Image talk:Sword parts.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

somebody keeps revering this image back to an image that was drawn from my COPYRIGHTED IMAGE. This is a VIOLATION OF MY COPYRIGHT and I am getting sick and tired of it. I've gone so far as to DRAW an ORIGINAL image for use on wikipedia and this person continues to revert to the copyrighted material. Please stop doing this immediately.

You have released this image under the GFDL, which gives anyone permission to modify the image however they see fit. Thus you have given your permission for people to draw their own images based on yours. That's the idea of Wikipedia: It's an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use or modify for any purpose. Please don't get upset when people modify your image; you have given them permission to do so. —Bkell (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently the "sword parts" that I drew for Wikipedia was replaced with a new one. The new one is full of inaccuracies. The locket, as an example, has a rounded cut-out to accommodate the rain-guard. This would defeat the entire purpose of the rain-guard, which is intended to cover the scabbard and keep the elements from damaging the blade. The cross-section showing the blade make-up (ie, the pattern welding and different core material) is completely wrong for the type of sword being displayed. It’s absolutely inaccurate. The cross-guard size (particularly the thickness) is ill-proportioned. The combination of pommel and cross-guard shape are not really representative of antique swords. The cross of a sword of this type/era would not be called the “lower guard”. That term is best left for Viking Age swords.

Additionally, the labels present in this new graphic were stolen from another graphic I created. This is tacky, at best. If the new artist wishes to create his own graphic, I ask that he create it from scratch. Nathan Robinson 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)