User talk:Mercutio.Wilder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Mercutio.Wilder's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Mercutio.Wilder.

Contents

[edit] Longsword

I saw your edits on Claymore and would invite you to contribute and review the Longsword article. Drop by and leave some comments on the talk page if you have some time. Thanks! - xiliquiernTalk 20:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image policy

I do think you just might be able to argue {{fair use}} for your Image:Chieftain-1.jpg for use on claymore. However, it would be much preferable to have an image of an authentic (old) specimen, and of course to have a GFDL'd image (such as, taken by yourself) of either an original or a replica. In any case, thanks for your useful contribution to our swords articles. dab (𒁳) 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Splint armour

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits. I would like to remind you that:

  1. Stub categories are hierarchical, and thus, if your article already has the {{medieval-armor-stub}} tag, there is no need to add {{armor-stub}}, since it would be redundant.
  2. Redirects go to the article where the user would be coming from, not the redirect destination.

Happy editing! -- intgr 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oakeshott reference at splint armour

In order to make a more complete cite, I added the information about my copy of The Archaeology of Weapons, (i.e. the 1996 Dover reprint) guessing that, since it's the most easily available version today, it was the one you had. If this is not correct, please change the reference. --Eyrian 04:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kasten-brust

could you make a short article about Kasten-brust armour? I've writen ru:Кастен-Бруст (доспехи), but I don't have a registration to make a such article for english wikipedia :-( It is a geram armour of the first hal of 15c , the source is "Osprey-Military "German Medevial Armies 1300-1500" (Men-at-Arms Series t166), text by Christopher Gravett, colour plates by Angus McBride, editor Martin Windrow, Reed International Books Ltd., ISBN 0-85045-614-2 " and illustrations are Image:Konrad Witz Sabobai And Benaiah (1435) fragment.jpg & Image:Jan van Eyck 032.jpg, this armour could be gound in museum of Vienna, and shown in many german pictures and statues e.g. image:Arthur3487.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.115.55.212 (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

REAL THANKS! :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.116.227.249 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Plated mail

I was asked to create an article on plated mail by an anon. Since there seems to be some historical evidence, I created it. I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thanks. --Eyrian 03:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pier Gerlofs Donia and the Zweihander-question

In the two images you provide of Piers he is not wielding a zweihander. In the painting he is wielding a much smaller sword and the statue shows a sword design inconsistent with all other scholarship on swords of that era. I assume that the sculptor has taken considerable artistic license, as the statue is clearly highly stylized. Is there any evidence that the sword in the Frisian museum is not a bearing sword[1]. The consensus amongst the Historical Europeans Swordsmanship community is that such swords were purely decorative. As such you must provide references to that particular sword actually being used in battle. Mercutio.Wilder 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The sword allegedly used by Pier was very likely not a bearing sword, for it is worn and has no decorations at all except for the inscription INRI on the crossbar. It was forged in Passau. We can however, not state with certainty that it belonged to Pier, let alone that he actually used it in battle. Records only show that it was found in Sneek not long after Pier's death. (Paaskynen 10:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, he did used a 2,15 meter long sword in battle. It is not particulary known if this sword is a Zweihander; it could be another type 'o blade. But I wasn't the one who added the Zweihander-type balde on the articles-page in first instant; someone else did. If he would have said longsword, for example, I would have putten Piers' name on that page; is just a must to have that man mentioned on the page, for wielding suvh an enormous blade of a type which is Zweihander, or at least something very similiar to it. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 18:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

You just added the sentence "Tests conducted by the Royal Amoury at Leeds concluded that, "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional modern weapon." to the mail article. Could you please clarify when that statement was made? It seems to be that it could be referring to modern firearms, but that doesn't make sense. --Eyrian 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an idiot...sorry. The quote should have read 'any medieval weapon. Thanks for checking with me... Apologies for the (understandable) confusion. Gwinva 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Dussack

The idea for it is something I have heard a lot of people (scholars) talk about, and it makes a lot of sense. If you have ever seen the pictures of the 'metal dussack' it really doesn't look very much like a dussack at all. Also if you have ever seen the pictures inside historical manuals (especially colored ones) none of the dussacks appear to be made of metal. So it makes a lot of sense that it could simply be mislabled when you consider that it did have a somewhat similar appearance to a messer, and there has only been one found.

There a lot of people who have far more knowledge of it than I do....I'm sure if you do some searching around you could find a lot more.

Alex2244 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Chivalry

Looks like we were both in the middle of reverting Vandalism on Chivalry. Though just for the record, that was my first time reverting multiple sequential vandal edits, and I did NOT intend to add back some of the vandalism when I was trying to revert the page back to ClueBot's version... I had actually submitted a corrected page just seconds after you appear to have... Thanks for not flagging me as a vandal! :-) Erth64net (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image permission

Hello! I was wondering if you ever got a permission for this image. Regards, PatríciaR msg 21:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the file history permission was granted on January 1st, 2007. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maille

Hi, yes it's true I wasn't providing a reference and was probably being a bit flippant, I do have sources for these statements but I've been a bit lazy about finding them (if I had bothered then I probably would have edit the article to also include them). However to be fair I think the only reference you've been consistently using is the Royal Armoury one. I'm not the only one who's been a bit flippant; for example you wrote "The statement of fact is made because their is peer-reviewed professional testing by one of the premiere institutes on Medieval weapons in the world cited to back it up. And because their test results are consistent with contemporary accounts of the protection of mail. And because the sheer history of mail and it's always high cost are consistent with it being effective armour. Three separate lines of evidence and reasoning support the assertion made as fact." yet here you've only actually sited one source, I haven't seen references to back up the second two statements, which is akin to me following with similar statements. I've left the article itself alone and I'll do the same with the talk page until I've found some good references, I also appreciate your edits by the way. Thanks. Master z0b (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Chieftain-1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Chieftain-1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)