Talk:Louvre Inverted Pyramid

[Untitled]
It could be noted that in the Da Vinci Code, the movable small pyramid could still be part of a larger one below, just not connected. This could be up for discussion, if you want to email me.--Mike Theodore 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought, the fact that the top can be removed does not prove anything. They probably wouldn't dig it up if it was there, either. Think about the press and all the people breaking in to remove small pieces of the inner pyramid? No wonder they keep it secret. My guess is they're all in on it, or that they've signed some specific contract not to tell anything... Still, it would be SO cool if they could actually prove that Jesus was married and had kids! -essi 19.30, 28.11/2006 GMT+1

"It was meant as an object but it is an object to transmit light
What is the original quate for this? This is either a non-sensical and poorly worded phrase, a mistranslation, or someone abusing Babelfish. pookster11 05:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)