question your accuracy in other things as well. It also wasn't a "bot", that was myself making the edits manually, odd how you see massive changes across multiple articles and assume it's a bot "without further thinking", yet continue to make the same type of edits yourself with rapid frequency. - Sudo Ghost 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there's a summary with all the edits I made today. Funny you can't see them. And yes, purposely insisting that an encyclopedia should not get its fact rights is vandalism to me. Fnorp (talk)

This is not an appropriate edit summary; vague and inaccurate claims of of vandalism aren't either. It doesn't matter what "vandalism to you" is, if it isn't listed here, it isn't vandalism. Every editor thinks they are right, and when there's disagreement the other person must be default be wrong in their mind. Even if someone is wrong, being wrong is not vandalism, and continuously mislabeling other editors' edits as vandalism has gotten editors blocked before, to speak nothing of that first edit summary I linked. Those kinds of edit summaries are worse than not having one at all; they don't hurt anyone but yourself and don't exactly demonstrate that you're here to constructively build an encyclopedia. - Sudo Ghost 16:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good deal of sympathy with Fnorp here. There is a centuries-old habit in English of using "Holland" as though it was a country, which it isn't, and never has been. Even if sources, especially older ones, say "Holland" they are likely to mean the Netherlands in the best modern terminology, though not always of course. Since Holland is a sub-division of Netherlands, even if Holland is specifically meant, changing most passing references to Netherlands will not result in inaccuracy. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. All my edits are meant to improve accuracy. And if a reference to Holland is the right thingk I'll not touch it. Fnorp (talk)

That is still a poor method, to (1) assume that reliable sources are only reliable in regards to things we agree with, and to passively dismiss things we find inconvenient, and (2) to unnecessarily broaden the location for the sake of "well it isn't wrong" at the cost of conciseness. That would be analogous to someone changing any instance of America to [[|Americas|The Americas]], just because they don't like that the United States is sometimes referred to as America. Sure, the United States is in The Americas, so it's technically accurate, but to search for any instances of a word and change it with a broader word just because the editor doesn't like the way the word is being used is inappropriate. - Sudo Ghost 15:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - see your talk page, where I have expanded the above. For example, "Leiden, Holland", which you have reinstated, is just WRONG per MOS etc. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine if the MOS does indeed say that and I'm not saying that nothing should be changed, but massively going through and changing any instance of the word without an explanation or edit summary of any kind is the wrong way to go about it, especially when doing them that rapidly and without regard to context or what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, so I'm more inclined to use what reliable sources use rather than what an editor whose only edits on Wikipedia appear to be to rapidly make these changes without so much as an edit summary. - Sudo Ghost 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't fine any more, because you reverted him, paying even less attention to context etc than he did. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, even if 50% of those edits are "correct", rapid mass-editing like that without looking at context or even leaving an edit summary will get reverted; it's not appropriate nor should it be expected for other people to clean up the mess that another editor makes. - Sudo Ghost 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at some of the edits, and I have to say, Fnorp does have a point here. "Holland" is a region ("provincie") in the Netherlands. Being Dutch, one will determine at one look what's the correct use - though there is a point when the topic is based on very old sources. But in most instances, a Dutchman will see it right away. No use for calling names like "vandalism", though a edit-summary is always welcome. And if it takes a little discussion, so be it. How about some sort of disambiguation-page, to refer to? By the way, Leiden is in Holland. I grew up there (and I hate "hutspot"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, but we don't put "Leiden, Holland" any more than we put "Boston, New England", which is a far better comparison than the "Americas" one above. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good comparison, because we wouldn't say "Boston, United States", we would say "Boston, Massachusetts". "New England" is a cultural region, not a geopolitical boundary the way Holland and Massachusetts are. So if that's really the comparison you want to use, it's doing quite the opposite of supporting your comment. Also, where is this MOS guideline you referred to earlier? - Sudo Ghost 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Holland has not been any sort of administrative unit for a long time? Since 1840 in fact, and first split up in 1798 (see North Holland etc) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), though this has nothing Netherlands-specific. Are you really questioning that "Leiden, Holland" is incorrect? Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily the content that's the issue, it's how they're going about doing it. To go through and rapidly change any instance of Holland to the Netherlands at an average of 1 article per minute, there's no way one can do that and actually read the article & sources and edit that rapidly. There's also the issue of things like this edit which is a topic I'm very familiar with, and the source does indeed use Holland; "the Netherlands" is nowhere to be found in that book (that I could see). When we start deciding that we know better than reliable sources what they're talking about, that destroys the entire point of even having reliable sources, and that's assuming they were able to even look at the source and see the context in which it was used. It's one thing to change something on an article, it's quite another to create an account solely to right great wrongs despite any reliable sources that say otherwise. When source says (a) and editor says (b), I give the source more weight, especially because the source was written with a great deal of thought and research, as opposed to an editor just hitting CTRL + F across however many hundreds of articles. - Sudo Ghost 16:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The example you refer to is agood example of a specific context. "Holland" here may indeed refer to the provincie Holland. Otherwise, the correct word would be "The Dutch Republic". "The Netherlands" in this context could also refer to the provincies of Holland (and Zeeland, Utrecht etc), Belgium (Vlaanderen etc) and Luxemburg, which all were part of the former Habsburg Empire. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very good example "Steinkerk", home of the Battle of Steenkerque as far as I can see was never in Holland, and is now in Belgium. "Low Countries" might be better for all uses around this period. I rather doubt English troops were actually in Holland at all in this period, though I might be wrong. If you are going to use antique sources from 1906 and 19827, you must try to allow for changes in usage since those distant periods. Equally, Knorp's final substitution in this passage mislocates the link, and is ungrammatical ("the"). Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice SudoGhost has removed my expanded comments on his page, so I will put them here:

I have a good deal of sympathy with Fnorp here. There is a centuries-old habit in English of using "Holland" as though it was a country, which it isn't, and never has been. Even if sources, especially older ones, say "Holland" they are likely to mean the Netherlands in the best modern terminology, though not always of course. Since Holland is a sub-division of Netherlands, even if Holland is specifically meant, changing most passing references to Netherlands will not result in inaccuracy. I've looked at a sample of his edits & haven't seen any I would take issue with (and I note the example spotted in the section above, going the other way). For example we should not normally say "Leiden, Holland", even though Leiden is in Holland. We don't say "Rome, Lazio" which is the equivalent. His edits may be fast, sometimes too fast, but not as fast as your reversions of them. I'd take the matter to the relevant wikiproject. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fankly his behaviour here is looking less and less impressive, and a reference to ANI might be appropriate. If you are going to blanket revert you need to be a lot surer of your case than he is. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source never says Steinkirk was in Holland, it actually doesn't even mention Steinkirk at all that I can see, so I'm not sure where that information came from. However, if you're going to try to post the same comment at multiple talk pages, don't be surprised if I try to keep it in one place, fragmenting the discussion does nobody any good and if your response to that is "some people just don't like criticism", I think you're missing the point entirely, because that's a critically inaccurate summary of why I didn't respond to the same discussion in more than one place. With that comment your own behavior is quickly leaving much to be desired, and it seems like you took that a bit personally, hence the response you just gave above. If someone is going to make hundreds of edits without looking at source or context, they're going to be reverted. If some of them are appropriate, let them be done properly with inspection, not by wildly editing every single reference to a word and hoping some of them are right, that kind of editing gets reverted. If some of them are correct, then let's do it correctly, but it's not appropriate to mass-edit like that and then expect other editors to clean up the mess. - Sudo Ghost 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff above says he died at the battle, while on a campaign in "Holland". It was not the same comment. You have admitted you are reverting without inspection, while Knorp says he is indeed inspecting. At the very least this is a failure of AGF on your part. You have shown a complete lack of interest in the mistakes various editors have pointed out that you've reinstated, at the same time failing to point to any clear mistakes in Knorp's edits. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To your accusation of "failure of AGF", see WP:AAGF, because as I already said, people do inappropriate things all the time with the best intentions. I also think you're getting a little too affected by the response to your actions and are getting way ahead of yourself. While Knorp may be the fastest reader on Wikipedia, able to read the article, the sources, and the context before editing the article and searching for a new one all in less than 60 seconds, the example on Clan MacKay shows that that inspection isn't thorough as it should probably be. I have indeed commented on mistakes, so your comments seem not only overly aggressive but demonstrably inaccurate as well. - Sudo Ghost 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm aggressive!!! Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me summarize what happened here. But first, why have I been making these changes? Not just because I dislike the name Holland being used for the Netherlands, but because on this very Wikipedia Holland and the Netherlands have their own articles that well define these subjects. It is clear that Holland and the Netherlands are related but not the same. Unfortunately, out of ignorence or for convenience sake, "Holland" is used in a wrong way more often than right. In an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia claims to be, this is not acceptable. Since it is an obvious fact that there really isn't a place called Holland anymore, it having beern absorbed by the Netherlands long ago, I did not give an edit summary in most cases. Getting even this simple fact straight is time consuming and tiresome, and I hoped to make it a bit easier for myself. Unfortunately, there's this user named SudoGhost. If he had taken my advice to take a look at the pages on Holland and the Netherlands a lot of time and effort could have been spared.

I'll take a closer look on his comments, arguments and behaviour below. The bits in Italics are his quotes, with bold added by me, and are followed by my responses.

On the Clan Mackay article the references specifically say Holland so changing it to a more broad and unspecific designation is inappropriate.

The references in question are actually quite ancient books. And the claim that it really should be Holland is not supported by any of them; no link to a reference for this "fact" is given. Since no more specific locations are mentioned, the Netherlands is a safer choice.

You appear to be a single-purpose account

Here SudoGhost only says I appear to be a single-purpose account. That's not however what the edit-summary says which he started using exactly ONE WHOLE MINUTE (wow!) later while reverting my edits: Reverting unexplained and arbitrary changes made by single-purpose account without explanation across hundreds of articles in a timeframa that suggests the editor did not even look at the article or the references. Reverting per WP:BRD. I was generously given ONE WHOLE MINUTE to counter this false accusation. Because, as we will see, I do make other edits as well.

You changed 17 articles in 20 minutes, and I very much doubt you even so much as looked at the articles for context or looked at the references,

Ah, the man (?) "very much doubts". I lived in the Netherlands the first 36 years of my life and bloody well can decide for myself if towns like Zeist, Utrecht,Arnhem or Eindhoven are in Holland or not, given the fact that Holland only has a historic meaning AND refers to a specific part of the country. I don't need to check his references. References can be wrong, you know? There are dozens of books about Market Garden that locate Arnhem in Holland. These are simply wrong in this aspect, just look at a map and see for yourself. Holland is in the west of the country, Arnhem is in the east. It is as simple as that. Yes, I changed 17 articles in 20 minutes. But I'm even faster! In the same 20 minutes I judged a whole lot more and saw that the use of Holland was appropriate there. How long do you think it takes to change a few characters using common knowledge? A few seconds.

if you wish to make the change, you are more than welcome to start a talk page discussion on each of these articles and get a consensus for your change

What a joke. Start a discussion on hundreds of pages to get an obvious fact corrected. With the risk of running into people who are convinced that their use of Holland is right and mine is wrong. No way. I don't need a discussion or a book on maths to decide that 1 + 1 is not 3 either. Nor would I have to discuss that Norway is not in Africa. Why should I make more effort than those who add false information in the first place?

The point is, it isn't as black and white as "all instances of holland should be changed to the netherlands" is an inappropriate way to go about it

That's true. Neither should all instances of the Netherlands be replaced by Holland. There's an appropriate use for either of them, but they should not get mixed up. SudoGhost has no idea in how many articles I did not replace Holland by the Netherlands because it was used in its correct meaning. That's a few hundred pages too.

Don't worry about it, since you reinserted the edits yet again without explanation I've reverted them again

An obvious lie. There was an edit summary to every single edit. Some where a bit sarcastic perhaps, but that's how I respond to stupidity.

I'm not the only one that thinks there's an issue here,

Yes, you're not the only one who can't accept a simple fact.

Also, please see WP:NOTVAND before you accuse someone of vandalism, and WP:SPA before you use that term as well ...

My accusation was a response to this edit, in which SudoGhost falsely accused ME of vandalism because of this correction on Medical director. In this warning SudoGhost also threathened to block me without further notice. Although the warning was removed four minutes later, it was clearly not given by mistake, in which case he would of course have apologized and would do anything to get this false accusation out of my history.

To suggest that the edits are vandalism, or that I am a single-purpose account, ... It also wasn't a "bot",

These suggestions were based on his behaviour in reverting my edits. He did not even look at my changes, he only reverted them because they were made by me. He also showed bot-like behaviour in his edit summary: Reverting unexplained and arbitrary changes made by single-purpose account without explanation across hundreds of articles in a timeframa that suggests the editor did not even look at the article or the references. . There's the same spelling error in every one of them and his bot-like mind didn't see it the entire thirteen minutes in which he made his sixty-two edits. Making multiple edits in a short time without a further thought about the consequences is bot-like behaviour. It’s mindless. Oh, and HUNDREDS of pages, really? Then why revert only 62? Some of the consequences of SudoGhost’s behaviour:

In 1806, Poland already had its post-WW2 borders.

The region of West-Friesland never became a part of Holland at any point in history, it was simply renamed into the latter

The region of Holland is also a German pottery maker

The state of Israel already existed in 1933

This is not an appropriate edit summary;

Perhaps "my you ARE childish. Did you even see what you did?" is not appropriate (and I even suspect it’s not correct English), but the one I gave on the same page earlier ("In 1806, Breslau was a Prussian city"), concerning exactly the same edit, was perfectly appropriate, but still was ignored by this SudoGhost none the less. Like all of the other perfectly appropriate edit summaries I gave. So what's the use of including an edit summary when people like this SudoGhost ignore them whenever they like?

It doesn't matter what "vandalism to you" is, if it isn't listed here, it isn't vandalism.

I don't care if it's listed, but perhaps SudoGhost would prefer that I call it bullying? But wouldn't his use of edit summaries, more specifically his claim of reverting so-called vandalism by another user with the intention to get false information in an article qualify as Edit summary vandalism or Sneaky vandalism?

to speak nothing of that first edit summary I linked.

Then he shouldn't have ignore my perfectly appropriate previous edit summary, should he?

nor should it be expected for other people to clean up the mess that another editor makes.

Exactly, but although proven wrong several times, SudoGhost leaves it to others to clean up his mess. Improving the encyclopedia is clearly not his intention.

That's not a good comparison, because we wouldn't say "Boston, United States", we would say "Boston, Massachusetts". "New England" is a cultural region, not a geopolitical boundary the way Holland and Massachusetts are.

Which proves how ignorant SudoGhost is, because it's a fine comparison. Holland ceased to exist as a geopolitical entity in 1840, as Johnbod correctly stated. If anything, it IS a cultural region.

Edit 2013-10-14: the ignorant fool formerly known as SudoGhost now calls himself User:Aoidh.

Roadburn Festival and Holland

With all due respect, sir, Earthless recorded a live album there, and in their liner notes I quote, "Recorded at the 13th Roadburn Festival in Tilburg, Holland." I have undone your edit only because I feel the term, which was the one actually used in the source I cited, was more appropriate. Perhaps to clear-up confusion in the future, I suggest leaving edit summaries so you can tell us why you felt the change was necessary, or at least mark the edit as minor. Even if your change was correct, I still think you should leave an edit summary. LazyBastard Guy 06:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I left an edit summary this time. Fnorp (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. LazyBastard Guy 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bois-le-Duc

I totally agree with you that the use of "Holland" in English loosely to refer to the Netherlands as a whole should not be used on wikipedia. But I don't think I agree with always changing "Bois-le-Duc" to its present name of "'s-Hertogenbosch". The former was certainly the more familiar name in English probably even until the twentieth century, so for historical articles on the English wikipedia it may be the more appropriate name. We still refer to the Battle of Stalingrad, even though Stalingrad is now called Volgograd. Opera hat (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Stalingrad was actually named that way at the time of the battle. "Bois-le-Duc" never was the official name for 's-Hertogenbosch, except for the French period and even then for the French authorities only. It's fine by me to mention the French name once in a while, but I think it should be clear to all that it's only a foreign name and nothing more, where 's-Hertogenbosch lies and that it was never a French-speaking city. The way it was was just confusing so I think at least a compromise should be made. Fnorp (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made to James Ferguson (major-general) were also the same as mentioned in the above comment. All of the three refs in the article state Bois-le-Duc so anyone checking the refs at a later date may think the article is inaccurate, so I have reverted your edits. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the comment I made above did not appear curt as that was not my intention - I apologise if it did as I was in a hurry when I posted it but will now try to expand further. I think I can understand that you are correcting an inaccuracy but hope you can also see why your edits are reverted. I wonder if it would be possible to find a reliable source that explains that centuries ago it was commonly referred to as "Holland" and "Bois-le-Duc" which could then be inserted into the articles as a 'note'? Bois-le-Duc is re-directed to 's-Hertogenbosch but that article is basically unreferenced and gives no mention of Bois-le-Duc.

Don't worry, no harm done. I'll try to explain my point within the limitations of my English, and if I appear unfriendly that certainly is not how I intend it to be either. True, "Holland" was and is commonly used to refer to the Netherlands. But although closely related, Holland and the Netherlands are not the same. Each has its meaning and its use. More important, both names have articles on this Wikipedia that totally get it right; Holland, as it should be, is about the region and former province/county, Netherlands is about the country that Holland is part of. Problem with sources, especially older ones, is that they are often not reliable in this aspect. I myself have a book that locates Glasgow in England, but just because it's in a book and/or is commonly used doesn't make it right. It's a common mistake that, in my opinion, should not be repeated in a modern encyclopedia now we have the chance to get it right. As for "Bois-le-Duc", like I said above, it's a foreign and/or old name only, but I don't mind it being used sparsely in a historic context as long as it is made clear that it's not the real name of that city, and never was, and what the actual name is. Oh, and of course that 's-Hertogenbosch is not located in Holland, and never was either, no matter what the sources say (sometimes a glance at a map proves more than some old book). Fnorp (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the James Ferguson (major-general) article, St. Jan's Kerk was changed to link to St. John's Cathedral ('s-Hertogenbosch), which again is a completely unreferenced article and makes no mention that it may have been referred to as St. Jan's Kerk in the past. My concern is that articles should reflect what is substantiated within the references and certainly in the case of James Ferguson, the basis of the (admittedly not very comprehensive) article is simply a copy of the PD Dictionary of National Biography. The 1888 book mentioned under the 'Biography' section also refers to these using the same terminology. These are areas I do not have much expertise in, so I'm not sure what would be the best route to take to clarify this. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually St. Janskerk (translated St. John's church) is still quite a common Dutch name for the cathedral. But in the 18th century it was no longer a cathedral but a protestant church, until restored to the catholics as a parish church in 1810. But it's the same building and that's why I added the link. "St. Jan's Kerk" is possibly old Dutch spelling and perhaps it's fine for use in the article instead of "my" St. John's church, but since I noticed English names were used for other Dutch churches here on Wikipedia, I chose the latter. Fnorp (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fnorp, thank you for the fuller explanation. It is very much appreciated and I think (hope) I'm beginning to get a better understanding. I have tried to reflect the information with a couple of notes in the article. I did find it difficult to get refs for it but perhaps you could have a quick look and see if I have managed to go some way towards clarifying? I can see the Cathedral is the same as St Jans but can't find a specific ref showing it is one and the same. I will keep looking so I can then link and reference the Cathedral as well. Your English is far better than my attempts at any foreign language would be! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may now also have found a ref sufficient to tie in for the Cathedral; I've put another note into the article that I hope is okay but could you let me know if what I've done isn't correct or acceptable? I've also put a couple of refs into the Cathedral article. Thanks for your patience with this! SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away for a few days. Your first two notes on James Ferguson (major-general) look perfectly fine to me. However, in the third note link number four refers to a different church (in Gouda) while number 5 links to the holland.com website which is notoriously unreliable. I'll try to find better sources, but must they really be in English? Also, the church was founded (is that the right word?) in the 13th century but most of the current building is more recent (14th-16th century). It was catholic until 1629 and then protestant until 1810. Fnorp (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fnorp, thanks for checking that. If you can find references, even if they are not in English, it would be wonderful. Sorry about me getting the church wrong! Yes, 'founded' is the correct word to use. I think I'd ended up on the holland.com site from a link on the Netherlands page, so I hadn't realised it wasn't a reliable source. I didn't know how to insert 'notes' in an article before, so I've not only learnt a little about the Netherlands but discovered a handy little bit of formatting too.

SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think I've seen such notes before but they look helpful, but they do make the wiki-code even more confusing. I have difficulties inserting references. Here's a good Dutch source about the cathedral: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/peet048sint01_01/, it's a completely scanned book about it. Could you please insert the link, and if so, do you need the specific pagenumbers for the references? Fnorp (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morning (well, it's morning here!) - yes if you have the page numbers and let me know what it references, it would be great! For instance (1) does it mention the alternative name? If so which page? (2) Does it mention it changing from Catholic to Protestant then back to Catholic? Again, which page number? Sorry about all the questions but it will help to clarify exactly what we are referencing. I don't have any problem inserting references as it is something I enjoy doing, so just let me know. Thank you for your help with this, it really is very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodmorning! (Yes, it's morning here too). Right now I'm expanding/improving the page about the cathedral. If you can provide the facts that need references I'll find the right pages to match, I'm sure. It will only take some time. Not so sure about the alternative name though; in the Netherlands it's very common to call a catholic church or cathedral only by the name of the patron. In Dutch that simply is St. Jan (St. John). Fnorp (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed you were editing the Cathedral article, which is great as it doesn't have any references in it and the book you have found looks as if it has excellent information about it. I tried to have a quick look at the book using Google translation (ugh!) and I have inserted the link you gave me into 'note 3'. I feel as the translation gives 'St John's Cathedral' it is enough to confirm the differing names. I included a brief sentence beside the link, so if anyone wants more information it can be looked up - I think that gets us out of having to put page numbers in for specific references in this article. By the way, if you feel you need any help with including references from the book in the Cathedral article, let me know and I'll try to help. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir John Marsham, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brabant (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) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert B.C. Noorduyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellanca Skyrocket (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) 11:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holland of the Netherlands...

Hallo Fnorp, Het blijft een vervelende issue. Ook ik had in principe the Netherlands ingevoerd maar onze mede wiki-er (GidonB) uit de UK, was het daar kennelijk niet mee eens. Later nog 's opgezocht, het is dus the Netherlands of Holland dus vandaar dat ik maar gemakshalve Holland heb ingevoerd...Zowel bij mijn 'cluppie' SV Huizen als bij Jorg Smeets..... Met groeten --SH'64 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry maar Holland bestaat toch helemaal niet meer? Het gebruik van (the) Netherlands heeft dan ook de voorkeur, behalve in een historische context als écht Holland wordt bedoeld. Zo te zien was het GidonB vooral te doen om het woordje 'the' in de link. Geen idee waarom van hem ook de link 'North Holland' weg moest, het stond er keurig zo. Groeten, Fnorp (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ixodes trianguliceps 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:

found in [[Europe]]an countries such as [[Belgium]], [[Denmark]], [[France]], [[Germany]], the [[Netherlands], [[Ireland]], [[Poland]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Switzerland]], the [[United

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assyrians in the Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glane (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) 09:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semihemidemibarnstar

Here is a semihemidemibarnstar for <Your unceasing efforts to point out that Operation Market Garden took place in Gelderland, not in Holland>

Netherlands

Hiya Fnorp. I see you've already had a lot of correspondence about this before, so I won't add to it too much. As it happens I fully support your effort to use Netherlands over Holland - I tend to think I use the correct term more than most, and often correct friends (although I won't deny to being guilty of mistakenly using Holland on occasion). So this is only meant as a friendly note; the change you made on Robert Henry Cain actually amended a quote. Whilst I agree that wiki should use Netherlands correctly in prose, quotes should be left intact and unchanged, otherwise we open ourselves to a whole world of grammar, PC language and other issues that we really don't want. Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right of course, in edit-mode it didn't look like a quote to me. I'll be more careful. Fnorp (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Good luck with the quest - it's quite a mountain! Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done on your Netherlands work RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Van Helden.

I hesitate to disagree with you on the use of Holland and the Netherlands in my article on Gerard Van Helden, especially as I see many, many, words have been written on the subject already. I used the word 'Holland' in the article because that is the word used in all the source material I have viewed except one, and that is the 1871 UK census. Even in the 1901 census, he told the Enumerator he was from Gouda, Holland. 99% of the newspaper articles I have listed refer to him as a native of Gouda, Holland, (or in one case a Dutchman.) I therefore think that changing the word from Holland to 'Netherlands' in the articles context is incorrect. TimothyWF (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt many sources will mention the word Holland, I've seen the craziest examples myself. However, there hasn't been a geographic entity by the name of Holland ever since 1840, when the Holland province was split in two. Even though Gouda is located in the historic region that is Holland and that existed until 1840, it has been in a country called the Netherlands ever since 1813 and in a province called South-Holland since 1840. Every modern use of the word Holland is actually wrong, even though it's quite common to use it as a synonym for the Netherlands. Fnorp (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Van Helden

Hello. I am not going to get into one of the lengthy discussion that I see so often in these pages, and I have no doubt that technically you are correct, although others don't agree, do they. My point is that in creating the article, the sources with two exceptions, said that Gerard came from Gouda, Holland. His cousin Rymeer was written as having come from Gouda, Holland too. Maybe this is incorrect nowadays, but the sources are pretty diverse and from say, 1870-1900 that is what they printed in the newspapers in England. Also, Gerard, (and Rymeer), told the English census enumerator he was born in Gouda Holland. So, if I have any say in this, could I please revert to what I wrote? Thanks. TimothyWF (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to do that? Van Helden was born in Gouda, province of South-Holland, the Netherlands. That's it. I know many English sources say Holland instead of the Netherlands. They are wrong. Many people from the Netherlands will even say they're from "Holland". The same sort of people will call Great-Britain "England". It's ignorance and there is absolutely no excuse for it in an encyclopedia. Like I said, there wasn't really a Holland anymore after 1840. No county, no province, no country. It's a region spread over several provinces, nothing more. Van Helden wasn't so much born in Holland, he was born in a city that was part of a thing called Holland until about a decade before he was born. Perhaps he did himself say he came from Holland, but how important is that anyway? Fnorp (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Balbir Singh Sr.' (Indian and world field hockey legend)

Dear Fnorp Hello, I'm writing to you regarding the deletions made by you in Feb'2014 to my contributions with regard to the Wikipedia page of the person I and many other regard as the greatest sporting hero in the history of field hockey and India. Following Wikipedia guidelines, I've tried to ensure that my additions are factual, relevant, concise and presented in a manner which makes it easy to understand. I did this because I felt that facts about heroes like Balbir Singh Sr need to be out there so as to inspire future generations. We in India need such examples at this present time. I need to ask why all the pictures and facts with appropriate citations and references to sources in the public domain were deleted and what do I need to do to get them to reflect on his page. Thank you for your time spent reading this. I hope for an early revert on the same.

Warm regards, Pkb1986 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christiaan Lindemans

Hi Fnorp, I made the necessary changes to La Hague/The Hague and to province of Holland/South of Holland. Best Regards.F.Doyle

Surrey74 (talk) 15:32, 1 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fnorp, For clarity, I will therefore only mention Holland as a region of the Netherlands and not South of Holland to avoid any confusion. Best Regards.F.Doyle

Surrey74 (talk) 05:47, 5 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Bochum–Gelsenkirchen railway

These are names of collieries not countries.--Grahame (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine if that is true. Only you could have mentioned it in the edit summary.Fnorp (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish Netherlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulden. 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) 09:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the words "Holland" or "the Netherlands" in many cases is dictated by the sources

Hi, Fnorp,

I see that one of your most characteristic edits is to change "Holland" to "the Netherlands" in article text. And that can be fine. But when referring to the point of view of a historical person, in an article about a book that person wrote, it is best to follow the language of the book. If you have the book at hand, feel free to cite the page on which the book uses one term or another. If you don't have the book at hand, it is best to leave article text like that alone. After all, even Dutch people, like my many Dutch friends, do sometimes to refer to "Holland" in various contexts in which they are using the English language to mention the place they come from. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not all Dutch people will refer to Holland when they mean their country. Many never will and find it insulting actually. More important, both the terms Holland and the Netherlands have their own meaning and sources often get it wrong. In such cases I think it's fine to replace Holland with the Netherlands. Of course, when Holland is used in the correct meaning (a former county or province) I mostly leave it alone. But in the case of this edit, I see what you mean. Fnorp (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all this is nonsense. When you are writing in English you must respect English meanings, which are often different, and nearly always looser than the meanings of the equivalent terms in Dutch/Flemish. These meanings in English are not "wrong" they are just different. By "correcting" them in the the meanings in Dutch/Flemish you will sometimes make them wrong. I repeat, if you are going to edit the English Wikipedia, you must respect the English language. A Dutch editor recently suggested that "Dutch" should not be used for periods before Belgium broke away. In English that just is not the usage, & Dutch was being used for centuries before that date in the same sense it is used today. If you find English meanings "insulting", frankly that's too bad. Avoid reading English. Don't try and Dutchify English. I agree that many of your edits seem to be on these points (see several sections above; I see I was more sympathetic to some of your edits in one of them). Frankly you should just stop them. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry that you fail to see my point. Fnorp (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]