text:
User talk:Thuresson/Archive1

History of Brazil
Regarding the Brazilian history series, yet it is somewhat odd. The 1945-1964 article is unfinished, along with the 1964-present article. I'll put expanding it on the top of my to-do list on Wikipedia. Thanks. 172 19:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello! Are you from Sweden? :-) Piglet 06:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair use
It is my understanding that fair use allows for any work, not just book covers or album covers or logos, to be used specifically on Wikipedia as long as (a) the work is being commented on or used to supplement a comment on an overarching topic, (b) the character of the use is educational and/or informational. I can't see why the Alucard image wouldn't be fair use, though I'm also not sure that it adds anything useful. Andre ( talk ) 21:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini
Hi, on Images and media for deletion you nominated two pictures of Benito Mussolini to be deleted since they now can be found at Commons. However, somebody on Commons has tagged them to be deleted there too, since they are not verified PD or GFDL. It is possible that Italy follows a EU copyright directive that means that the copyright is owned by the photographer, lifetime + 70 years. The two Mussolini pictures were first uploaded to Wikipedia by User:J.J. who, in my view, has made several careless uploads before. If you have time you can take a look at Benito Mussolini. Regards, Thuresson 22:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that, Thuresson. I only nominated those two since they were incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion here.  I don't think the Commons versions were tagged for deletion at the time.  Anyway, I've withdrawn the IFD nominations.  dbenbenn | talk 00:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thalía
Hi

I'm sincronizing interwikis about muses and uploaded a Thalía image on commons. The Thalia singer has no arcticle related and I don't know how move it to a Image:Thalia_(singer) (or delete it since there is a Image:Thalia Sodi.jpg ) to allow commons image appears in Thalia muse article.

Ok, I should replace image on commons do Thalia_(muse) but it would make the commons a not so common place... So... I ask for help... --Jic 21:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'm watching Image:Thalia.jpg. When its deleted i'll reedit muse's arcticle Jic

Svenska användare
Tjena Thure! Jag skapade en Category:Swedish Wikipedians som vi svenskar här på en: kan lista oss i (om vi nu vill). Tycker att det var en kul idé så jag klottrar lite på några svenska användarsidor för att sprida ryktet om sidan =) För övrigt vill jag tacka dig för att du stöttade mig på Commons så att jag blev op där. // Solkoll 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kali image
Thanks for the note on the Kali image. I didn't see any tags on it to begin with, so is this the wrong tag to place? Please advise - how can we indicate a proper copyright status on this?jk 22:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dayan Image
Hi, Thuresson. The tag you mention is not present on w:he, where I got the image from. I know just enough Hebrew to make out it was claimed to be PD. I didn't know w:en had a copy, or I would have checked.

I'm sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. Taragui 19:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Abbé Pierre
Well, assuming that the picture is very old (1950s), that Abbé Pierre's foundation is an "organisation à but non-lucratif" (meaning it purely aims at helping people and not making money), and that I found it on the English wiki I just labelled it "Domaine Public" because it seemed the most appropriate category, and that's about it ! :=)

No offense, but I'm not sure there is any reason to make such a fuss about it. However, if you DO consider this as problematic, feel free to remove the picture (I've not worked on the article, I just put a picture to make it look more attractive).

Best wishes,

Manchot sanguinaire

Devil Image
Thanks for moving http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tasmanian_devil.jpg to the commons, although I didn't really like the tone of "dubious practive" regarding licenses. I'm new at this, and I'm supplying these images off my own back, and I'm only learning about licenses at present. I was under the impression that the GFDL was more applicaple to code, and changed it to CC. Fair enough - I know I can't do this retrospectively now, but maybe some links and a friendlier tone and possibly some links to further information is a better response?? Jgritz 08:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Image
Kindly stop changing the image tag on "Image:MilChapPope.jpg". I have personally verified that this image came from the U.S. Navy Office of the Chief of Chaplains and have entered such on the images talk page and in the heading. There is no reason to say it is unverified unless you think I am being untruthful. Please assume good faith. -Husnock 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You have left no explanation why this photo is a work of the US government. Who from the navy staff was on St. Peter's Square and took this photo? Simply emailing the work of a freelance photographer does not make a photo a work of the US government. That's what you need to explain. If somebody claimed it was fair use I wouldn't think twice about this image, but the PD claim creates extra work for administrators at WikiCommons. Thuresson 09:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Free use would work just as well. I have no reason to think the Priest who sent it to me was being untruthful about where it came from.  He did, however, make it very clear it was offically released by his office.  Hopefully we can work something out.  I put all this on the page about the image dispute. -Husnock 17:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yushchenko image
This image is an official photo of the Ukrainian government. You can verify this yourself at. If you came across it on Yushchenko's private site (www.yushchenko.com.ua), it doesn't mean that you have spotted a copyright problem. Sashazlv 07:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have already checked the official site two hours ago if they allowed others to publish photos but all I found was "copyright 2005". Thuresson 07:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I double checked the law of Ukraine "on copyright and related rights", . Below is my translation of an excerpt from Article 21 "Free use..." (I am preserving the wording as much as possible and skipping unnecessary detail):
 * Without a permission of the author (or other copyright holder), but with a mandatory reference of the author's name and the source, is permitted:
 * 2) the use of literary and artistic works ... as illustrations in publications ... of educational nature.
 * 2) the use of literary and artistic works ... as illustrations in publications ... of educational nature.

 * My interpretation of the Article is that the image unambiguously qualifies for free use in an encyclopedia. Please, remove the notice of the copyright infringement. Sashazlv 00:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am very glad that you have changed your mind after my remark. On March 4 you claimed that the image was public domain here, e.g. that anybody could use it for any purpose. I also notice that the name of the photographer ("the mandatory reference") is still missing. Thuresson 11:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of replying to your sarcastic remarks.Sashazlv 14:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, you just did, didn't you? Thuresson

From looking at the aformentioned site, the first image is written in Ukrainian as Портрети Президента України Віктора Ющенка (Затверджені офіційно). The second one, which I saw was claimed to be a previous photo of him, is also listed on this website. I do not see anything for copyright of the photos, or even who took them, except for: Представництво розпочало свою роботу 24 серпня 2002 р.

Усі права на матеріали, вміщені на цьому сайті, належать Адміністрації Президента України © 2000 - 2005 роки

On the English page, the copyright was only from 2000-2004. I do not know what to say or do, but we should try to do some more digging. Zscout370 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sure this is an official portrait and I think the best would be consider its use on Wikipedia as "fair use". I think the uploader could agree to that also. Perhaps it would be the best if a third party added the appropriate "fair use" tag on the image description. Thuresson 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nixon 30-0122a.gif
Hey, thanks again on those images. I was going to use the photo above in the Ehrlichman article and didn't get to it apparently (or maybe I used something else) will have to look at it. --Wgfinley 05:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, nevermind, that one's okay to delete, I used the photo with Haldeman instead and don't think we need more photos in that article. --Wgfinley 05:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image Deletion
I have a question about it. Its about images that are both on the Commons and here, however, both have the same name. I have an example: I uploaded a file on both places called Image:KMT flag.png, the flag of the KMT Party in the Republic of China. If I had the image from Wikipedia deleted, will it affect the various pages at all? Zscout370 (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No, there wouldn't be any apparent change, the image in the article would be there just like before. However, before you delete, make sure that the image description on commons has all the important information about where the image comes from, a correct license and so on. Thuresson 21:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:A380 1.jpg
Taken from the French presidential website last week. I don't know if it's still there, as they update frequently. Hardouin 22:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mr I-know-better, before accusing people and telling them their claims are very misleading, you should dig the subject a little more if you don't want to appear foolish yourself. I went to Law School in France, mind you!, and I remember pretty clearly that pictures of government officials taken during office, in official context (not private pictures), are public domain, such as for instance the official portrait of Jacques Chirac which is displayed on the Jacques Chirac article. The warning on the website that you copied and pasted cannot be considered legally binding, unless it refers specifically to those private pictures of Jacques Chirac or his family that appears on the website. By the way, the official portrait of Jacques Chirac also appears on the presidential website, yet nobody asked for the website permission to reproduce it. So let's stop the non-sense please. Hardouin 22:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for telling me about French law. I don't quite understand your last sentence: By the way, the official portrait of Jacques Chirac also appears on the presidential website, yet nobody asked for the website permission to reproduce it.. Perhaps the presidential website do have permission to use it, maybe because the photographer was paid by the government? Or the presidential website paid for it?

 * Pictures taken during office refers to the office held by the photographer, perhaps in his/her capacity of being empmloyed by the government, not that anybody's photo of Chirac is public domain. Your interpretation would mean that this photo is public domain. Thuresson 02:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey Picture
I'm not complaining about my deletion, but I have tried e-mailing her record company about using her picture on Wikipedia, and it never sends. What should I do? Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * You found this album cover on a web page that claims "Copyright © 2004, The Island Def Jam Music Group". WikiCommons only allows images that are licensed under a free license and can be used by anybody for any purpose, e.g. selling t-shirts with this photo. I do not think that Miss Carey's record company would ever allow that. See Licensing for more info. Thuresson 00:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Mic's images
As for the images you asked about at User talk:Mic, I think it is safe to assume they are PD-old. They look like typical 19th century prints, probably illustration from some historical or biographical work (perhaps not very good ones, but many weren't). BTW, Mic hasn't edited here since Sep. 2004, and probably doesn't follow what happens on his talk page. Uppland 13:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Visst, han hade varit borta länge när jag ställde frågan men det skadar ju inte att försöka. Senare hittade jag bilderna i allafall, gamla bilder ur Nordisk familjebok. Thuresson 14:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf's RfA
I noticed that you had made a comment about Wiglaf's behavior at his RfA without providing any links or references to the involved parties.

It is very inappropriate to bring up disputes from other Wikipedias without providing a single reference, link or even a bare-bones summary for the vast majority of users who do not speak Swedish. For the record, the dispute brought up by you was between Wiglaf and the user 213.101 concering the articles götar and svear, and the offending party was hardly Wiglaf (even if I agree it would've been ideal if he was a bit more patient). In my experience, 213 is a user who frequently resorts to original research to support his edits and who's inability to see his own blatant POV as anything but the truth is only matched by his unprecented stubborness and lack of civility, and after reading the relevant talkpages I can assure you that this debate was no exception. Wiglaf's competence, his comments on source material and overall academic judgement widely surpasses anything mustered by either 213 or you.

Wiglaf was absolutely right to point out that you behaved inappropriate in protecting an article you yourself had obvious designs on. Admins have been RfC:d for much lesser offenses here at English Wikipedia and I know this is not the first time you have violated the expected neutrality of adminship. Just the fact that you supported 213 in this case (but failed to mention it in the RfA) seems to me as reason enough to seriously question your competence. That you do not have a better grasp of the principles of No original research, Verifiability or even NPOV is very disturbing and I am very distressed that an elected bureacurat like yourself does not possess better judgement.

What's worst of all is that you did not even manage to get your statement of what Wiglaf said correct. Amatörforskning does not translate to the subtly pejorative "amateur historian". This is blatantly obvious from the context since it was clearly meant as a Swedish translation of original research. Try to keep in mind that even though Swedish Wikipedia is a highly disfunctional and xenophobic wiki where old-timers and admins get away with truly stunning displays of incivility and POV pushing, it is not considered acceptable behavior here at the English Wikipedia.

Peter Isotalo 07:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Efter att Vigleif bad om ursäkt känns hela saken utagerad. Den 18 maj kallad Vigleif IP för "amatörforskare" . Thuresson 09:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Translation: After Vigleif [Wiglaf's user name on sv] apologized I consider this a moot point. On May 18th Vigleif called IP an "amateur scholar" .

 * Please respond in English if contacted in English. I consider this to be a public issue, especially with your recent promotion as a bureaucrat as well as being a long-time admin and an experienced wikipedian. If I had wanted this to be between you and me I would've simply e-mailed the complaint.
 * I apparantly missed that particular comment, but only because it was Vigleif's final announcement on his user page that he had given up on Swedish Wikipedia for good. This is still after you had blatantly abused your admin privs to meddle in a debate you were partial to and had little or no competence to comment on. And the fact remains that you supported IP, a very uncivil and obstructive user who has succeeded in scaring off a competent and able editor, and you helped him do it. I assume this is not the first or last time either. I sincerely hope you apply better judgement and show more humility in subjects you know little about when discussing and editing here on English Wikipedia.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

You petty idiot
Discussion below is about Image:Thermal Equator.jpg

It's people like you who ruin wikipedia. I go to the trouble of tracking down an image and sticklers for rules no one cares about like you think it's better to have a blank space instead.

Why not draw up a computerised version yourself or find a free equivalent instead of trying to have it deleted. - Diceman 15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I should speak out when I see attacks like this.
 * Thuresson was in his full right to list an obviously copyrighted image for deletion. If he hadn't, someone else would have.
 * --Fred-Chess 18:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * So you can predict the future? The problem is I intended it to be used once on a fringe article only, due to the lack of free climate maps it's been used on a number of more popular articles. I don't like the whole mentality of "there's a one in a million chance someone might possibly not want an image they have copyright on used here. Let's delete it immediately and with prejudice!". My issue is when does following the voluntarily enforced guidelines harm wikipedia more than it helps it? - Diceman 11:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no excuse for blatant personal attacks and pure insults, Diceman. Ever. Copyright infringements are one of the all-out rules that are simply non-negotiable and one should not be treated to insults because of trying to uphold these principles. Please consider removing your comments or at least rephrasing it. Your aggressive and uncivil behavior is just as harmful to Wikipedia as the things you accuse Thuresson of.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Diceman, you could have tagged it Fair use. I did it for you yesterday. --Fred-Chess 14:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your support, Fred C and Karmosin. The problem with tagging images PD when they're not is that such images eventually turn up at WikiCommons, just like this one did. Scanning an image from a book and then claiming it is public domain is... misleading. Thuresson 15:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess it was the straw that broke the camel's back, I've been civil in previous conflicts but I was fed up of being objective and polite while the other person got their way anyway. The manner in which Thuresson tried to have the image deleted wasn't terribly mature or diplomatic I might add (no explanation except a template on my talk page and "This image is not public domain. User:Diceman has confessed that he/she scanned the image from a book. See en:User talk:Diceman#Image:Thermal Equator.jpg." on the image page). If I do scan anything without any clear copyright in the future (which is unlikely) I'll be sure to add the appropriate source info and tag.- Diceman 14:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gemensam notice board for Swedish people
Hej hej.

I am doing a promotional tour for the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. The purpose of this is to have a common place for ideas and suggestions regarding Swedish things. If you are interested, you can sign your name, and add / modify material to how you think would serve the purpose.

--Fred-Chess 10:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ego.jpg
I understand your concern and am thankful that you are doing your best to ensure wikipedia works well and has as few problems as is possible, but, regarding this photo, I have express permission from a band member. If that is not enough, i will endevour to gain permission from the photographer, whom i know personally. Regards, Andrew Graham

 * Note to others: user's first version of this polite and well-written verse was: Idiot. Why in the world did you delete my image of Ego.jpg from the commons? I had express permission to use the image from a member of the band featured in the photo. You my friend are nothing but a petty moron. Go and please fornicate yourself, for want of no better words.

Sir, I apologise for my uncivil language before, but i have altered it somewhat. I also apologise for not having clarified the fact that i had permission to use this image, and will do so in the future. Thanks for your help. P.s. I Fully deserve the mocking above, hahaha.

Che Guevara photo
Sorry for the delay in response. I added it as it might be a good idea to include an example of it in use via an image, although the lack of space could be a problem. As i'm not really following the article, whether any such photo is included doesn't concern me much. Hedley 21:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RIG-G172
thanks for watching out. The source copyright claim is just that, a claim: it is my understanding that images of ancient inscriptions (this one is aged some 2000 years) are fair game as per Template:PD-art. If I am mistaken (ianal), I am happy to move the image to en:, supplying an tag. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It is my understanding that US courts allow reproductions of 2D works of art who are public domain. This stone tablet is 3D and (arguably) not a work of art. It is thus protected by copyright just like a photo of old an building, old statues or old nature. Thuresson 16:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, look, I'll move it to en. I don't see how a stone tablet is any more 3D than any painting, since the area of interest, the inscribed face, is "2D" as much as layers of paint are 2D. dab (ᛏ) 16:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * the image again, sorry. It seems Gippert just scanned it from his source,  Recueil des inscriptions galloises, vol. I: Textes gallo-grecs, ed. Michel Lejeune, Paris 1985. So his own copyright notice is irrelevant to this, and he is implicitly claiming fair use. The question remains however, if the image is copyrightable, if so, the copyright would be with Lejeune's publishers (or the photographer). I do tend to believe however, that this image is not copyrightable. dab (ᛏ) 10:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your recent removal of the image from Aleksandr Danilovich Aleksandrov
I wonder if you are the appropriate address to write this to, or should I put a suggestion to some wider forum about commons images deletion process current practices. You've followed the letter of the process of the image deletion, but in reality I didn't see what is going on until you have had the deletion affirmed, since I don't frequent the commons and don't have a watchlist there. (At the present time, I am a bit busy with my studies and keep a low WP profile, so I only occasionally poll the en.wikipedia). I dare say that this is the normal mode of operation of a lot of contributors to a single-language WP --- they don't monitor more than a single watchlist. Therefore, IMHO, to keep to the spirit of the peer review, you should have left a notice on the using ARTICLE'S talk page, or on my user page. In that case, I would have gladly commented your deletion request with the following: the image in question was tagged PD with a reference to a discussion on the WP Mathematics, in which several people in the know had confirmed the credibility of the PD claim. In the worst case, the tagging should have been PD-Soviet rather than PD, but this is hardly grounds to deletion. In the commons deletion logs, I see no discussion following your request, furthermore, I don't see how you explain why the above should be ignored, yet you've been granted the deletion. Thanks for watching out for dubious PD claims, but please follow up deeper next time. It would be great if you could kindly ask for the undeletion yourself — I've got no experience in this process. BACbKA 29 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

 * DaTroll requested the deletion and notified BACbKA of this request on June 20. I assume that is your user page. The St. Andrews legal claim is problematic, especially their claim: However, if you wish to use them in any other way -- in "paper" publishing or on a CD for example -- we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems..
 * All images on WikiCommons need a copyright license and a source who can verify the copyright - St. Andrews can not. Thuresson 30 June 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Legalise Cannabis Alliance Emblem
Just wondering about the deletion of this image. Why? (I know who it was in the LCA who put it in to Wikipedia).
 * Laurel Bush 7 July 2005 09:42 (UTC).

 * This logo was uploaded to WikiCommons by User:AlunB3 on March 11, without a copyright license. User was notified on June 25 that the image could be deleted without a proper copyright tag. Image was deleted by myself yesterday. Thuresson 7 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

 * And what would be a proper copyright tag? I imagine I should be able to arrange that one, if I know what I am looking for. The image was created by the LCA and I know AlunB3 to be a prominent member of the same. (Sorry, I dont have much experience working with images.)
 * Laurel Bush 7 July 2005 10:06 (UTC).

 * All images at WikiCommons need to have a proper copyright tag and, if the uploader do not own the copyright, a source who can verify that this is correct. The very least one can do is add "I made this and I put it into the public domain". More details available at Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 7 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Prosthetic limbs photo
I found the image on the U.S. Army's photo archive, and have uploaded it to the Commons with source information (My commons contributions). Hope that helps, and best of luck to you. Yours, Meelar (talk) 15:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, that saved me a lot of time! Thuresson

Söderköping and Norrköping pictures
Very nice pictures on Wikipedia Commons, Th.

I have added some of them to Söderköping and Norrköping (and expanded the text of the former a little). I don't know how to note the fact on Wp Commons, though. Would registering there enable me to do that? Tack så mycket in advance. -- Picapica 20:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Söderköping is a nice little town, me and my camera wad there last week and had an ice cream at the canal. About WikiCommons, you only need to register if you want to upload things, if you want to edit or change things you can go right ahead. Of course, registering is warmly recommended anyway. Thuresson 20:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Betulapendula2web.jpg
This image can be deleted. I've uploaded quite a number of photos from the website of the university of Leuven, Belgium when the non-commercial tag was still authorised. It's a pity for the beautiful pictures, but it can't be helped. So you can delete this picture. JoJan 14:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Maskhadov bild
http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/bio/president.htm Härifrån. Linken bör synas också bland de andra sodana för att läsa mera i den själva Maskhadov artikeln. I fall att du vil väta eller diskutera mera om den här saken, Tjetjenien ochså vidare, var vänlig och välj mellan engelskan och svenskan, när jag inte är en medlem där på den svenska versionen.--BIR 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Och vidare, förstår jag din åsikt här på WikiCommons fullkomligt. Men när det konstaterar om sodana statliga figurer som flaggor, presidentter osv. vilka befinner sig i officiella sammanhang, som ovanstående linken är utan tvivel, man bör använda bilder och även texter ganska frit.

Men eller om du hade någon tvivel mera, var vänlig och kontakta Tjejenska utrikesministeriets sida och de anstälda dig självt. En annan sak är att hittills ingen stat osv. har erkänt Tjetjenien på ett internationell sätt... Kortt sagt, i detta avseende var och än bör använda dessa material såsom man vill.

I alla fall erkännar jag kunde ha väljt en annan "tag" av en mera passande typ från de talrika alternativ på WikiCopyRights listan. Kunde du föreslå en sådan?--BIR 08:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright status - suggestion required
Sir, You have removed the Emblem of Ramakrishna Mission as no information regarding copyright status was mentioned. It was me who had uploaded the image, and i was not able to give more info on copyright status as i did not know about it. I am no legal expert. Please let me know what copyright tag needs to be put to pictures which are available on books which have copyrights etc. or the pictures from the individual's collections which have been scanned. In india, copyright status in not very well known. For example, i have asked many members of the mission about the emblem. While the members gave me oral permission to use it, they were not aware who was the competant authority to issue such status - as the emblem is widely used without any restriction etc.What tag need to be put if i want to imply that the image carries religious sentiments and hence should not be used for purely commercial purposes or should not be tampered with ? Thanks !! Ramashray 06:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd be happy to help you. I suggest that you upload this to English Wikipedia, NOT the image repository WikiCommons. In the accompanying information box you add and the same thing you wrote me about respecting religious sentiments etcetera. Thuresson 14:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The permission
Greetings,

The "permission" letter has nothing to do with soccer (football). I cant read the middle two lines, since it is microscopic in scale. But what I can read is that it is indeed a document relating to Alvand Plastic about approving some sort of "160mm Polyethylene" hardware tool or machinery used in farming. The letter mentions nothing about pictures, soccer players, newspapers, or anything of that sort. The 3 signatures belong to agriculture, and soil mechanics authorities.

Mr. Hadi is simply trying to fool you. That is my judgement.

Regards, --Zereshk 06:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:500KMF obverse.jpg
Why did you mark this image as having an unknown copywright status? I stated that I scanned the bill myself. SDC 16:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Bellefontaine, Ohio
You deleted the image depicting the city seal for Bellefontaine, Ohio. That was, and is, in the public domain, as it is the emblem of a governmental agency in the United States. In the future, if you have a dispute concerning the copyright of an image, for crying out loud PLEASE use the "talk" area. That's bloody well what it's there for. -- SwissCelt 02:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Never mind, I just got your message. That'll teach me to check for messages on the Commons every now and then, rather than just the English Wikipedia.  Cheers, and I apologize. (By the way, I just uploaded the image to the English Wikipedia, where I understand there won't be any copyright issues.) -- SwissCelt 02:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Autumn" image no longer an orphan
Please do not delete this image. We need more old fine art, not less. JDG 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lulworth Cove
Two years ago, when I was first asked about this image I emailed Ian West whose website I'd taken it from about it, and he told me it was PD/copyleft. The image was apparently only tagged because somebody attaches a far too specific definition to "copyleft". I don't archive email and I really don't care about the photo, so if you want more info you'll have to email Ian West. Joe D (t) 21:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Koenigsegg-CCR-'04.jpg
A friend of mine shot the picture at an autoshow... I didn't put it as I shot it myself since I didn't do so and was a bit stuck as to which notice I should've applied for it. Diego440

Stasi photos you want to delete
Suggest you take a break from your rampage and look here Have a nice day.--Fahrenheit451 21:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:Newmellewatertower.jpg
Fixed the copyright issue. I suggest that you inform people on their english page besides just their commons site, cause I know that I personally never check the commons. --jcarkeys 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Most of these people are probably not users of English Wikipedia, but the Spanish or French version. Thuresson

Image:Betulapendula1web.jpg
This is probably one of the last non-commercial photos left that I've uploaded when this was still allowed. You can remove this photo, because there is no way the copyright holder will change his position. JoJan 19:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:ParlTriangle.JPG
I have added copyright an source data. You might want to chack that I have included everything I need to and not left anything out. I'll let you remove the deletion request templates if you are happy with it. Adz 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:The Scream.jpg
I think you may be mistaken about the copyright status of "The Scream", which I noticed you marked as copyrighted, fair use. I believe to it be in the public domain under U.S. law: please see the flow chart at, from the website of U.S IP lawyers Bromberg & Sunstein LLP. -- Karada 16:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I made the following assumptions: Since Edvard Munck is a Norwegian artist I assume that Norwegian copyright law is relevant. Munck has not been dead for 70 years, hence his works are protected by copyright. Thuresson 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Since the Wikipedia Foundation is based in Florida, I would assume that Florida law is most likely to apply. In your comment on my talk page, you suggest (as I understand it) that binding treaties exist for countries to respect one another's copyright laws, and that these act to establish the most restrictive copyright terms possible in all jurisdictions. As far as I am aware, this is not the case. If it is, could you please give me some references to the applicable treaties, laws, or terms in the copyright conventions which have this effect? -- Karada 22:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What I had in mind was the Uruguay Round Agreement Act signed by president Clinton in 1994 that restored copyright to foreign works that were in the public domain in the United States. Now that I have had reason to study the act again I must admit that The Scream is too old to be protected since more than 95 years has passed since the painting was painted.

 * The United States Copyright Office has published a circular that explains what the act means: copyright.gov. My understanding is that foreign works created in 1910 or later may be protected. I have also changed the tag at Image:The Scream.jpg (Munck has not been dead for 100 years) to.

 * Thuresson 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...
Thuresson, it was very kind of you to translate my page! Thanks for your help. I couldn't read your Swedish talk page, but as it was blank, I supposed you might use an English page instead.

If you look at my English user page, you will see that a remarkable number of my fifteen non-en wikis have been translated in just over two days.

Please do let me know if I may return the favor; I am available to you at any time.

Kind regards,

paul klenk talk 20:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Buddhist monastery.jpg
This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your bot is playing up
Sorry, the bot is rather still experimental. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to provide the source.
I've already provided the correct source for Byron Long. user:HansChung

I provided myself as the source where appropriate and will try to document the other cases accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. -Widosu 07:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Image:Mariev.jpg
Oops! Thanks for the heads up. It's not unprotected. Sasquatch 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the David Crutcher sound file
I am extreamly dissapointed you did that, I provided everything in regards to where that came from, who to contact about permissions to use that, and how it was made, and why I put it up there and the value of the subject matter to the article. There was no reason to delete that. And I was ignored at every turn. If you delete my sound file then you should delete every sound file. --Cloveious 15:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Galaxy.m74.arp.750pix.jpg
''Hi, you uploaded this photo in 2003. Later, it has been uploaded to WikiCommons. One user at WikiCommons claims that it is not public domain and that the copyright owner only allows non-commercial use. Feel free to leave any comments you might have at the image talk page.''
 * Thanks for your question. Unfortunately that user is correct about it being non-commercial use. At that time I was fresh to WP and had no idea such images could not be used. I have put dozens of astronomical pics onto WP so there may be many more. So I guess it has to be deleted. - Adrian Pingstone 09:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Image
Thanks for letting me know; this image has been used in Hack (technology slang) since I uploaded it. --SPUI (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Katanga flag image
Regarding Image:Flag katanga large.png — I'm not quite sure what the current copyright tag means, since I'm not the one who put it there. I'm the one who created the image, and as far as my permission is involved, the image is released to the public domain, although there might be other legal issues regarding flags as well. -- Vardion 07:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Haring (and other peoples') artworks
How in the world did you arrive at the conclusion that Image:Keith_Haring_-_Untitled.jpg is unlikely to be licensed under the GFDL? I took the picture, released it under the GFDL, provided an accurate description. That's all there is to it. I have also uploaded pictures of paintings and silkscreens by Warhol, Lichtenstein and other artists. I have access to originals of all those artworks and don't see a reason why taking pictures of them and adding them to Wikipedia would be a violation. I think it's fair use in Wikipedia's case, and of course I should have tagged it as such... Mstroeck 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * GFDL is not fair use. You can not license other people's work at a license of your choice. The copyright to Haring, Warhol and Liechtenstein's work are actually owned by somebody. Only the copyright owner can license the works under GFDL. Thuresson 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

UBB logo
Hi Thuresson, I have seen that you deleted the UBB logo from WIkiCommons (UBB_logo.gif). To be honest, I do not fully understand the reason behind this action. I would like to have this logo back in two articles, namely Babes-Bolyai University and its Romanian version. The gif file is from the University's official webpage and it is a logo. I have initially specified that the image is a logo, (by including the logo format), but apparently that was not enough. My question is what should I do in order to upload the image to WikiCommons. Should I follow the Univ. of Cambridge shield example (GFDL+a fair use notice) or the Univ. of Oxford example (the logo format, without GFDL)? --Alex 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If you read Commons:Licensing you'll see that WikiCommons accepts neither fair use images or logos. The reason is that companies, organizations and institutions usually are very careful about who can use their logos and do not allow others to use their logo for any reason and any purpose. If you can clearly show that the university indeed does allow this, I suggest you upload the image again with an explanation and use the tag . Thuresson 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am still missing something. Why would I need to include the tag? If you have a look at the University of Cambridge crest from WikiCommons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cambridge_University_Crest_-_flat.png) you can see that it has a GFDL licence. In that case it was taken from the English Wikipedia, where it was uploaded from the University of Cambridge official website and was attributed a GFDL licence with the addition of a fair use notice. I cannot see why I could not use the same procedure for the UBB crest? Or is the Univ. of Cambridge crest going to be deleted as well? --Alex 20:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I don't really know much about English Wikipedia or can answer about English Wikipedia's image policy. The Cambridge university seal is from the 16th century, hence not protected by copyright law. If you want to upload a university seal you should make sure that it is either released by the copyright owner under a free license or is old enough not to be protected by copyright. Thuresson 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

COA of DRC
hi Thuresson, I reverted to Image:ArmsDRCbig.gif which is a scan of the real COA. The one you put is somebody's artwork from the few sentences discribing the COA in the constitution of the transition. It's purely somebody's interpretation not the actualy COA being used by governement officials.---moyogo 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien/Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
13:19, 28 October 2005 Thuresson (Image deleted from WikiCommons, no license) - Sorry, thanks for the clean-up of the killed picture link. However, someone killed my pictures without even asking. Instead of a text edit, I now have to upload the pics again. They should have informed me ... but it's neither your problem nor your responsibility. So sorry to bother you. Cheers JCB, 18.12.05

Images with unsure copyright status
Would you mind confirming a copyright status for these three images below? Adnghiem501 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Albert Camus.gif
 * Image:Gwen Araujo.jpg
 * Image:Mculkin.jpg

Your comment on User talk:RachelBrown
I thought it pertinent to note that the above user has left Wikipedia for good, and that they will never return, especially given the (ridiculous) indefinite bans of sock puppeting against other users claiming that they were all RachelBrown in disguise. If you are interested in what happened, I have compiled a page to document the events here: User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Suffice to say that RachelBrown won't be answering your query. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero of the USSR
Where did you see any "Ad hominem"? This was indeed a criticism but nothing even close to an attack. Be careful with accusing others in attacking you when they simply critisize your action.

Please see the rest of my response here. --Irpen 08:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Swedish provinces
Riksarkivet has recently explained they have copyirhgt of the coat of arms (e.g. here). I've created some of my owns, (See sv:Landskapsvapen) and intend to upload them to replace the current. Just checking if you have any objections? / Fred-Chess 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thuresson/Archive1


text:
User talk:Shinjitsu~enwiki

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Shinjitsu. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Shinjitsu~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Shinjitsu~enwiki


text:
Texas Rangers

Texas Rangers most commonly refers to:

 * Texas Ranger Division, an investigative law enforcement agency in the U.S. state of Texas
 * Texas Rangers (baseball), an American professional baseball team

Texas Rangers may also refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * Texas Rangers (film), a 2001 American action Western
 * The Texas Rangers (1936 film), an American Western
 * The Texas Rangers (1951 film), an American Western in colour
 * The Texas Ranger (film), a 1931 film
 * The Texas Ranger (magazine), the undergraduate humor publication of the University of Texas at Austin

Other uses

 * Texas Rangers (architects), a group of architects at the University of Texas at Austin
 * Leucophyllum frutescens, an evergreen shrub sometimes called Texas Ranger

title: Texas Rangers


text:
Talk:Texas Rangers

Untitled

 * I've transplanted this discussion about a proposed article move from Talk:Texas Rangers (baseball) --Commander Keane 11:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Name change
I have moved the old contents of the page Texas Rangers to Texas Rangers (disambiguation), freeing up Texas Ranger for this article (about the baseball team)]. We will need an admin to move the page, and there is a backlog at the moment, so I'll wait a bit (or hope someone else take cares of it). Cheers, --Commander Keane 07:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we should keep this in perspective: Someone in Liverpool or Baghdad or Melbourne or Bombay who wants to brush up on the US wild west is more apt to want the law enforcement agency. The only ones who would really want the baseball team first are probably Americans.  My own opinion would be, from a www perspective, this page should be second fiddle.  However, the formal name of the law enforment agency is "Texas Ranger Division", therefore, if this page is moved to Texas Rangers, I would like to see a disclaimer at the top of the page in italics offering the link to the law enforcement division.  --CrazyTalk 19:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I concur that the baseball team is second fiddle. I like the disambiguation page, although it might be bit verbose. But until such time (if any) that the baseball version of the Texas Rangers (who were named after the law enforcement division, let's not forget) happen to win the World Series (or even come close to getting there), it would be kind of pretentious to have them as the "top dog" in this category. Wahkeenah 19:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I admit that I don't like it, mostly for selfish reasons because I work on a lot of the Texas Rangers articles and this adds an extra pain in the neck, but Texas Rangers should remain the disambiguation page. This is similar to the situation that arose at Saint Louis Blues and Georgia.  R ADICAL B ENDER  ★  19:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very similar to St. Louis Blues. Again, a team that was named after something, and then somehow its fans think the team should be the primary reference. Maybe they forgot that there's a good reason their logo looks like a musical note. Georgia is on my mind. And then there's the creature called Turkey. :) Wahkeenah 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone reverted my MoS compliant disambiguation page, could you restore it to the new location please. --Commander Keane 06:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevemrind, I'll do it myself. --Commander Keane 11:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment
Don't know if anybody monitors this discussion but ...

Though it is not a big deal IMHO Texas Rangers should redirect to Texas Ranger Division instead of being a redirect. Though I agree the baseball team is very well-known it is equally well-known that the team is named after the police unit and the police unit is at least as well-known as the sports team. In the same way that Dallas goes straight to the major city instead of a disambig that includes the TV show I would argue this should not automatically go to a disambig.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 * One year later. . . . :-) I would question whether the police force is as well known as the sports team.  see Systemic bias.  The average person does not have a college degree, and does not live near texas.  The average person does have access to sports news.  And if one were to look at article views for the sports team  (referenced several years back to take in account the recent spike in traffic due to Rangers current run in the playoffs) and police version, one could see that significantly more people are viewing the sports team over the police force.  I would argue this shows that there is no primary topic for the plural form the term "Texas Rangers" and the disambig page belongs where it is.  Oldag07 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Texas Rangers (baseball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Texas Rangers (baseball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Texas Rangers


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positionality

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Positionality
This appears to be a quote by a person whom I have not heard of. It might be vanity but in case it is something more I created this vfd. Falphin 00:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a commonplace book. The concept seems another systematic post-Marxist concept, but I doubt it's a very widely used term, as it looks pretty bulky and imprecise.  (And let their gourds verily be blown when they realize that the post-colonial center is decentered and cannot exist in an objectives system, even in a materialist critique.) Geogre 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable term. JamesBurns 07:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism . --Edcolins 19:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche-Riemann Method
Anyone voting here please also see Votes for deletion/Triple Curve, which was created by the same editor for the same reason.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article has POV problems. Nominator abstains from voting.  — Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This article was created by a new account in violation of two arbitration committee rulings prohibiting supporters of Lyndon LaRouche from making edits or creating articles that promote LaRouche, or which are based on LaRouche publications, which the arbitration committee has determined constitutes original research. The Power of Reason has posted a photograph of LaRouche on his user page, and is making no secret of his support for him. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for an incident report.

 * The two arbcom rulings are at Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Unencyclopedic; based on discredited publications; represents a tiny-minority view; has no hope of becoming NPOV; constitutes original research; and violates LaRouche-related arbcom rulings.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how in the world this violates an ArbCom ruling unless the ruling was that LaRouchites can't write about LaRouche. The only question I can see is whether it's notable enough to have an article. Since we already have lots of content on LaRouche, and since LaRouche does have an organization of some size, the answer to that seems to me to be that yes it is sufficiently notable. I suppose if this is a particularly obscure or marginal idea even by LaRouche standards I might change my mind. Everyking 00:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that with 35 Google hits it would certainly be considered obscure by most definitions of the word. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 02:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; let's keep our views about the subject matter separate from the question of notability. Everyking 00:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Per SlimVirgin Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:43, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per SlimVirgin. Article has no reputable sources. Jacob1207 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My guess is it would probably be pretty easy to find some article in LaRouche's paper confirming that this "method" is a real LaRouche idea. Everyking 01:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your statement doesn't in any way contradict Jacob1207's statement. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: The question isn't whether LaRouche is infamous and notable, but whether this method is.  It isn't.  It's foil hattery by his followers, and the most we could do is merge and redirect to the LaRouche article.  We don't allow the break-out of every verse from the Bible, every principle of Locke, nor, by any means, every "method" of LaRouche. Geogre 01:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Everyking. People have different views on whether or not the method is notable, so deleting the article on the basis of the theory not being notable is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. Pincus 01:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not a VfD criteria. Verifiability is. LaRouche publications are not reliable sources, even (or especially) about LaRouche. -Willmcw 01:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? A LaRouche publication is the perfect source for determining whether or not this is an actual LaRouche idea. The question of whether or not it's right or not is irrevelant. To make that judgement would be inherently POV. Everyking 01:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unverifiable LaRouchecruft. We don't need a separate article on each and every single one of his "ideas" - we'd soon run out of "not paper" if that was the case. --FCYTravis 02:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with SlimVirgin. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with SlimVirgin and Willmcw. We already have too much space on Wikipedia for the dubious and idiosyncratic views of LaRouche and his followers.--Cberlet 02:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Pincus and Everyking. Also, I was illegally blocked for no reason as User:The Power of Reason earlier today. The Power of Human Reason 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite as a stub on the off chance someone might actually look it up, but the, uh, theory seems to be patent nonsense in and of itself, bordering on Deep Thoughts. Haikupoet 03:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as the subject matter is mere piffle that (rightly) hasn't attracted the world's attention. -- Hoary 03:53, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another hare-brained scheme to promote LaRouche. Change of vote to Merge and redirect to Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche. It's still hare-brained, I've taken a stab at making it NPOV hare-brained, so maybe it's acceptable now.  --Calton | Talk 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 07:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Lyndon LaRouche. Ridethefire3211 07:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, creation of this article violates the arbcom ruling on Lyndon LaRouche. RickK 19:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * How? I don't understand this logic. We have several other LaRouche related articles...do those also violate the ruling, just because of the subject? Everyking 19:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firstly, as per the rationale above. Secondly, the article does not actually explain what the LaRouche-Riemann Method actually is. Go ahead and read it; it says nothing about the Method itself. The text is waffle. And the final paragraph is nonsensical; the writer's faith in the Method is based on a speculative, fictional hypothesis.-Ashley Pomeroy 19:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic nonsense. Jayjg (talk)  20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to support a variation on the solution Willmcw alludes to on Votes for deletion/Triple Curve. That is, merge it into the Economics section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but probably split that article into two, "Political views of..." and "Economic theories of..." That way, the first can be a place to dump, and rewrite in neutral prose, his general conspiracy theory nonsense, and the second can serve the same purpose for his self-aggrandizing fanciful economic models. In this case, merging the content and leaving behind a redirect does no harm. --Michael Snow 22:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Give Michael and anybody else who cares a chance to merge, then Delete. DanKeshet 00:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonnotable crankery, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn POV original research from discredited sources. Tobycat 06:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. LaRouche may be a crank but I see no reason why there shouldn't be individual articles on his theories, groups, or notable followers.  Kaibabsquirrel 06:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. as per Michael Snow and Willmcw. Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it. Blank Verse   ∅   07:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per above. This is yet another "LaRouche is a genius who forsaw everything now happening in the world 50 years ago" article.  As such, it has no place as a freestanding article.  But is it something claimed to be so by LaRouche and his followers, and LaRouche, regardless of how loathesome one may find him to be and how well-merited his federal time was, is most assuredly notable, so merge and redirect, not delete.  Rlquall 11:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Mindbender (Galaxyland)

The Mindbender was an Anton Schwarzkopf looping roller coaster at Galaxyland, a theme park in West Edmonton Mall, in Alberta, Canada. The ride officially opened to the public on December 20, 1985 at a cost of $6 million. At 44.2 m in height, it was the tallest indoor roller coaster in the world as of 2020.

On January 30, 2023, the mall decommissioned and closed the Mindbender after 37 years of service, in order to redevelop its space for new developments in the park. Its trains were reused for All American Triple Loop, at Indiana Beach, United States.

Layout
Mindbender was designed by Germany's Werner Stengel and built by Anton Schwarzkopf. It was inspired by this team's previous design, Dreier Looping, a portable coaster that travelled the German funfair circuit, before being sold to a succession of amusement parks in Malaysia, Great Britain, Mexico, and most recently, Indiana Beach, United States. Mindbender was a pseudo mirror-image of Dreier Looping, and was slightly taller, with additional helices at the end of the ride. Mindbender featured shorter trains, with three pilot cars, whereas Dreier Looping usually ran with five trailer cars and one pilot car, occasionally rising to seven-car trains at busy funfairs.

The ride's layout featured many twisting drops, three vertical loops and a double upward helix finale. The ride twisted underneath, in between and around its supports. It also went underneath the former UFO Maze attraction, which was removed to make way for a space-themed food court that never came to be. Often in high season, the last car on one of the trains was reversed, allowing guests to ride the roller coaster without being able to see where they were going.

Ride experience
After boarding the Mindbender, riders put on their seatbelt and lap restraints. Also, the ride operator lowered large shoulder restraints over the riders. All of the restraints kept the riders firmly secured in the seat.

After ascending the curving wheel-driven lift hill, the train descended a sharp, twisting left-hand drop (sometimes referred to as a Traver drop) that climbed back up to the first of four stacked block brakes. The train negotiated a second left-hand drop that was immediately followed by the first two vertical loops. Then the train repeated the aforementioned process: it went up to the third block brake, then did another twisting drop and ascent before hitting the fourth block brake. After the fourth block brake, the track dropped to the left and back down to ground level, and hit the third vertical loop.

Following the third loop, the coaster train did another cycle under the stacked block brakes, then shot along a two-layered upward helix, before running behind the Galaxy Quest 7D theatre to hit the final brake run and the exit/entry area.

The ride length from the initial drop normally ranged from one minute, five seconds, to one minute, twenty-five seconds. Circuit times as little as 59 seconds were possible through extensive waxing of the track, and reduction in tension on the bogey wheels. This increase in speed was not permitted during public rides, as the forces on the riders became severe. During testing of the renovated trains in 1987, the maximum g-force of a normal run was measured on equipment bolted into the train at 5.5 g, which occurred in the third loop.

Accident
On the evening of June 14, 1986, the fourth car of a train travelling midway along the course derailed before encountering the third and final loop. Its wheel assembly had become detached from both the track and car itself, causing the car to sway back and forth across the tracks. The car became damaged, and the lap bar restraints unlocked and released, throwing all four of its passengers to the concrete floor below. The train continued to move along the track and into the final loop, but friction from the car's derailment slowed the train and prevented it from clearing the loop. As it rolled backward down the loop, the detached car crashed into a concrete pillar about midway down, stopping the train abruptly. Three of the four passengers thrown from the ride died, while the fourth was left critically injured with permanent, life-altering effects. The remaining passengers were safely evacuated and treated at a nearby hospital with minor injuries. An investigation later determined that four cap screws holding the wheel assembly together failed, which were likely the result of design flaws and unsatisfactory maintenance routines.

When Mindbender reopened in January 1987, the trains were redesigned. The existing four-car trains were converted to three-car trains (reducing seating capacity from 16 to 12), and anti-roll-back features were installed. Each train previously consisted of two wheel assemblies per car; however, after this accident, two further wheel assemblies were added to each car. The lap bar restraint was retained, but seat belts and shoulder headrests were added.

title: Mindbender (Galaxyland)


text:
Wonders of Life

The Wonders of Life pavilion was an attraction at Epcot at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. It was devoted to health care, focusing on the human body, physical fitness, medicine and nutrition. Attractions included Body Wars and Cranium Command. It is located inside a golden colored dome between Mission: SPACE (formerly Horizons) and Wonders of Xandar (formerly Universe of Energy). It opened on October 19, 1989, and closed on January 1, 2007. From 2007 to 2018, the Pavilion acted as EPCOT's Festival Center, before becoming a construction site in March 2019 in preparation for the upcoming Play! Pavilion to replace it.

The original attractions within the building have been closed and partially removed. In February 2019, it was announced that a new Play! Pavilion would be built in the domed show building formerly occupied by Wonders of Life, and was originally scheduled to open in time for Walt Disney World's 50th anniversary in 2021, but due to the park's temporary closure during the COVID-19 pandemic, the pavilion's opening date was delayed indefinitely.

History
The idea of a pavilion devoted to health and fitness dates back to the original concept of the EPCOT Center theme park, but no corporate sponsor could be found to cover the costs. It was not until MetLife signed on that the pavilion was finally constructed, and it featured two main attractions: Cranium Command and Body Wars, the first thrill ride located in EPCOT. Also featured was a theater (home to The Making of Me), restaurant and interactive attractions that evolved around the idea of health and wellness.

The Wonders of Life pavilion was officially announced on January 22, 1988, with construction beginning the following month. It opened to the general public on October 19, 1989.

MetLife ended its sponsorship in June 2001, which led to the gradual decline of the pavilion. On January 4, 2004, Disney made the decision to make it seasonal operation only. It reopened when the park was projected to hit near capacity during the high spring months and Christmas season. Its most recent operational phase was November 26, 2006, through January 1, 2007. In 2007, the pavilion closed permanently, with no official reason given. While it is not operational to the public, it is still commonly used for private and corporate events.

In 2007, temporary walls were placed around the existing attractions when Epcot hosted the Food and Wine festival in the pavilion. The "Body Wars" sign was removed in 2008, replaced by a temporary Garden Town sign while the imprints from the original marquee were painted over. By 2009, significant portions of the Body Wars attraction had been removed. The "Celebrate the Joy of Life" sign was removed following in 2009, while most of the exhibits left were removed. The pavilion also received a paint job inside using mute colors such as white and light green.

The pavilion then operated seasonally as the center for the Epcot International Flower and Garden Festival and the Epcot International Food & Wine Festival as the Festival Center. For those events, it hosted seminars, videos, presentations, and more. It was used as a central merchandise location during the two festivals as well. All attractions are shut down and their signs have been removed. As of November 2014, the Body Wars ride simulators have been dismantled. The queue still exists, but most of the props and other electronics have been removed. As of 2017, Cranium Command has had its queue and pre-show partially dismantled, but the theater - including the animatronics, lighting, seats, and staging area - remains intact. The theater that was used for The Making of Me is still used for various movies and presentations during the event.

On September 11, 2012, Walt Disney Imagineering filed a notice of commencement with the Orange County Comptroller's office indicating the intentions for a "selective demolition" to take place at the pavilion. In February 2019, it was announced that a new interactive pavilion would be built in the dome formerly occupied by Wonders of Life. The pavilion was originally scheduled to open in time for Walt Disney World's 50th anniversary in 2021, but was delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Attractions

 * Cranium Command - A theater show with audio-animatronic actors and a movie. The show explained the functions of the brain and its interaction with the human body.
 * Frontiers of Medicine - Listen to stories about medicine and the brain on small televisions.
 * Body Wars - A motion simulator ride taking guests on a Fantastic Voyage-like trip through the heart, lungs, and brain. The film shown was directed by Leonard Nimoy, and starred actors Tim Matheson, Elisabeth Shue, and Dakin Matthews. Often compared to Star Tours at Disney's Hollywood Studios and Disneyland as its counterpart.
 * Coach's Corner - Guests can swing a bat while a professional player gives tips.
 * Goofy About Health - A multimedia show about healthy living hosted by Goofy, using clips from his cartoons.
 * Fitness Fairgrounds - Tested guests' athletic abilities
 * Sensory Funhouse - An interactive playground which tested guest's sensory abilities, including an Ames room
 * Audio Antics - A listening skill game which involved regular sounds and sounds that were out of place, which the listener had to figure out.
 * The Making of Me - A short movie about birth and life starring Martin Short.
 * Wonder Cycles - Stationary bicycles with a television attached. The faster riders pedaled, the faster the video played. The bicycles would take the rider on a short tour, with a selection of:
 * 100th Anniversary Rose Parade Pasadena, California
 * Disneyland in California - The rider could see that day's park patrons watching the camera pass and moving out of the way for the operator.
 * Take a Little Ride: Microworld Bigtown, U.S.A.

Live entertainment

 * Anacomical Players - A live show that featured improvisational skits on health and nutrition.

Shops

 * Well and Goods Limited

Food services

 * Pure & Simple

title: Wonders of Life


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple Curve

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The article should be merged to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Triple Curve
Anyone voting here please also see Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method, which was created by the same author for the same reason.

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Article has POV problems. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 00:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This article was created by a new account in violation of two arbitration committee rulings prohibiting supporters of Lyndon LaRouche from making edits or creating articles that promote LaRouche, or which are based on LaRouche publications, which the arbitration committee has determined constitutes original research. The Power of Reason has posted a photograph of LaRouche on his user page, and is making no secret of his support for him. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for an incident report.

 * The two arbcom rulings are at Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Unencyclopedic; based on discredited publications; represents a tiny-minority view; has no hope of becoming NPOV; constitutes original research; and violates LaRouche-related arbcom rulings.SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, just give it a standard NPOV treatment. Everyking 00:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per SlimVirgin. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:44, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but give NPOV treatment. This is hard core POV. Jacob1207 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a legitimate economic theory. LaRouche fantasy, all written as it's proven fact. -Willmcw 01:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Everyking. People have different views on whether or not the method is notable, so deleting the article on the basis of the theory not being notable is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. Pincus 01:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete: Forget the authors and the cause, and focus instead on the thing itself. Let's look at the forest, not the trees.  This article concerns a single ideology fancied by that fantastic group.  Is it notable?  Well, it's not actually famous, so is it notable in the sense of being "first, pioneering, influential?"  It appears to be first in the sense of being idiosyncratic.  It's not pioneering, and it's not influential at all.  Therefore, I'd say that this article should be deleted.  At most, we could merge and redirect back to LaRouche, but that represents a victory by the cultists over Arbcom. Geogre 01:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can I invent an economic theory - Quintuple Angular Distortion - and then say that it's encyclopedic because I made it up? --FCYTravis 02:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can get a sizable political organization behind you, sure. That's notability. Everyking 02:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a rather strange definition of sizable. --FCYTravis 02:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fairly sizable. I don't know specifics, but they run candidates all over the place. I mean it's by no means a major organization but it's not phonebooth size either. Everyking 02:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with SlimVirgin. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with SlimVirgin and Willmcw. We already have too much space on Wikipedia for the dubious and idiosyncratic views of LaRouche and his followers.--Cberlet 02:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Pincus and Everyking. Also, I was illegally blocked for no reason as User:The Power of Reason earlier today. The Power of Human Reason 03:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's second edit. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes...who blocked his original account, and why? Everyking 03:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask who blocked User:The Power of Reason when you can look it up on the blocklog? As for why, it was presumably because he's judged to be a reincarnation of User:Herschelkrustofsky. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who seems pro-LaRouche must be Herschel? Everyking 03:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was Snowspinner. I am shocked. Everyking 03:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Drink! Extra sip for rhetorical question. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User:The Power of Reason seems too familiar with Wikipedia editing to be a brand new editor. User:Herschelkrustofsky was found to use sockpuppets. The deduction that the two are the same seems reasonable. -Willmcw 04:02, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * The logical conclusion to draw is that it is a possibility, which one would then follow up on by getting an IP check. I would hate to say that anybody who comes along and happens to act somewhat like a banned user, without breaking any rules, gets automatically banned without proof. That doesn't look very good. Everyking 04:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per SlimVirgin's reasoning. Change of vote to Merge and redirect to Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche. I've taken a stab at making it NPOV, so maybe it's acceptable now. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From the article: Internationally known economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. . . . . Uh huh. Delete. (And don't waste server space on the image, either.) Thus inspired, I'll sign myself Internationally known philosopher Hoary 03:58, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
 * Merge with rewritten Larouche-Riemann Method stub. Not notable enough to deserve its own article by any stretch of the imagination. Haikupoet 04:16, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What about a merge with already substantial Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche? It may be time to rename that article to something broader anyway ("Theories of Lyndin LaRouche"?). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as a means by which the "average" reader can connect 'Triple Curve' with LaRouche, and thereby assess the one through the other. --Simon Cursitor 07:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * But Google has more hits for "triple curve" -larouche than for "triple curve" larouche. This suggests that the majority of uses of the phrase "triple curve" are LaRouche-unrelated. -- Hoary 07:30, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
 * Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 07:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article violates the arbcom ruling on Lyndon LaRouche. RickK 19:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not quite as useless as the one above, because this one has a picture!-Ashley Pomeroy 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to support a variation on the solution Willmcw alludes to above. That is, merge it into the Economics section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but probably split that article into two, "Political views of..." and "Economic theories of..." That way, the first can be a place to dump, and rewrite in neutral prose, his general conspiracy theory nonsense, and the second can serve the same purpose for his self-aggrandizing fanciful economic models. Redirecting from the names of his individual theories and concepts depends on the circumstances. In this case, other uses for the name can and do exist, so I vote delete. --Michael Snow 22:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Give Michael and company a chance to merge, then Delete. DanKeshet 00:19, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonnotable crankery. Larouche's opinions don't inherit his notoriety. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable info from non-credible source. Tobycat 06:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same reason as in LaRouche-Riemann Method.  Kaibabsquirrel 06:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Explanation: this was "LaRouche may be a crank but I see no reason why there shouldn't be individual articles on his theories, groups, or notable followers." What Kaibabsquirrel doesn't see: The lack of significance of or interest in them, except among believers, for whose benefit (?) the web already provides scads of LaRouche-approved text. If his theories were discussed in respected, peer-reviewed journals, that would be one thing. But like Hubbard, he's not taken seriously. -- Hoary 07:15, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia with a "lack of significance of or interest in them, except among believers". They still have articles.  If the only available info on the web on these theories is LaRouche-approved text that's all the more reason why a neutral article on a non-LaRouche site discussing them might not be a bad thing, especially if there are LaRouche critics who have written criticisms or debunkings of these theories.  Anyhow, isn't reliance on peer-reviewed journals to establish notability the sort of academic elitism that Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia is supposed to be making an end run around?  Kaibabsquirrel 07:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. as per Michael Snow and Willmcw. Unfortunately LaRouche is a charismatic kook, and it is better to document his kookery than censor it. Blank Verse   ∅   07:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You say "censor"; I'd say "ignore". What is it about LaRouche's beliefs that makes them so deserving of lengthy discussion? -- Hoary 14:18, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as above. (La Rouchites have, IMO, a lot of nerve to refer to anything else as "so-called".)  Also, if he is going to be referred to as a politician, as he is here, it should be followed by (perennial candidate), because as far as I know at least, he has never been even vaguely close to ever having been elected anything.  Rlquall 11:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
The Seas with Nemo & Friends

The Seas with Nemo & Friends (formerly The Living Seas) is a pavilion located in the World Nature section of Epcot, a theme park at the Walt Disney World Resort in Bay Lake, Florida. The pavilion is themed as an oceanic exploration base called SeaBase Alpha, with several exhibits devoted to oceanic study. The building includes an aquarium and its attached dark ride attraction, a talk show-type attraction called Turtle Talk with Crush, and the Coral Reef Restaurant. With 5.7 million US gallons of tank volume, the pavilion is also the second-largest aquarium in the U.S. and the sixth-largest in the world.

The Living Seas opened in 1986 but had been planned as part of the park since its opening in 1982. The pavilion was re-themed in 2006 as The Seas with Nemo & Friends after the 2003 film Finding Nemo.

The Living Seas (1986–2005)
The Living Seas opened to the public on January 15, 1986. It housed the largest saltwater tank in the world at its completion, holding 5.7 e6USgal of water, but was surpassed in 2005 with the opening of the Georgia Aquarium. The concept of the building was to take visitors under the ocean to "Sea Base Alpha". Guests viewed a short movie about the formation of the oceans entitled The Sea, which was followed by an elevator ride to the ocean floor aboard a "Hydrolator" (in reality, guests rode a stationary hydraulic elevator while moving walls, sound effects, and a vibrating floor gave the effect of traveling a long distance downward). Guests then boarded a Seacab on the Caribbean Coral Reef Ride and rode through the middle of the tank. They then disembarked into the main exhibit area where they could interact with various multimedia displays. Once finished, guests leaving the pavilion would then board another Hydrolator to the surface (which, similar to the first set of elevators, simulated upward motion).

The Living Seas was sponsored by United Technologies from its opening until 1998. After the departure of United Technologies as the sponsor of The Living Seas, significant changes were made to the pavilion. All sponsorship references were removed from the pavilion. Preshow theatre #2 was removed and a corridor was built through its space, allowing guests to bypass the preshow if they wished to go directly to the Hydrolators.

On October 21, 2001, as a result of declining patronage following the September 11 attacks, the Seacabs closed down and were walled off. The queue of the Seacab ride was left intact and the Seacabs were still visible to guests through the ocean tank windows. After they closed, guests leaving the Hydrolators walked along the former wheelchair bypass corridor to Sea Base Alpha. Now, guests had the option of viewing the preshow or going directly to the Hydrolators and simply walking to Sea Base Alpha.

The Seas with Nemo & Friends/The Seas (2007–present)
In December 2003, Disney began to re-theme The Living Seas into a new pavilion based on the recently released Pixar film Finding Nemo. The majority of the transformation began with exterior elements, but in January 2004, the interior began to change as well. On November 16, 2004, Turtle Talk with Crush opened in what was once Module 1C, or the Earth Systems exhibit. The show's unexpected success overwhelmed the pavilion, causing the development of plans to move Turtle Talk with Crush to a larger area in the pavilion.

Turtle Talk with Crush was only the beginning of changes to The Living Seas. On August 21, 2005, The Living Seas closed for its transformation into The Seas with Nemo & Friends. Parts of the pavilion reopened in late November 2005. Outside the pavilion, the facade and mural were changed and depictions of sea life seen in Finding Nemo were added. The exit Hydrolators had been removed and were replaced with glass doors that served as an exit and temporary entrance. Sea Base Alpha had been re-themed to Finding Nemo and the entire original preshow area was in the process of being rebuilt. Decor and signage were replaced and scientific displays were replaced by ones themed to Finding Nemo. Turtle Talk with Crush remained as popular as it was before the transformation.

Throughout 2006, construction walls hid the preshow area which was undergoing reconstruction. With the former Sea Base Alpha open, work progressed on the new queue areas and the Seacabs were being rebuilt as a new "Clamobile" attraction. The remaining Living Seas preshow theater, entrance Hydrolators, holding areas, and Seacabs queue were all completely removed and replaced by a new themed queue area. Hydrolator Three and Theater 1 were replaced by a number of new dark ride sets. The former Seacabs ride was lengthened by 280 ft through the space formerly used by the preshow theatre, but the final section still took place inside the tank. A new projection technology was added to the tank and the new show scenes. The existing Seacabs were given a clamshell shape and renamed "Clamobiles". Three Audio-Animatronic seagulls were also added to the entrance. They periodically flap their wings and say "Mine! Mine! Mine!", just like the seagulls do in Finding Nemo.

On October 10, 2006, the construction walls in front of the entrance to The Living Seas, now The Seas with Nemo & Friends, were removed. The temporary entrance was removed from the exit. Turtle Talk With Crush was removed from Module 1C, and relocated to the second preshow theater, which had been unused since 1999 when it had been broken up by the bypass corridor following United Technologies' discontinuation of sponsorship. Module 1A was turned into a pre-show space for the expanded Turtle Talk With Crush, with its exhibits moving to 1C, while a new queue line corridor was built from the module into the existing theater space using a backstage fire exit. The Seas with Nemo & Friends was rededicated on January 24, 2007.

It was the first Epcot Pavilion to be based on a Disney animated movie property, and only the second Epcot attraction to use characters from the movies (The Lion King-based Circle of Life: An Environmental Fable at The Land Pavilion's Harvest Theater was the first, opening in 1995 replacing Symbiosis).

In late 2019, new directory signage was installed in Seabase Alpha, restoring the former Living Seas logo, as the pavilion was now renamed "The Seas" Pavilion.

In September 2023, the three audio-animatronic seagulls found at the entrance were removed. The characters on the facade of the attraction were also removed and the pavilion was repainted back to its original color scheme during this time.

Attractions

 * The Seas with Nemo & Friends — Guests board "Clamobiles" and venture into the sea to join Marlin, Dory, and other characters from the film Finding Nemo, as they search for Nemo who has gotten lost again. Guests first journey through a coral reef where they find Marlin searching for Nemo. Farther along the reef, they come across Mr. Ray and his students, setting out to explore and look for Nemo. Dory soon joins Marlin in the search and they come upon a group of jellyfish. An anglerfish comes out of the darkness and begins to chase them frantically. Guests dive deeper and come upon the wreck of a massive submarine that sits in the center of a deadly minefield. Peeking out from the wreck is Bruce, a great white shark, and Chum, a mako shark, trying to coax Nemo out from his hiding spot. (Anchor, a hammerhead shark is not included in the ride.) They assure him in their sneaky voices that fish are friends, not food. The Clamobiles are then swept up into the East Australian Current with Nemo, Crush, and Squirt. The current empties the guests out into a massive aquarium where Nemo is reunited once again with his friends. As they sing a closing song, "In the Big Blue World" (although the ride opened first, this song was adapted from the Disney's Animal Kingdom show Finding Nemo - The Musical), these animated Pixar characters swim in the actual aquarium with real fish through the use of special effect glass. The Clamobiles then return to the surface.
 * Sea Base — Main viewing area of the aquarium. A smaller aquarium features a pair of rescued West Indian manatees. Other small tanks feature a variety of species from moray eels to seahorses, and other species that cannot interact with divers or other fish in the main exhibit. A large, cylindrical tank in which guests can view from the center exhibits a pod of three common bottlenose dolphins in one corner. The other three-quarters of the exhibit hold a wide array of species, including sand tiger sharks, naso tang, threadfin butterflyfish, cowtail stingray, orange-lined triggerfish, sandbar sharks, bowmouth guitarfish, bonnethead sharks, Atlantic tarpon, shovelnose guitarfish, a green sea turtle, a blacknose shark, and a zebra shark.
 * Turtle Talk with Crush — An interactive show with the sea turtle from Finding Nemo who answers children's questions about the sea. The show now features characters from the movie Finding Dory.

Restaurants

 * Coral Reef Restaurant — A table service restaurant. One wall is made of glass and offers views into the aquarium.

Shopping

 * SeaBase Gift Shop

Experiences

 * Epcot DiveQuest — A little-known attraction, certified SCUBA divers have the ability to experience a 40-minute underwater tour of the 5.7 e6USgal tank of the Caribbean Coral Reef Aquarium. The entire experience lasts about three hours and includes a guided underwater tour, a "free-play" time, and a backstage tour of the aquarium's inner works. Guests also have the ability to purchase a video or photos of the dive.
 * Epcot Seas Aqua Tour — The Epcot Seas Aqua Tour is an experience that debuted in late 2002 at The Living Seas where guests can swim in the aquarium with the assistance of a SAS (SCUBA Assisted Snorkel) System.
 * Dolphins in Depth — Dolphins in Depth is an experience where guests go on a tour mostly concentrated on the dolphins in The Seas aquarium. Guests can interact with the dolphins in waist-deep water.

VIP room
This pavilion has a backstage VIP room that is used for private events, such as weddings and conventions. The room is long and curved with wood-paneled walls. One side has floor-to-ceiling windows into the aquarium. The room also has an acrylic glass see-through piano.

Technology and effects
Although fairly simple technology, there are some amazing effects throughout the pavilion. In the room where Marlin gets chased by an anglerfish, there are 2 robotic arms holding the animatronics together so they look like they're chasing each other. Another effect is in the finale where a projector from the ceiling projects the fictional fish into the real aquarium so it looks like Nemo and his friends are swimming with the real fish. Turtle Talk with Crush features an effect where there are hidden cameras, along with a cast member using a puppet to simulate the movement of the digital turtle. Whenever a guest raises a hand or asks a question, the cast member looks through the hidden camera and reacts to the guest, moving the puppet to simulate the digital turtle.

Voice cast

 * Anthony DeMarco as Nemo
 * Jess Harnell as Marlin
 * Jennifer Hale as Dory
 * Andrew Stanton as Crush and Seagulls
 * Nicholas Bird as Squirt
 * Barry Humphries as Bruce
 * Bob Peterson as Mr. Ray
 * Allison Janney as Peach

Consultants and advisers

 * Dr. Robert Ballard, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
 * Dr. Sylvia Earle, Vice President, Ocean Engineering, Inc.
 * Mr. Gilbert Grosvenor, President, National Geographic Society
 * Dr. Murray Newman, Director, Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre
 * Professor William Nierenberg, Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
 * Dr. David Potter, Vice President, Public Affairs, General Motors Corporation
 * Dr. John Ryther, Director, Division of Applied Biology, Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc.
 * Mr. Robert Wildman, Deputy Director, NOAA, Office of Sea Grants Program

title: The Seas with Nemo & Friends


text:
Morinosuke Chiwaki

Morinosuke Chiwaki (血脇 守之助) was a dentist and the Chairman of the Japan Dental Association.

He was one of the founders of Takayama Dental School (高山歯科医学院), which was later named Tokyo Dental College (東京歯科大学).

He was known as Hideyo Noguchi's patron.

There is a monument at his name in Abiko, Chiba.

title: Morinosuke Chiwaki