Talk:VueScan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What needs sourcing? --vossman 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 The deletion of the Updates History graphic, & other tidbits 2 Fair use rationale for Image:Vuescan.png 3 about "accusations and criticisms" 4 self-published tag

[edit] The deletion of the Updates History graphic, & other tidbits

I am a bit sorry to see the Updates History graphic go, but the reality is, for it to remain someone needs to sink some effort into bringing it up to date. Since I am unwilling to volunteer for that task, I could hardly complain when Pol098 finally made the "Bold Edit" to delete it. I would say to anyone else that thinks we should keep it: "Please bring it up to date." (If someone wants to do it, a nearly complete file of the historical data can be found on Version Tracker's website, buried on the VueScan pages in a pop-up menu. This was the source of the data behind the original graphic.)

Meanwhile, is there an entry in Guiness Records for "most frequently updated program"? I can't think of another program that even comes close. Surely it would be a contender for such a record...

In reviewing the classic "Who, What, When, Where, Why & How" guideline, it occurs to me nothing has been said about the author of VueScan beyond his name appearing in the URL to the download page. Does anyone else think we should add a paragraph (no more than 2) about the author?

Does anyone feel we have left some important question unanswered? If so, please ask it here and we'll try to answer it by enhancing the main article...

Badly Bradley 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vuescan.png

Image:Vuescan.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Comments:

1) The icon is not essential to the article, if we should be forced to remove it.

2) If I obtain permission to use the icon, directly from Ed Hamrick, would that solve the problem? (I know for a fact that Ed has already seen the icon in the article, because I brought the article to his attention a while back, and he hasn't complained that I know of.)

Badly Bradley 22:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked Ed about this. He has no problem with the way we used it, but he doesn't want to take time away from his work to deal with the paperwork required to give us permission to use his copyright.

Badly Bradley 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about "accusations and criticisms"

The edits by Special:Contributions/205.144.209.124 on 2007-07-22 appear to me to fit the descrption of WP:WEASEL. As such I am inclined to revert them.

If this editor wishes to keep this change in place he or she needs to clearly state who has been making "accusations and criticisms" including verifiable citations. The provided references are not news to the regular editors of this page, not do they support the "accusations and criticisms".

Does anyone else wish to comment before I do anything about this?

Badly Bradley 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think I should NOT revert it?

Badly Bradley 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self-published tag

I've removed the self-published tag with the following reasoning. I don't doubt that anyone who seriously disagrees will reinstate it, hence no harm done. It seems legitimate that factual information about what a program does could be derived from the program's website (or documentation, etc.) unless there are serious claimed flaws. On the other hand no claims about the quality and similar things should derive this way. I've added a reference near the beginning where it's stated that the scans are good. Pol098 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)