User talk:Bullenwächter

Do you need to have your page User:Bullenwächter/Test1 on the category "Ancient Germanic Peoples"? It doesn't look serious...

Hello - not yet as I am still working on this page and I will add it soon to the encyclopedia when it is ready. Bullenwächter 20:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lentienses

Hi Andreas. I've just done some work on this article, but there are a couple of passages that I couldn't understand. I've taken them out and put them on the Talk:Lentienses page. I'd be very grateful if you could let me know what you meant by them, so that I can rewrite them and put them back in the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've looked at the material that you left on the talk page. I was still a little unsure about the second sentence; could you check the main Lentienses article to make sure that I've understood you correctly? Many thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to send me the text to look at. And if I ever have the courage to try translating any of my work into German, perhaps I could send it to you? (Don't worry — it won't happen soon, if at all.) . Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've now worked on all four articles mentioned on your User page; it would be good if you could look at them to make sure that I haven't made any factual errors. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I wondered about castle. Perhaps I'll just add more detail; see what you think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've just edited the Francisca and Iller articles; there's just one sentence in the former that I don't understand, which I've copied to Talk:Francisca. Could you check the main articles too, in case I've made any errors? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The articles seem to be OK --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Stoneyislandman

Hi Bullenwächter! Glad you liked it. Won't be able to dig up the notes for a few days yet; will also see if I can find any purely academic references to it. Will be in touch sometime in January. Merry Christmas! Fergananim (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Hi! Thank you! --Bullenwächter (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Help!

Hello, Bullenwächter

I looked over your article, and I corrected what I was able to. I do have a question though; It said The collected his information from archives...Was the 'the' supposed to be meaning that someone collected his information? Or was it supposed to be 'the'. I hope you succeed with your article, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)}

Hi Gourami Watcher! Thank you a lot for your help. The sentence should read: He collectd his information ..... I will correct it. --Bullenwächter (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image Editing Request

Hi, Bullenwächter, I saw your picture of the Husbäke man, I noticed it was a little dark, would it be okay with you if I edited it to make it brighter? Thank you, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)}

Hello Gourami Watcher. Thanks for your proposal. It was very hard to make a photo of the Husbäke man, as the big windows in the background were gleaning on the large glass plate in front of the exhibits and you can see me shadowing the upper body of the Husbäke man. That time I only had a compact camera, with my actual camera this problem will not be so big and I hope I will have the opportunity soon to visit the museum in the near future again. Now to your request. On the right side of the picture is a region which was shadowed from the background illumination. I would purpose to make splitted density changes to the image. Only to brighten up the head and chest of Husbäke man on the right side to a density like his pelvis and legs. I would advise NOT to brigten up the legs and pelvis as they are roughly depicting the acutal colour of the body. On the other hand I would purpose to darken up the left side of the lower and upper turf wall to the density of the right side. (if possible) The turf wall is a real turf profile displaying the body on his original depth from the ground surface but it is more or less a decorational object.

What do you think about it? --Bullenwächter (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Thank you!--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 23:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

Alternativel I can also ask the Photo-Workshop at the German Wikipedia. --Bullenwächter (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would probably work better, since I'm not as experienced as they are there. Thanks :)

--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

I will ask them in the next days. --Bullenwächter (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bog body identification

Sorry to bother you, Bullenwächter, I am working on a userspace for the List of bog bodies, and I was wondering if since you seen to know a lot about bog bodies, if you could maybe tell me if the the bog body in the link that I have attached is that of the "Mädchen von Röst".[1] Thank you, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 23:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)}

Hello Gourami Watcher! Yes that is the "Mädchen von Röst" (Röst Girl), unfortunately her remains were destroyed in Kiel by bombs in WW-II. Your bog bodies list is a good idea. In case you need any assistance please contact me. --Bullenwächter (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 19:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)}

Talkback

Hello, Bullenwächter. You have new messages at Gourami Watcher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for the help! Regards, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)}

List of bog bodies

Hi Bullenwachter, the userspace that we were working on I had publicly moved under List of bog bodies on the English wiki. Thanks agian for your help! --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)}

Hi! I have seen it already. Great work! --Bullenwächter (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andi,

I noticed that the Rost Girl was discovered in 1926, and the picture of her might have had its copyright expired, and could be used as a {{pd|old}}. Because I'm still learning about images, do you think you could help me by uploading the image? Thank you, GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 18:28, 3 July 2011}

Hi, According to German law the copyright is expyring 70 years after the photographers death and as the name of the photographer and his day of death is not known to me the use of the licence would be problematic. I don't know if there is an original photo available of the find which can be uploaded. Unfortunately I have not yet received any answers from Archaeological Museum of Schleswig-Holstein on several requests. I think I have to try to find other contacts either via my membership at Archaeological Society of Schleswig-Holstein or on the next coming EXAR-Conference in October at the Museum. I'l try to get an official scan of the photo. --Bullenwächter (talk) talk:Bullenwächter#top|talk]])

Alright, thanks. I apreciate your reply. --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)}

Hi Andi, I hope you had a great trip!

I noticed that the entries for the Peiting Woman and the Skrydstrup Woman on the Bog body list... were they different people or the smame person?? Anyway, I'd really like to thank you for your help on the list...

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for your help on the List of bog bodies when I really needed it! GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 22:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gourami Watcher! Thanks for the Barnstar ;-) The Skrystrup Woman is NOT a bog body, her body survived in a nearly water logged oak-koffin in a mound dating to the nordic bronze age in Denmark. Here you will find more infos for the moment [2] and you should remove her from the list. The Peiting woman is from Bavaria, Germany, she is a bog body dated to the middle ages, approx. 3000 yearl later than Skrystrup woman. --Bullenwächter (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Thank you for your help once again :-) --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)}

Talk Back

Hello, Bullenwächter. You have new messages at Gourami Watcher's talk page.
Message added 19:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}

Guten Abend Andi!

I came across this image of some bog remains at the Landesmuseum Natur und Mensch. Could it be that of Damendorf 1884, Damendorf 1934, Husbäke 1931, Dätgen 1906 or Brammer man 1906?--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)}

The image does not show a bog body, this are two pieces of peat and a piece of human hairs between them. According to the page Mummytomb they have been found 1886 in the Bog Molberger Dose. I have been at the Landesmuseum Oldenburg twice, but unfortunately I havn't photographed this hair and its information board. There are many finds of human hair pieces and hair braids reported from Germany and Denmark. For example look here National Museum of Denmark in the box on the top right of the page (unfortunately not available in English. --Bullenwächter (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your help! I am also fixing the Jurdenerfeld Man's image as well as the Hubake Man because I had previously increased the brigtness too much. The commons won't let me re upload them again... would you know how to? --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 14:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)}

There is a link on the images page "Upload a new version of this file" which you have to use for uploading the corrected version of the image. I would also reccomend to reduce the brightness of commons:File:Mann_aus_Jührdenerfeld.jpg and commons:File:Husbäke Man 1936.jpg approximately to the half of the original compared to your last versions. They are definitively too bright. --Bullenwächter (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I did add too much brigtness, but the brightness of the image will not change... there must be something wrong. I found this image of a woman from "the 1600s" at the Archäologische Staatssammlung museum, could you please tell me who she would be? Image thank you! --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 01:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)}

Please wait with the images of Jührdenerfeld Man and Husbäke Man. I will try to adjust the brightness and contrast on the original images in my archive and upload them again. The Mummy of Archäologische Staatssammlung München is a peruanian mummy of 15-17th century, which has been excarvated by Bavarian Princess Therese von Bayern 1898 and brought the Ethnological Muesum in Munich, later it has been transferred to the Anatomical Museum which has been destroyd by bombs during WW-II. The Mummy has been found in the ruins of the museum and was buried by the workers beleiving it was a modern victim of the bobings. Shortly later it has been excarvated again by the museums staff beleiving it was a bog body from a bog near Dachau. The mummy was transferred to Archäologische Staatssammlung Bavarian State Archaeological Collection in 1977 and been on display there and described as bog Body. 2007 the mummy was removed from the display due to a parasites affection and after recognition that it could not be a bog body it has undergone intensive scientific investigations which proved that it is a mummy from a specific region in Chile/Peru, most probably belonging to Chinchorro culture. Sadly I have not yet found any English literature about her. Here ist the German article: de:Mumie aus dem Dachauer Moos --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll wait with the images. Thank you for the link!--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 02:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)}

RE: Help

Okay Andi!
I'll look over it as soon as possible! Auf Wiederzerhen! --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)}

The article looks fine and only had minimal errors. Danke, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 17:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)}

Images

Hallo Andi,
I've uploaded some fair use images of some bog bodies for the English Wikipedia, but I would like to have them on the German Wikipedia as well. Do you thing you could help me?

• File:Yde Face Reconstruction.jpg
• File:Kayhausen Boy.jpg
• File:Emmer-Erfscheidenveen Man.jpg
• File:Amcotts Moor Woman Shoe.jpg
• File:Elling Woman.jpg
• File:Moora Digital Face Reconstruction.jpg
• File:Borremose Man.jpg (Uploaded on my alternate account)

Hi. Some of the images I already uploaded to commons such as Yde Face Reco, Emmer-Erfscheindenveen Man but they have been deleted as I was not able to get a proper permission from the Drents Museum in Assen Netherlands where I get the photos. That was a pitty. As far as I know fair use taged images can be used in the English WP, but not in the German WP for local copyright regulations, which are much more strict. Images can be enterd into the German Wikipedia when they are uploaded at commons. In the German WP we can use images only with a written permission from the author/photographer/painter or when he died more than 70 year ago.--Bullenwächter (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes copyright can be a real bother! I uploaded the images with a "Non-free historic image" liscense, so they could be used as low resolution images, so they aren't actually free liscense images. Would this make any difference?--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 23:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)}

Unfortunately not. Also small and low resolution copies of copyrighted materials are protected by the copyright, except when the image has been substantially edited so that it turns into an own creative work, but that is hard to reach with images of bog bodies as. Copyright is such a difficoult issue. For example the image File:Moora Digital Face Reconstruction.jpg has been made with a modern facial composite software usted by Kriminalpolizei. The software contains thousands of different images of face components which have been made/edited by many different people, this components can be rendered to a complete image. I guess there was not only one single person working on Mooras face reconstruction image, additionally the background or purpose of the image is not to be an artwork but it is an scientific illustration and still is is copyright protected. Even a X-ray image of the Kayhausen Boy has been deleted on commons as it was classifed as an copyright protected artwork ;-( Sometimes it is hard for me to understand the borderline between a copyright protected (art)wortk and a free work. I think one has to be a lawyer for that.... Have a nice sunday --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least we can still link the images. Danke! :) --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)}

Tschüs

I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article Tschüs-- Amy Z (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Korrecktur lesen ihre Artikel

Hallo Andi, I looked at your article and all it really needed was a few commas or apostrophes. I'd advise you to add more to the blank section Publications. Tag!

Hallo! Danke für Deine Korrekturen. I know it but it was too late yesterday evening for collecting the information for his English publications. Now I have added some titles. Ich wünsche Dir einen Schönen Tag. Tschüß! --Bullenwächter (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Viel Glück mit Ihrem Artikel! Haben einen schönen Tag! --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)}

Skrydstrup Woman

Hallo Men Freund! A few weeks ago I had found a very good image of the Skrystrup Woman in the Commons or Wikipedia, but when I added an entry about her on the mummy article, I could not find that image. Could you help me please? Bis dann, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 00:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)}

Hallo! The name of the woman is Skrydstrup Woman. As far as I can see there is only a photo of her hair net available at commmons but no photo of the body is available. I think I have photos of her but they are of a very poor quality as it was very dark in the exhibition room. I will look at home if I can do something. Tschüß --Bullenwächter (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Danke schön! That would be great! --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 23:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)}

Unfortunately I have no photos of the Skrydstrup woman, as it was not possible in the exhibition hall with my old camera ;-(( --Bullenwächter (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I did however find an image of her by searching through the commons. I added it to the de:Frau von Skrydstrup article, Danke schön for your efforts on finding your own image. Tschüß!--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 02:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)}

Thats funny, I already had the file on my watchlist, but ditn't find it, now everything is clear - Thanks --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sie sind Welkommen! I suppose that because the image was uploaded with a Swedish file name made it quite a bit harder to find. Auf wiedersehn! :)

--GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 18:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)}

Windeby

I do have just one other question about Windeby I. The picture File:Windeby I bones.jpg shows the bones of the mummy, so did the actual corpse decompose? Or were they just replicas? I'm a little confused about this. Danke schön, --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 23:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)}

Servus! As far as I recall it from the literature Karls Schlabow, who conserved the find has very poorly documented his procedures. The bones has been removed from the body, the skull has been opened and the brain was taken out and cut into pieces, all intesitnals has been removed for examination. The remained hide and soft tissue has been tanned and treated with (mineralic) oil, tar or other substances. The hide has been mounted on a base of something to achieve a form that looks like the body after its excavation. What you seen of the body on display in the museum is only the covering hide tissue on a model of turf or other material. But please don't use this info as reference as I only recalled it and I read the relevant literatur some year ago and the German article is still waiting to be extended. --Bullenwächter (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Danke schön! It's always good to learn something new. --GouramiWatcher ^{(Gulp) 15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)}

Tschüs

Hi. Although I agree entirely about the use of the word Tschüs, the article is still completely unsourced and as it stands is WP:OR. If it is not referenced soon, my fear is that it may be in line for deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I realised that there is an entry for this on Wiktionary, so I've made a soft redirect. Feel free to improve or expand the Wiktionary entry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Parker Pearson

See Talk:Mike Parker Pearson, I reverted your rename as WP:COMMONNAME is clear that the most common usage should be used when choosing the name of an article. Having done that I also reverted the changes you made to articles linking to Pearson. I hope you are OK with that, but if you aren't please discuss on the article's talk page as any rename back to Michael would clearly need discussing as a controversial move. Thanks. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob Re-born. Its a bit strange to me, when I look into his publications or when I search library catalogues I will only find "Michael". In my opinion a decision on seach engie results is a bit problematic as we don't know the search engine providers policy of presenting its results. But its OK for me, as far as a redirection form his full name Michael Parker Pearson exists. --Bullenwächter (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Catalogues tend to use full names for all authors, but if you look at the covers of any of his books, or his own profile at University of Sheffield you will see him referred to as Mike. Furthermore he is credited as Mike on the TV programmes that he has appeared on e.g. PBS, and National Geographic. Other examples include his IMDB profile. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

When I search at the Northern Germany GBV Union catalogue it's 18 (Michael) : 6 (Mike). The British Library gives 21 results for Mike and 22 for Michael. I can find no rule behind the use of his first name and his nick name and it doesn't seem that Mike is used form certain time on. He uses both names in his scientific and popular publications. --Bullenwächter (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Hallo Andi! Because I am not as knowledgeable about bog bodies as you, I fear I may have miss titled the image File:Nederfrederikmose Tunic.jpg which may come from a completely different bog body. Would you know the answer? Tschuss, --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Its correct. According to http://www.frederiksdal-info.dk/frederiksdalmanden.htm the tunic has been found near Nederfrederiksdal Man (also knows as Kragelund Man). --Bullenwächter (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke schőn!--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Gourami Watcher/list of bog bodies

Hallo mein Freund,

I've been working on a new organization for the English article for the bog body list at User:Gourami Watcher/list of bog bodies. I'm looking for the city/town state that the bog body was found although my resources are limited. Would you help me on this please? Danke schön. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 01:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gourami Watcher! Of course I like to help you. Please let me know which data you are looking for exactly. --Bullenwächter (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andi,

I'd like to have for the location section of each bog body the state that it was found in, for example, Windeby I would have, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. Bis Dann! --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have entered the regions as far as I know them. For the missing ones I have to look into the literature. --Bullenwächter (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Danke schön for you efforts! I have now merged the userspace to the original article. Once again, Thank You! --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[3][4], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=82379912 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was not able to participate yet. --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)