User talk:Govan001

December 2022
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear MrOllie, the added link to the website of the Dutch Law Institute was not inappropriate. It certainly isn't advertising or promotion. Govan001 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Dutch Law institute is an NGO, publishing an online English guide on contract law in the Netherlands, Dutch employment law, business law in the Netherlands and Dutch litigation. This legal guide is edited by a number of selected expert lawyers. With this publication, the Institute intends to increase the accessibility of Dutch law. The Institute has no comercial affiliations and (or) intentions. Govan001 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Self published materials such as this NGOs website are generally not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines, and you should not be systematically adding this site. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Self published materials"? What do you mean. The linked page is about lawyers in the Netherlands.
 * As such it is not material about the Dutch Law Institute itself!
 * So, why do you assume the information isn't reliable? I have read the guidelines on Reliable Sources, and find that the Dutch Law Institute should be regarded as a reliable source. The whole object of the NGO is to give objective and reliable information, free from any commercial intentions and the like. Govan001 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you aren't sure what 'Self published materials' means, you should read the reliable sources guideline again, it is explained there. MrOllie (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear MrOllie, the information published by the Institute is reliable, and the Institute is a reliable source, complying with the guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (which I have read twice). Alas, you haven't sufficiently argued the contrary. Govan001 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly need to argue the contrary, it is plainly a self published site and is presumed unreliable on that basis. Simple assertions that you think it is reliable don't overcome that. Are you associated with the Institute in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am the CEO. And if the site of the Institute should be regarded as "self published", please consider that it may be considered reliable as it is produced by established experts on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Govan001 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For instance: I personally have been a member of the Dutch bar for 34 years, and also have been an arbitrator for a number of arbitration institutes.
 * Why should you wish to contest the assertion that I am an expert on "Dutch lawyers" en "advocates"? Govan001 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. You are likely in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use, and you absolutely should not be adding links to your organization's website. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is (also) non-sense, I'm afraid. I am not paid by anyone to do this. The website of the Institute aims to be completely free of commercial considerations. Your allegations are unfounded. Govan001 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is plainly against Wikipedia's policies. Feel free to get a second opinion at WP:COIN, but I'm sure you will be told the same there. MrOllie (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I'll consider it again. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, although we seem not te be in agreement, so to speak. Govan001 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)