Robert van Engelen

Welcome!

Hello, Robert van Engelen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, 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!  --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability of RE/flex

Hi Robert. I am concerned that RE/flex does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, which is used to determine whether a subject is eligible for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. To understand how that guideline applies to computer programs and other software, you may find it helpful to refer to the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). Although you have cited two books in the article, these do not discuss RE/flex directly and so do not establish its notability. This paper that you provided in the external links section is significant coverage of the computer program, but also does not establish notability because it is not independent of the subject. Are you aware of any independent sources that discuss RE/flex directly and in detail? If such sources are not added to the article, it may be nominated for deletion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lord Bolingbroke. Yes, I understand. The citation list is currently short but will expand soon. Publications are in preparation but have not appeared yet in print in peer-reviewed venues, which I expect within months. Though some non-peer-reviewed articles have appeared, such as [1], which is indicative of the work that is being prepared for publication. As a professor my concern has always been quality of contributions and reproducibility of results, and citing work that forms the basis of the contribution (as an author I have 70+ peer reviewed publications). I will take a careful look at this to expand the citations.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for posting your opinion. 𝒞𝒽ℯℯ𝓈ℯ𝒹ℴℊ (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparent conflict of interest

Hello, Robert van Engelen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what is going on. I was wondering why and what made this page change happen.

I have a question that is not answered: what makes you believe this article is (self) promotional?

First of all, in terms of disclosure, I clearly added my name to the article to disclose my role and when I wrote it as a professor (in my spare time, no less.) Secondly, in terms of "employer disclosure", there is none, because this is not developed under an employer. I wrote it when I was a professor at FSU in my spare time. FSU does not own this project or copyright. It is open source. I released this project as open source, to help students and others. The software is open source BSD-3 licensed and others contributed to it (see the GitHub repo).

I don't get paid or compensated to post this article or to maintain it, nor do I get compensated to work on RE/flex. That is ridiculous to suggest. It is a sad day when people like me who spend years teaching and contributing or creating popular open source software are branded as "self promotional". I love teaching, resource and work on software for over 35 years.

The GitHub RE/flex open source repo has hundreds of views per week and 450+ stars. There is genuine interest in this subject and in the RE/flex tool. So I don't need Wikipedia to get attention for the project (only 2 views per week at the most are from Wikipedia users!)

The Wikipdia article is 7+ years old with very few updates besides version bumps (as everyone else updates the software version). No-one else volunteers to do this version bump update.

I've been an editor of Wikipedia for many years myself. I know the rules and compliance. I would never brand free open source contributions listed on Wikipedia as "promotional" under these circumstances. With those articles on Wikipedia, there are always a couple of external links to the open source repositories and to the manuals. I did nothing different. Robert van Engelen (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)