User talk:Fuzzypeg/Archive 1

Festivals

I don't like the way you've changed the festivals listing on Wicca. Nothing personal. The primacy is fine, I just don't like the names you put first, I think you've got it all backwards. Those are the traditional Wiccan names? Since when? Never have I heard a fellow Wiccan call it the Winter Solstice rather than Yule, or the Spring Equinox and the Fall Equinox rather than Ostara and Mabon. Granted, I'm sure some things are different depending on who you ask, but in my experiences you've got that all backwards. Search4Lancer 05:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was guided by the names used in the Book of Shadows. I agree that in some cases this is no longer the most common name, however within trad. Craft these are still mostly the most common names (exceptions being Beltane and Samhain; also Midwinter and Midsummer are probably more common than Winter Solstice or Yule and Summer Solstice). This despite the fact that some of these names are even quite Christian-sounding. I think the increasing use of Gaelic, Welsh and Germanic names is an attempt to divorce ourselves more strongly from popular Christian culture. My main intention though was to reduce the emphasis on a few very non-traditional names: Mabon is correctly the name of a Welsh fertility god who was celebrated at the Autumn Equinox, and it didn't come into use as the name of a festival until the 1970s (I don't know which author introduced this usage). Similarly 'Ostara' is the name of a Goddess, and the use of her name for the festival is a modern innovation. (However Imbolc ('In the belly') and Oimelc ('First milk') are traditional names). Litha is Scandinavian, and came into common use amongst English-speaking pagans only recently. I'm a little concerned about how easily false histories can be established, especially considering the number of people who already consider Wiccans and Pagans to be flakes. I guess I see Wicca as a tradition that already has enough embarrassing myths to explain, without needing new myths to be constantly invented. OK now, on the subject of false histories and embaressing myths, I still need to find some sources to corroberate my claims here. I haven't yet, but I'll try to in the next day or two. I'm tired... Fuzzypeg 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's turning into a difficult search; hard to get hits that don't just repeat the recent (invented) usages of the words. I might copy this discussion to talk:Wicca so I can get some help. Here are some sites I've found that support me though:

- OwlDaughter's comment at [1]

- Second paragraph of [2]

- Note in [3]

I've had less luck with Ostara:

- Fourth paragraph of [4] (although it's a bit unclear what this person is trying to say)

I'll report back when I find more. By the way, if you're keen to have Beltane, Samhain, and even Yule listed first (before May Eve, Halloween and Winter Solstice) I wouldn't be too concerned. I was just trying to find a consistent naming. Fuzzypeg 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Offer glady accepted

I appreciate your kind words. When I first started editing Wikipedia I told myself I was going to avoid the Wicca article like the plague. I knew from my experience on various Pagan Usenet groups, like alt.religion.wicca and alt.witchcraft, and from real life experiences with various Pagan groups in the Washington, D.C. area that it could be a minefield. As a friend of mine once said, “Christians don't need to attack us, we do a fine job of that ourselves.”

you seem well established here as a regular

Well, it looks like my first contribution was only about three days before yours.

I think I may have caught the wikipedia bug too

Yeah, it's definitely an addiction. It's especially bad for me because I'm currently unemployed and I have way too much time to spend at it.

you seem thorough and knowledgable, and people who have these qualities as well as the motivation to actually do something with their knowledge are rare as hens' teeth.

Stop it, I'm blushing.

I have discovered the combination of having people metaphorically looking over my shoulder with me not wanting to look like an idiot has caused me to be very careful about being able to back up what I say. It's a good source of discipline in the best sense of the word. I'm currently working on an biographical article about Christian Knorr Von Rosenroth—he did the Latin translation of the Zohar that S.L. MacGregor used for the Kabbalah Unveiled. You can see what I've done so far here. I've run into a wall for now because most of the source material is in German[5] [6], a language I don't speak or read. I've been using Google's translation service, but it is a bit limited [7] [8]. I've asked my bother-in-law, who does speak German, to help a bit and I've been in contact via e-mail with an organization in Germany dedicated to Knorr. They are trying to get me connected to members who speak English. It is slow work. That I know of the is very little information about him in English, either online or in the real world. If I pull this one off it will be a real contribution, not just to Wikipedia, but to the English speaking world in general—especially students of the occult. That's a heady feeling.

If you've looked at my contributions you've see my interests run more toward Qabalah and Thelema. My introduction to Paganism was through Wicca and I still identify myself that way, but I find myself more and more drawn to ceremonialism and the Western mysteries in the Golden Dawn tradition. Wicca is very satisfying on an emotional level, but the depth and breadth of ceremonial magick, and my own hunger for spiritual transformation is leading me inevitably to journey across the Abyss. The people who have charted that path before me all seem to come out of the Hermetic tradition. Aleister Crowley and Israel Regardie in particular seem to have been writing with me in mind. At least it seems that way to me.

I'm sure we'll run across each other as we fritter away our time here. The opportunity for cataloging information about the Pagan tradition on Wikipedia is fantastic. It's nice to have a friendly companion on the way.--◀Puck^talk▶ 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicca and 'magic(k)'

Thank you for helping to bring some sanity to that issue. Crowley is probably chuckling in his grave about the entire issue. I was getting tired of fixing the 'magic / magick' edits myself, quite honestly, so hopefully people will see your comments on the appropriate Talk page. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicca question on my talk page

In case you hadn;t seen it, I responded to your question on my talk page. DreamGuy 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Grand Lodges discussion

I'm more than a bit annoyed that you are tossing my name around as having INSISTED on anything in the CoMasonry article. Please stop, or substantiate the claim.--Vidkun 14:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I have gone and checked the list of grand lodges, as well as the comasonry page, and I have said NOTHING like that. I am now specifically requesting that you place a retraction of your statements regarding me on pages where you have made them.--Vidkun 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, that's a terrible boo-boo. I somehow confused you with User:Ardenn. I will correct this pronto-presto. That's really embarrassing. Fuzzypeg 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Frost Morris

Hi Fuzzypeg, founding member of Jack Frost Morris. In your user page, could you please put a link to the side page, I'm trying to improve our Google rating? It's at the same old place [9]

Sorry if this the wrong way to ask this.

cheers,

Michiel

28/2/'06 2116hrs

Hello Michiel! It looks like you've already added the link. I should check the photos on the site. There seems to be plenty of new stuff. I'll call you soon for a chat. Fuzzypeg 05:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay \o/

It's so rare that another established user will actually publically comment on the freemasonry pages. Thanks :) Seraphim 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Eleusinian Mysteries: black ergot

Have you got any references you can point us towards for this information? The phrase "It has been claimed that" sticks out like a sore thumb as needing some kind of reference. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would surmise this is a classic case of an assertion that is commonplace enough, that it is difficult to ascertain who made it first. You may google "Osiris is a dark god", this will produce a surfeit of results. While I am not sure if it has been explicitly linked to ergot, I think the connection is self-evident. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 09:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far from google, "Osiris is a black god" was said to Egyptian priests, according to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in Isis unveiled. This doesn't connect it with the mysteries of Eleusis, in which the central figure was Iacchus/Dionysus. I would also say that a connection with ergot is not self-evident, and that rye, the main vector for transmitting ergotism, was not grown much around the Mediterranean. (oops, didn't sign) Fuzzypeg 20:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unusual archiving

Hi. Given that my archiving of a Talk page you were involved with was a little out of the ordinary, I thought that I would leave a note here explaining that I did it as a courtesy in an attempt to move towards less conflict-oriented discussion. I suspect that we will wind up returning to the conversation in question, but, for the moment, I am hoping that things will be easier to discuss rationally if we remove the contentious material from Google-searchable pages. If you have any concerns about this, please let me know. Jkelly 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go with that. I was probably getting a bit over-excited myself, and will benefit from being given pause to think. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Merlin of Amber and Pentacle/Pentagram

Actually the symbol of Merlin is not a pentagram [10]. It is a figure that might be called "pentangle" (like "triangle"). I am not a native speaker, so maybe you will find a better word for this figure. It has 5 angles and 5 sides, unlike a pentagram. In Amber chronicles Fiona uses a real pentagram. Regards Jasra 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's called a pentagon. I'll change it in the article. Fuzzypeg 20:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Lightbringer sock on occult

I am certain that what you have got in User:Fyodor Dosis an evangelical/Roman Catholic user who believes that any beliefs (or systems, for that matter) that are not Christian are Satanic mockeries of Christianity. He's been POV-pushing on Freemasonry for months to try to show it is Satanic, he adds partisan links and factually incorrect information, was banned by ArbCom, and has apparently set his sights on occult as a way to further his agenda. Because somebody made an etymological mistake and he doesn't think the Rosicrucian material is correct, you're going to have an edit war on your hands. He's already shown his true colors, and asking him for WP:RS-based proof for his claims is going to get you nowhere. Just a heads-up. MSJapan 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind. Fuzzypeg 21:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regularity

I've been having a hack at the Regular Masonic jurisdictions page to try to reflect some of the compexity around mutual recognition, it's the kind of article where it might be useful to have some input from the Co-FM side as well, so I'd be grateful if you could find time to add to it.ALR 11:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Rosicrucian...

There's a new editor on Rosicrucian, Rosaecruz (talk · contribs), who is trying far too hard not to look like Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs) for it not to be him (Rosaecruz is portraying himself as a Christian Rosicrucian, but I bet I'm going to see him over on Freemasonry once the protect expires). I believe he's completely mucked up the article and done some obfuscated reversiions, but there's only so many things I can keep an eye on, especially since I really don't know enough about the subject to know what's right and what isn't. As you seem to know more, I figured it might be useful to keep you apprised of a possible issue. That being said, you might want to look at the Rosicrucian article and make sure it's still accurate. MSJapan 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything seems OK, and things are discussed to a point, so maybe it's not so big an issue. MSJapan 21:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections to the recent editions in the article. I would like to give you the link to the following page, which was already up for more than a year but became completed just a few minutes ago: [11]; to be to understood to your own discretion. Best regards, --Rosaecruz 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interlinks

This was added by an automatic bot, so I had to remove the interlinks on all other Wikipedias, too. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really know how the interlinks work and I haven't used the other Wikipedias. Fuzzypeg 22:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Persecution section

Good edit. Can you think of any reliable source that actually gets into this? I seem to recall some essay by either Starhawk or Margot Adler on beliefnet... Jkelly 16:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a quick look in Drawing Down the Moon but I was pretty tired by this point and didn't take it any further. I've got my eyes open though, and hopefully I'll find something.

After 5 1/2 hours sleep last night I've just spent 5 hours straight sitting in my temple discussing goddess traditions with a Tibetan Tantric Buddhist. Funny the things we do ;) Fuzzypeg 03:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ndru01

It is my suspicion that Ndru01 is suffering from some form of mental illness. At this point, no other explanation can adequately account for his behavior. Please understand that I don't mean this as an insult, just my considered opinion that I'm sharing because it may help you deal with him. Alienus 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's my guess too. I suspect an inability to keep different world views separated, such as hypothetical world-views or world-views based on reputable sources. My last comment to him was in the hopes that if he were suffering fron a diagnosed condition, he would be reminded of the fact and realise that this had something to do with his difficulties on Wikipedia. I haven't yet checked to see what his response was... I hate seeing a person so much in conflict with themselves... Fuzzypeg 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuzzypeg, for the warning about Ndru01. To let you know, Tawker removed the {{deleteagain}} from Modern gnostic mysticism, I imagine because it was the first article with that name. There definitely was a previous article called Modern Gnosticism. I've been assuming good faith of Ndru01, and that perhaps that problems with English are why he is slow to learn the ways of Wikipedia. Giving examples may help.

I don't intend to disturb anything on this topic from now on, in order to avoid provoking further tiresome changes (except to revert hijacking of existing pages if I notice it). Perhaps the compromise we have now is reasonably acceptable, in that very little links to the extended (original research) essay, but the 'reminder' Ndru01 wanted to assert is now represented with qualifications, albeit unsourced in a section of Gnosticism in modern times. Eventually, I suspect Modern gnostic mysticism will be nominated for deletion as original research. Apparently User:Sky-surfer is also interested in retaining and improving it. What Ndru01 needs to understand is the underlined bit in WP:OR:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

--Cedders^tk 11:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that bits of the article are being found usable. I felt rather horrible initiating that deletion process, after he had spent huge amounts of time writing the thing and I had spent huge (but significantly less) amounts of time trying to coach him towards understanding what you've underlined above... I knew there were ideas in there that could be put towards something constructive, but I never managed to separate them out from Ndru01's synthesis. Fuzzypeg 11:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested that the latest incarnation of the Modern Gnosticism article is at User:Infoandru01/Gnostic Infomysticism after it was recreated and I moved it to user space rather than nominating it for speedy. S/he's also adopted the name User:Infoandru01 to evade a block. I intend to stop watching all the related pages now except Consciousness. Cheers. --Cedders^tk 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fuzzypeg 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : Modern Gnosticism

I've deleted the article as recreation of AfD'ed material. In future cases, just tag the article with {{deleteagain}}, and any other sysop will come and handle the rest. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you kindly. Fuzzypeg 06:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know :) —porges_(talk) 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wicca etymology

I saw you pining about your lack of OED:

Also Wica, wicca. [a. OE wicca: see WITCH n.1 and n.2]

The practices and religious cult of modern witchcraft.

1959 G. B. GARDNER Meaning of Witchcraft 259 One of the ways in which the Craft of Wica has served the Aquarian Age has been in the way it has kept alive the teaching of reincarnation and karma. 1972 Collier's Encycl. Year Bk. 1971 10 The ancient rites of the wicca, as witchcraft is known to its serious practitioners, were practiced in 1971 with no one knows what degree of success by no one knows how many witches in the United States. 1980 N.Y. Times 28 Sept. I. 26/1 Two local evangelists..found out a few days ago about the Wicca convention and witchcraft seminar. 1987 Insight 8 June 59/1 Though the origins of Wicca, or witchcraft, are disputed, its followers agree on their pursuit of harmony with nature and an enhanced spirituality. 1991 Sky Mag. Feb. 66/1 He did wed one of his regular girlfriends..in a Wicca ceremony..in which souls are fused on a karmic and cosmic plane, and death..does not part the lovers.

Here's WITCH n.1:

Forms: 1 wicca, wycca, 3-6 wiche, etc. (as next). [OE. wicca wk. masc. (see next).]

A man who practises witchcraft or magic; a magician, sorcerer, wizard. See also WHITE WITCH.

c890 Laws of Ælfred xxx, {Edh}a fæmnan, {th}e {asg}ewunia{edh} onfon {asg}ealdorcræfti{asg}an, & scinlæcan, & wiccan. c1100 Gloss. in Wr.-Wülcker 183/31 Augur uel ariolus, wicca. a1225 Juliana 41 Ich hit am {th}at spec {th}urh simunes mu{edh} {th}e wicche. c1250 Gen. & Ex. 3028 {Edh}e wicches hidden hem for-{edh}an, Bi-foren pharaun nolden he ben. c1375 Sc. Leg. Saints xxi. (Clement) 532 Sayand he was ane enchantore, A wech and a trigetouyre. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. XVIII. 46 ‘Crucifige’, quod a cacchepolle ‘I warante hym a wicche!’ c1400 Three Kings Cologne 84 {Th}e paynyms..cleped {th}es iij kyngis Magos, {th}at is to seye wicchis. 1470-85 MALORY Arthur I. viii. 45 Som of hem lough hym [sc. Merlin] to scorne,..and mo other called hym a wytche. c1533 MORE Answ. Poys. Bk. Wks. 1063/2 The turning of Aarons rod..into suche a serpent as deuoured vp all ye serpentes of ye Egipciane witches. 1563 WIN{ygh}ET Vincent. Lirin. xxx. Wks. (S.T.S.) II. 63/7 Simon the weche, quha wes strukin be the Apostolis cursing. 1627 R. BERNARD Guide Grand-Jury Men 240 The examination of that grand Witch, Lewis Gaufredy, before noble Commissioners. 1668 ROLLE Abridgment I. 44 Home dit que I. S. Is a Witch, and I will prove him so. 1712 SWIFT Jrnl. to Stella 17 June, Am I a Laplander? am I witch?..can I make easterly winds? 1828 CARR Craven Gloss., Witch, this word..is frequently used for wizard, or fortune teller. 1913 in Expositor (1914) Jan. 20 [Near Criccieth] there lives a long-haired, haggard old man whom the people about speak of as a ‘witch’.

And WITCH n.2:

Forms: 1-2 wicce, wycce, 2-6 wicche, 3 wichche, 3-4 wychche, 3-5 wycche, 3-6 wiche, 4-5 wyche, wech, 4-6 wich, wytche, wych, 4-7 witche, 5-6 weche, (4 wecch, Sc. wesch-, wisch-, 4, 6 which(e, 5 whitche, wheche, 6 wytch, Sc. vytche, vyche, weyche), 6- witch. [OE. wicce fem., corresponding to wicca WITCH n.1, both of which are app. derivatives of wiccian WITCH v.1]

1. a. A female magician, sorceress; in later use esp. a woman supposed to have dealings with the devil or evil spirits and to be able by their co-operation to perform supernatural acts. See also WHITE WITCH.

c1000 ÆLFRIC Saints' Lives vii. 209 Anima{edh}..{th}a re{edh}an wiccan, Seo {th}e {edh}us awent {th}urh wiccecræft manna mod. a1100 Aldhelm Gloss. I. 1926 (Napier 52/1) P(h)itonissam, .i. diuinatricem, helhrunan, wiccan. c1290 St. Kath. 279 in S. Eng. Leg. 100 Faste {ygh}e schulle {th}e wychche binde,..And smitez of hire heued a-non. 1303 R. BRUNNE Handl. Synne 499 Lo here a tale of a wycche, {Th}at leued no better {th}an a bycche. c1375 Sc. Leg. Saints l. (Katerine) 1088 [He] gert {th}is katrine till hyme feite, & sad hir: ‘{th}u wikide wiche, Quhat wenis {th}u ws lang to preche?’ c1400 Destr. Troy 11182 The worthy, {th}at wicche hase wastid to dethe. 1440 WYRCESTER in Wars Eng. in Fr. (Rolls) II. II. 763 Alia mulier magica, vocata vulgariter Wyche of Eye,..capta est.., et apud Smythfeld cremata. 1471 CAXTON Recuyell (Sommer) 243 Iuno the false wycche and sorceresse. 1500-20 DUNBAR Poems xxxv. 35 Jonet the weido on ane bussome rydand, Off wichiss with ane windir garesoun. 1591 SHAKES. 1 Hen. VI, V. iii. 34 See how the vgly Witch doth bend her browes, As if with Circe, she would change my shape. 1656 W. COLES Art of Simpling 67 Leaves of Elder..which to disappoint the Charmes of Witches, they had affixed to their Doores and Windowes. 1711 ADDISON Spect. No. 117 {page}10 When an old Woman begins to doat, and grow chargeable to a Parish, she is generally turned into a Witch. 1790 BURNS Tam o' Shanter 200 The witches follow, Wi' mony an eldritch skriech and hollo. 1868 TENNYSON Lucretius 15 She..Dreaming some rival, sought and found a witch Who brew'd the philtre. 1901 RHYS Celtic Folklore iv. 294, I have heard of one old witch changing herself into a pigeon.

—porges_(talk) 06:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! Don't have time to read it properly right now, though - I've got to go and catch my train home. Thank you very much! Oh, and which edition is this? (Big smiles) Fuzzypeg 07:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Edition, from the OED Online. —porges_(talk) 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

proposals for Wicca#Wiccan views on Divinity

I really like what you wrote, as it is well written, but I would like to point out a few issues I have with it. Specifically, the section

Individual interpretations of the exact natures of these two divinities can differ significantly, since priests and priestesses develop their own relationships with the gods through intense personal work and revelation. Many are drawn to particular deities from a variety of pantheons, whom they honour specifically, but traditionally all these goddesses and gods are held to be aspects of one Goddess (the Great Mother) and one God.

seems to fly in the face of the fairly standard view of the the Gods of the Wica being specific tribal gods, known only to those who are initiated. Of course, now I need to go pick up one of the few Gardner books I have (can't touch the Farrars Bible, as I am trying to avoid reading anything about initiation until I get to it myself) and see what GBG has to say about the nature of the Gods. Additionally, I would suggest that the all gods are one god thing is a Valiente-ism, and not in line with the idea of specific tribal gods alongside other gods from other pantheons. For example, if/when I am initiated, I will be introduced to the Gods of the Wica, but that will not preclude me from honoring and working with other Gods, such as my Matron, the Morrigan. I do like the wording in the first line of what you wrote, as I seen tons of references within BTW and seeker chats regarding the idea that being of the Wica is a calling to serve the Gods.--Vidkun 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Vidkun. The wording you saw was very much a draft — I moved it onto my user page when I left work so I could pick it up again at home. When I'm nearly happy with it I'll shift it to Talk:Wicca for further comments before I put it in the article. I know enough people will have strong views on the subject that I would like to do this carefully. I'm also aware I come from a specific (NZ and English Alexandrian) background, and I just don't know what misrepresentations I might be making of others' beliefs.

I've been thinking of how to word an explanation of the tribal gods/primal gods problem: for instance, the Great Mother is not necessarily the same as the primary Goddess of Wicca; however perhaps she is. It's not at all cut and dried. Trying to make this readable and correct, and representative of the vast range of views and opinions, traditional and otherwise, and trying not to say too much on certain issues, is rather difficult! ;P

I'm going to keep working on it here for a bit before I release it to the clamouring hordes. Fuzzypeg 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, slice it on over to Talk:Wicca, and ask for input from: Jkelly, AdelaMae, and JustinEiler (I think I got those all right). From what i have seen of their edits, they seem to be just as knowledgeable as I am. As for knowledgeable, eh, I am a voracious reader, and I have been studying what I thought was Wicca since 1992. In reality most of what i was reading was neoWicca, or simply neopaganism published by Llewellyn, with a strong focus in CM stuff. It's only since 2002-2003 I have had a serious interest in BTW. I'm going to look and see if i can find a copy of any of Gardner's works in my place or my gf's.--Vidkun 11:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Three lunar phases triple goddess symbol

Do you have solid evidence that this originated within Wicca? In any case, it seems to be a reinterpretation of the Hathor headdress in line with Graves' symbolism in his White Goddess. AnonMoos 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. See my comments at Talk:Triple Goddess. Feel free to correct what I wrote. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheshire Cheese and Morris???

Ben, can you point me towards a source for a song, used in Morris dancing, talking about the famed cheeses of cheshire? I have the feeling I am missing an inside joke by some Morris people.--Vidkun 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, Congleton Bear . . .--Vidkun 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pentacle" images

Thanks, that's very useful. What I'm doing right now is removing references to the old image from people's signatures, so that it is possible to see where it is being used properly. When that is done, I can then see to replacing it with that new image you showed me. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Vodou

(Didn't want to stick that in the page move thread since it's closed now.)--Birdmessenger 23:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I was expecting a few people who knew a lot more about it than me to be involved in that discussion. It's nice to be able to contribute something though. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches -- would you mind? I'd like to take it WP:FAC sometime soon. You may want to check, for instance, if it still needs to be on your to do list. Jkelly 01:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches has already gotten some support. I've been trying to get back to doing some real article writing rather than just maintenance and admin tasks. Jkelly 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Star (symbol)

Yes, about that. I would like to apologize for my errant actions in this matter. It was my intent to combine the two pages, not delete yours entirely. I had computer issues and the result was that I deleted your page. I meant to fix it but didn't get around to it. Sorry. I'll just leave it alone for the time being.--SweetNeo85 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to your Magick Edit.

I have edited you last edit. Feel free to edit my last edit, but please ensure that you do not refer to Magic as paranormal, or supernatural. Magick is believed to be the use of natural energies, and in no way paranormal, or supernatural.

Thanks,

Norfolk Dumpling

Mediation

Hi, you've been listed as an editor here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 Pentagram vs. Five-Point Star. If you'd like to participate, you are more than welcome. SynergeticMaggot 05:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Golden Dawn pentacle image

Looks like Kerub is mispelled on the image.--Vidkun 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks for pointing that out! I based the spelling on an image I found on the internet, since I made this image at work and I didn't have my books handy. I was wondering what those words were supposed to be. It looks like the Resh has become Daleth in several kerubim's names. Also, I suspect I'm supposed to leave room for the adept's motto as well. (I've never made this particular type of pentacle). I'll figure this out and correct it. Again, thanks for bothering to check my Hebrew. You can see how some of the "words of power" in the old grimoires might have eventuated! Fuzzypeg☻ 22:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I see: Adonai ha-Aretz - Auriel - ???Puralak??? - Kerub - Pereth?? - Tzepun?? - Eretz. I think I should figure out what those words are before I attempt to correct this... Fuzzypeg☻ 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Adonai ha-Aretz - Auriel - Phorlakh - Kerub - Phrat - Tzaphon - Aretz. "Lord of Earth", Auriel "Light of God", Angel of Earth, Kerub, the river Phrat (Euphrates), "North", "Earth". Fuzzypeg☻ 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you would normally leave room for the Adept's Motto/name. I have seen a number of versions in different books, and think each of them was a little different, except when the books were straight GD material. However, even there, I think there are probably blinds that I won't figure out. I started with self taught GD-based stuff in 1992, and then became a generic NeoPagan calling themself a Wiccan . . . '00-03 put me in the looking for something traditional phase, and, here I am, studying B*. I like the GD stuff, and may return to some work with it . . . down the road after initiation.--Vidkun 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

B*? Dunno what that means... Anyway, I'd like to say (again?) it's a real pleasure to rub shoulders here with people as knowledgable and experienced as you. You mentioned earlier you had some aspirations towards a traditional initiation — I hope this works out for you and you find the priesthood that bears you the most fruit.

I haven't worked with the Golden Dawn system per se any further than some of the personal rituals: middle pillar, circulating the body of light, banishings, the rose cross; it's a lovely system, and I'm gradually going to explore more of it, but my first love is Wicca, and that still has enormous tracts of territory for me to explore. It's interesting, I'm actually finding more points of connection between Freemasonry and my witchcraft than between the GD system and my witchcraft... and they're not just the connections you'd expect from someone copying bits of the ritual. Lots of fun. Anyway, thanks, Life and Love, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

B*. I am trying not to find points of connection where I am right now, because I am in the situation of having to unlearn, all of what I learned by reading GD stuff and generic NeoPagan studies. This way I learn our way, our praxis, with less influence from outside sources.--Vidkun 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is excellent work. Please do consider uploading stuff like this to Wikimedia Commons so that every project can use it. Jkelly 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit Iwas rather pleased with it too until Vidkun pointed out the errors. When I fix it I'll upload it to the commons as well. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your Behavior

Im not exactly sure, (nor am i interested) why you still seem unable to grasp the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You see, it is not generally considered acceptable for users to deviate from the official policies set by Wikipedia. And in your case, Assume good faith; which as i see, you may of had a few problems with in the past.

If you indeed have a problem, with the afermentioned article, or any other, then i suggest you explain yourself in a calm, and reasonable fashion. instead of belligerently disrupting that article and introducing tags were there is no requirement for them whilst foaming at the mouth.

Also, if you continue to have issues regarding other referenced and sourced article content then you may add to the lines of text you feel are needing verification.

Thanks for understanding.

Viogfernos 22:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tush, tush. I spent a lot of time calmly trying to explain the reasons for my edits, and trying to explain why there's no need for raised tempers; I reiterate, I don't have any major disagreement with you. The enemy you're casting me as is actually a little fantasy Fuzzypeg residing in your head. I don't really mind — it can foam at its mouth and roll its eyeballs as much as you like — I'll just get on with editing Wikipedia. Have fun, Fuzzypeg☻ 12:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

? - its just one long spiral down for you isn't it fuzzypeg, (in more ways than one). and if petty vandalism and nonsensical misinformation is what you contribute using whatever small time you have left on wikipedia before you are blocked, then that is indeed unfortunate.

Also, try not to spam my, and any other users' talk pages with attention seeking trollish messages. I trust a second warning will not be necessary.

I suspect that a user conduct RfC is the next step. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request comment on users. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton for an example of one I recently filed. Jkelly 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think that there is currently need for more community attention, than it probably isn't necessary to go through with an RfC. I wasn't around to look at what you had written, I'm afraid, but I hope that the issue is now resolved. Jkelly 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wicca

Hey, just wanted to thank you for all the cleaning up you've been doing on the article.

Have a free crystal ball

Search4Lancer 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. I just hoping I haven't been standing on too many toes in the process. :) Fuzzypeg☻ 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure where to put it, but this seemed like a good place to say this. Stomp on toes. We Wiccans have a culture that is based on mythology-- and most of us think it's documented history. The whole neopagan movement needs some scholarly integrity, and I'm pleased to see it being done. CatherS (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to message on Wicca Portal

That, infact, is the exact reason why it was featured, because Correllian tradition is widely despised. Id rather feature it now, while its under-construction(the portal), because that way it doesnt have to be "re-featured" in the near future at all, and that way, the discussion page wont get 7358257593 messages such as yours. Please also note, that this portal is under construction, and one of my main reasonings for creating it was to feature newly "up-to-standard articles", i wouldnt say the correllian one is, and because you seem so disturbed by it, im happy to change to another article. I do say though, it was temporary, the Correllian Article is certainly in much despair, and it is a very foreign tradition to me, so thats why it is included at the moment. --Brenton.eccles 10:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading my comments I seem to have sounded more upset than I intended. I'm not sure how this "selected article" thing is supposed to work, but I assumed that it would only involve well-written articles rather than trying to cycle through all articles relating to Wicca. If the Correllian article were well-written and NPOV it would probably make for good reading and a good "selected article". We don't have to like something for an article about that thing to be informative and stimulating reading... Fuzzypeg☻ 23:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply re: Chumbley

Hi Fuzzypeg; I have provided a reference for the high regard in which Chumbley is held (Hutton lauds him in his book-says he couldn't have done it w/o Chumbley's help) and I added that he has been influential with many, many references-both ignored by Bongo and removed. Bongo has been personally offensive. Now what? Lulubyrd 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're doing fine over there. I'll note that the sentence "Chumbley was known within the occult community and his books continue to command very high resale prices", currently in the lead, seems a bit strange. If there is really an intractable dispute over whether or not he should be referred to as influential, attributing that description may help (i.e. "John Doe wrote that Chumbley was influential within the occult community."[CITE] rather than "Chumbley was influential within the occult community."[CITE John Doe]). If things do get out of hand, let me know if the article needs protecting. Jkelly 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Triumph Of The Moon Review...

The Triumph of the Moon:

Hiya' Ben! I see that as of June you were writing a review of Hutton's text (a scholar with whom I find problematic, especially when I see the majority of his readers accepting it as gospel, regarldess of other little-known academics): Triumph Of The Moon. I'd love to be able to read it sometime, and even be able to eventually link to it from my My Space Blog: MySpace.Com/MacMorrighan

Take Care, Wade MacMorrighan, MacMorrigaine(at)AIM(dot)Com (Keep in touch and keep uo the good work!)

email me via wiki?

Thanks!--Vidkun 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tarot Cards

Hello, Fuzzypeg. An adminstrator (User:Bastique) has personally said to me that Wikipedia does not recognize US Games Copyright since those images were made before the 1921 copyright law. Ok, bro? ;] That´s valid for Minor Arcana cards, For Major Arcana,if the copyright was accepted, any modification could be valid, according to him, because that would make them different images. Don Leon 14:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he said HE doesn't consider the copyright to be valid, and, while that's a compelling argument from an administrator, what does US Games think?--Vidkun 14:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

US Games thinks they hold the copyright, but the images, as I said before, were made before the copyright law...For Wikipedia that 1971 Copyright mark doesn´t mean anything. If an administrator does not recognize, that means Wikipedia doesn´t. Until it´s said the oposite, that´s the "current law". Fuzzypeg, the same administrator has said before that was a copyright violation, but later he changed his mind. (Correcting a mistake: It´s the 1923 law, not 1921) Don Leon 12:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Fuzzypeg, but I responded on his talk page for continuity of discussion's sake. I was asking the way I asked, because, potentially, whether one admin thinks a copyright doesn't count or not doesn't matter if someone claiming to hold that copyright decides to sue. With that in mind, i have seen wikipedia be VERY cautious in interpretation of copyright issues, and, a number of times I have seen admins saying "If we aren't sure, don't use it." However, another admin pointed out to me that USG hold copyright on the specific colouring of those images, not the images themselves, dating from 1971. Changing the colours changes negates the copyvio issue, aand, I hope that whomever is doing the is now releasing those images under copyleft licenses.--Vidkun 14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

reply to your comment on the template

will do, but first there are more important things for me to do... my daily newspaper linked an artical as a source! Evil oranges 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Theban alphabet

Heya. Merry Xmas =) I have summarized up my researches on Theban script on my user page - and will probably re-shape the main article page in the future. Maybe also with images of the diverse little variations in reported theban scripts. Since you seem quite interested into this script and its origins, is that ok with you? Also, do you still have the book, probably by Nigel Pennick, which describes a possible precursor of Theban? The info in the text could be interesting. Nyctophilia 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Athame Associations

You removed edits I performed on the Athame page and as a reason said this...."A few weird assertions that just don't seem true I've removed". Now sure you may have meant that about something else other than the stuff which you removed from the section on associations but still I would like to tell you that the part about a secret society which I added I referenced from, A Witches Bible, written by Janet&Stewart Farrar. This may sound like an attack, believe me thats not how I intend it. Grey witch 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand where you are coming from. If you wish to check before I add it back in its on page 252 of the 2nd half of A Witches Bible line 30 onwards. Grey witch 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont be sorry its completely understandable, I dont know how to add references as i mentioned on the athame talk page which i feel bad about. Grey witch 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I will clean it up a bit since i have the book with me, they term it a blind also. Grey witch 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I Am Annoyed

The last change to athame before me removed all uses of the words wicca and witchcraft. Could it have been done by accident or was it deliberate vandalism? Grey witch 11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, on another note i assume you dont contribute to wikipedia without clothes when you are at work...or you might, i guess it all depends on where you work haha. Again thanks. Grey witch 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

G-Rye

• Hey there Fuzzy, Just wanted to say I was trying to keep the Co-Freemasonry issues sane last year (look in old huistory, but esp on main Freemasonry article talk, it was bad), but I'm not a Co-Freemason (whatever, you know what i mean...;-) & then you jumped in, & whatever anyone feels about the subject, you did pull it together into an actual article.

So, my point is, know that I don't mean it harm, I'm not a hater, but I am adamant about distinction, & with that, maybe know that... I dunno, just trying to help. & sorry about jumping on those redlinks, the ieda was that the article was around for a long time, w/little de-redlinking (article creation). Grye 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're kind of right about that, I don't consider Co-Freemasons Freemasons, but it's not derogatory, unless they throw a fit, then it's a couldn't-care-less thing...;~D They're (you're) Co-Freemasons. If we can get past the derogitory terminology somehow, & accept that there's differences, then we'll ALL get along much better, & we can each get on with finding more light in our respective ways!

& yeah, I can imagine the Wiccan scenario pretty well. Have fun with that !~D

Grye 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Forest coven

That is one great job there mate. Clutterbuck was a tory??? Totnesmartin 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits Occult

Yes, someone placed a link that had nothing to do with occultism. I shouldnt have deleted it. --Manyminds17 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pentacle - connotations of 5

Hi Fuzzypeg. Thanks for the explanation behind your change. I'm concerned about WP:NOR. You seem to have a theory that "Pentacles often had no connotation of "five" in the old magical texts". You support this theory by citing "that section (and indeed the rest of the article)" because it gives examples. Here's what I'm concerned about: 1) The limited examples cited don't provide convincing evidence of whether the connotation you prefer was truly used "often". It would take a lot of research into "old magical texts" to determine whether the usage you posit was truly used often. Also, it would take an expert to determine which sources constituted "old magical texts" that should be considered for examples. I'm not doubting that you are an expert on the texts, or that pentacle means anything other than what you think it means. I just think Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place for you to present your knowledge about the usage of "pentacle" without corroborating that specific view in published research.Tritium6 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, I haven't done a full scholarly survey, and if I had, that would still be OR. And some of the sentences in this section probably need improving. However I can assure you that the examples given are amongst the most influential and representative of their periods. Trithemius, the Key of Solomon, the writings of Agrippa, including the spurious fourth book of Agrippa, and later Francis Barret, The Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley. These were the most influential magical writings of their periods.

Now perhaps I can't just assert that these were the most influential writings in the article. But I haven't said that. Instead I worded it to say that pentacles "often" have no connotation of "five", which I believe is borne out by the references given.

The question here really is, are the references I've given representative enough to use the term "often", or aren't they? This is a meta-issue generally dealt with outside of the article itself. The editors, who hopefully have some expertise in the field, come to consensus amongst themselves as to whether a given source of information is significant and representative.

A more difficult problem is with the statement that hexagrams appear more commonly than pentagrams, because of course that's just my research. I haven't figured out how to reword that yet. I might see what I can do... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First, how about re-wording to something like "The most influential and representative examples of the ... period often use the word pentacle in a context other than five-pointed figure" and include a citation that those are indeed the most influential and representative examples and a citation that they do indeed include that usage. That gets right to the short and sweet of what we're discussing.

Second, I'm interested in your proposition that editors should "have some expertise in the field." In the case of figuring out what statements need to be sourced, it seems that it would often be "obvious" to an expert, and yet a novice might need to be clobbered over the head with an undeniable fact. Novices may often be in a better place to know where to request a citation, while experts are in a better place to know what sources will provide the needed details. I am that novice, asking to be clobbered.Tritium6 02:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wicca, prescriptivism versus descriptivism

I read what you wrote on G-Rye's account. I fully understand the problem you're going through, as i go through it myself (especially considering that not all BTW consider BlueStar to be BTW, but some do, and some consider only certain lines of BlueStar to be so . . .), especially over on Livejournal. what I have found is that wikipedia ends up being descriptivist, not prescriptivist. That is, I call myself Wiccan is enough to say I am, and that concept is extended to all things calling themselves Wiccan. That's why, unfortunately, the Wicca article describes most fo what I would call neo- or eclectic- wicca. Not Wicca as those who are "of the Wica/Wicca" know it, but derived, essentially, from the Pagan Way outer court type traditions that Ed Fitch started in the 70's to provide something for those who hadn't yet found a Traditional Group with which to work. That seems to have become the standard, the outer court, non oath bound, non initiatory stuff, because it is A: easier to work, 2: easier to find (pick up a book and you're off), Γ: it SELLS books, in a way that "You need to find an in person teacher to actually initiate you, after you have been found to be a proper person, and then properly prepared" does NOT sell books . . . was I going anywhere with this? Only that i feel your pain, it should be quite evident when I edit both in Masonic articles (where the definition of Mason is no longer controlled by GL's they having all said that each GL is sovereign unto itself), where I tend to support an inclusivist viewpoint, and in Wicca-related articles where I tend to support the exclusivist viewpoint, as the origins of Wicca in the 20th century are fairly well documented, and the inheritors of that lineage have not relinquished their sovereign use of the term, IMHO.--Vidkun 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be going a bit far to say I feel pain over these things; I'm just trying to make these articles informative. I'm not actually claiming in Co-Freemasonry that Co-FM is a regular form of freemasonry, simply that its members consider themselves regular. The section detailing why other lodges don't recognise them was mostly my work, and I think it's important that this information is prominently included in the article, since it's pretty key to the subject.

Similarly, I think it's important that people realise the controversy surrounding eclectic wicca, Dianic wicca, etc; we don't have to say "these groups are not really Wicca", but we can give a bit of information regarding what traditional initiatory groups think of them. Also, "Wicca is whatever you want it to be" is not a very useful place to come from when trying to write a clear and meaningful article; it helps to have a starting point with some solidity. I've been trying to take that approach with Wicca-related articles: "This is the way it used to be done and is still done by most initiates; and now here are some of the variations found in other forms of Wicca". Traditional forms tend to be fairly clear and unambiguous, and once these are established we can introduce all the contradictory alternative ideas. I also think a little historical grounding wouldn't hurt in this subject area where ignorance seems to be epidemic! Fuzzypeg☻ 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I've been helping, here and there, with little bits in the various Tradition articles, especially the one for my Tradition. Too bad you are so far away, would be great to have you over at our Masonic study group when we discuss the origins/trends in the "higher" degrees, and the links Wicca can honestly be said to have to FM.--Vidkun 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Smith Jones

I too have been keeping an eye on Smith Jones. At first I was not sure if s/he was a child, had a disability or was actually a very insidous vandal. In the interest of assuming good faith and not wanting to blast (as I'v been knownw to do to others) a child or patentially "afflicted" person I've tried to establish communication and inquire into his age (with no luck). To be honest I'm at a bit of a loss as how to proceed with him and as you've had some more extensive dealings with this potentially good (but inhibited) user I was looking for some input. Thanks. NeoFreak 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been monitoring him?her? for a while now and I too have been at a loss what to do about him for some time now. I encountered SJ while vandal fighting and it took me almost an hour to clean up after him. I felt he was a returning editor with a grudge out to do insidious damage, so asked at ANI but got no response. I then monitored him for a while, tried to educate him, tried an e-mail correspondence actually asking him about disability, spelling, etc, but his response was less than educating. He's simply being disruptive all of the time. At the back of my head I have had the feeling he's been yanking my chain all the time (yes SJ I know you're reading this). Interesting detail is his switch from perfect spelling and lucid reasoning to the stuff he's suffering others to read now. You may want to look at the stuff he deleted and/or archived from his talk and user pages. In the meantime I've reverted more from him than any other editor or vandal I care to remember. Ideas?... AvB ÷ talk 11:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in an AIV that was denied and followed it up with an ANI as well with the same result as you. He's shown enough faculty to create articles, catagorise them and add the appropriate templates. He's also shown the ability to do work that isn't in need of a professinal copy editor or clean up crew as well. My gut says that he knows full and well what it is he is doing but the idea that he might be dealing with a disability or be a chld (could have his work, at times, proof read by others before submission) is not out of the question. I'm afraid that I'll have to recommend that we persue some sort of preventive action if we can't get some sort of enlightening dialouge going with him. I also noticed that he copied several barnstars and userboxes from other editors, myslef included. Nothing wrong with the UB's except they were verbatim and some applied directly and only to me. NeoFreak 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Especially the proofreading one. In the meantime he's already collected three editors with protective feelings... I agree about getting some preventive action going. Unless he responds well to Fuzzypeg's excellent post on his talk page. It's an approach so far not tried with SJ. Also, he's now aware that three editors are monitoring him. That too might change things. AvB ÷ talk 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Some links: archived user talk; SJ pulling other editors' leg. BTW, I think User:Consumed Crustacean (an admin) has SJ on his radar and may well be at a loss too... AvB ÷ talk 12:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he's a child, simply because the kind of sarcasm he's employing is more clever than one would expect from a child. He could possibly be an adolescent... I don't see anything to suggest a disability, and I'm coming to believe that the bizarreness of his edits is entirely calculated for malicious/humorous effect. I could be wrong, but I suspect he's just playing games with us. A pity he hasn't discovered that there are much more fun games to play. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

POV Regarding Wicca

Ben, thank you for your note of concern. The reason for my "subtle rewording" of the article as you put it, is that obviously I didn't feel what was written was entirely accurate, (particularly so in other documentable areas such as "Witchcraft" and "Warlock"). I've looked at your user page and am impressed by your dedication and research. However, if you are the person responsible for inserting what I believe to be inaccurate info in areas that I believe I have some knowledge about (that I can substantiate by documentation) obviously, while I have the time and inclination, I'm going to do so.

Re. your major concern: No, I'm not persuaded that Garderian "Wicca" with all its shibboleths and "Redes" and "Ardanes" represents anything like the corpus of ritual and belief that constitutes genuine European witchcraft. "Wicca" is a New Age cult demonstrably created by Gerald and Doreen, with diddles added later by the Farrars and Sanders and whoever you choose to cite, period. It has adopted some practices from witchcraft, and the rituals can indeed be worked with power by someone knowledgable. However, and this is the point, I don't believe this turns Wiccans into genuine witches who practice a genuine, traditional, form of witchcraft any more that taking an oath in the KKK as a Grand Wizard turns a man into a wizard. Sorry if that sounds insulting, its not meant to be, but I can't think of another simile at the moment. That Wiccans choose to style themselves "witches" is their choice, but obviously this has no bearing on what has been written about witchcraft in the past (true or false). What they say or believe, unless they can find persuasive documented or physical evidence to support it, has no place in an article on "witchcraft". Nor does the fact that they are now recognized as a new religion give them licence to pontificate about matters where they are at variance with the documented record. Not that they can even get their own history/dogma straight: e.g. the idiotic quibble that keeps being inserted ad nauseam concerning the use of the term "warlock". This is, and was, the term used for a male witch in Scotland. That is an historical fact. Gerald Gardner used "warlock" as a verb to signify ritual binding. That Wiccans of the past 5,10,20 (who knows how many) years, know nothing of Gardner's original usage/coinage, (and appear to care less) can only diminish ones respect for them. I did not invent the term "fluffy", but I shall use it here: wikipedia is not the place for "fluffy" spoutings.

Anyway, apologies to you and anyone else I may have offended by my unheralded and unarbitrated insertions, but truth to tell I haven't yet figured out the protocols or indeed the techniques of Wikipedia, so in this I am in error, and can only tender my regrets. Sincerely KitMarlowe2 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben/Fuzzypeg: Responding to your somewhat intemperate response: Glad to hear you've met the gods and are a true believer, but as you note, your subjective experience is not of particular importance to this discussion, and certainly not to an encyclopedia entry. What is important is that facts, not opinions, however dearly cherished, be recorded, and on this kind of topic the only facts one can obtain are those reported in books written by painstaking historians like Hutton. And if Hutton comes to the conclusion that Wicca was made up out of whole cloth, I would tend to put my credence there. Your experiences only add up to what used to be called in witch trials "spectral evidence".

And by the way, my "simplistic statement" as you put it, was made to you in "User talk" (not in the body of the article) and as such, I believe, a perfectly justified, albeit abbreviated, expression of my own personal beliefs. Your self-serving huffing and puffing about initiations and lineages and whatever is not worth responding to. You, as a card-carrying Wiccan, may feel my negative assessment of some of the dottier statements placed in the article to be derogatory, but I hardly think you are an impartial judge of the matter. KitMarlowe2 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Link suggester

Good point. Jerry 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shemhamphorasch signs

Hello; I noticed that you reverted my removal of the signs on the table for the article Shemhamphorasch. I understand why you did that, but most browsers (including the ones on the several computers to which I have access) do not have the required fonts necessary to see those symbols; they just look like boxes of ASCII. In the interest of ensuring readability, would you consider having us state the sign rather than using the symbol? I think that would be much better, and I decided to let you know of my plan to do this instead of simply cancelling your change. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Welll... that would work of course. However computers worldwide and technology worldwide, in particular web browsers, are being upgraded to support internationalisation. The fact that a browser doesn't support Unicode is generally considered a sign that the browser needs updating, rather than a sign that the page is too "fancy". I'll insert the {{unicode}} tag in that page, which helps force old Microsoft browsers to use the correct characters; see if this works before you consider what to do next. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi... I still don't see it on the one here, but tomorrow I'll check it out from an office. In any event, not a big thing for now, I'm still working on sourcing and expanding the history/derivation section. I'll let it be for now. Thanks for your help :) ◄Zahakiel► 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again; I noticed that you simplified the code for the derivation table. There is a reason I placed the (considerable amount of) font code before each symbol, as Hebrew text does not clearly display in any browser unless a font style is specified. See the Hebrew alphabet article for the acceptable Wikipedia convention; and note, for example, that in the first row of the column labelled "1" the "vav" looks like a lowercase "l" and in column 3 the "samech" symbol now looks like an uppercase O. I haven't reverted the table yet, I decided to comment here first. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 05:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Very nice:) Your last change made it better than what I had there before, and with less code. In your edit summary you said, "I've also reformatted the transliterations to make it less visually cluttered - but perhaps they could be removed entirely?" I think the transliterations are helpful, because they allow a quick cross-reference with the table at Angels and Demons without requiring a knowledge of how to pronounce the Hebrew alphabet. It is notoriously easy to make a mistake with some of those signs (hence my desire to have them displayed as clearly as possible). In fact, there was an error in the table (but not the information) provided in the mazzaroth.com article. The author of that work mistakenly used a lamed (l) instead of a yod (i), and I ended up just doing a from-scratch translit. from the Masoretic text. I was happy to see that my work matched the list of derived names, and I was able to verify this quickly due to the standard letters already there. Thanks again. ◄Zahakiel► 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Eclectic Wicca

On the contrary, removing text that was not written to closely follow published sources (text that is weasel worded and supports personal feelings and is not concisely written as a whole) greatly helps the article be re-written with references.Lotusduck 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you may have edited article Kabbalah

I saw that you edited the aforementioned article; would you like to join my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah, it is greatly in need of your assistance. Lighthead 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming post and writing for wiki

Hi Ben,

I want you to know that I will place an added note in Witchcraft > Discussion concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_(movie_rental_store). I did not want to surprise you. I will post perhaps tomorrow, the day after or so. Incidentally, in the article I reference Gore Vidal, one of the more superior American authors. One of his famously anti-US policy books is "Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia." Dated but still great stuff.

I want to let you know that I believe you are doing some good work. I do realize you have editors above you that edit you, and I also realize that dealing with the public is sometimes unpleasant. But I sense good from you.

Nevertheless, as you well know, I disagree with you, or perhaps with Wiki. Yes, I have considered writing/editing in Wiki, even before your kind suggestion that I do so. And it is of interest to me, although I think I would be heavily edited to the point of distortion. So, I don't know. And at this time I can't. I'm writing a novel and I have a partner and an affiliate business (computers and patio furniture). Both of these are horribly behind schedule. I'll think about it.

Anyway, I wish you well, Adrian You can reach me directly at adrian @ blue-moon-manor.com (close the spacing.) Adrianius 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chumbley

Fuzzypeg: I want to report Redblossom to administrators for his abuse in the discussion page (calling several contributors dishonest) and his now vandalism of the article by deleting or striking referenced material because he doesn't appear to be able to understand what he's reading. (I have fully and patiently explained it four times). The trouble is, as you must have noticed, I am not able to negotiate the technical aspects of this site and when faced with the report abuse page I am totally lost. It looks like gibberish to me. Will you please help me to navigate through the process so that I may make a report? Lulubyrd 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SPAs

Do you think there might be something funny about three brand new accounts all starting to edit the same set of articles about the Golden Dawn on the same day? IPSOS (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's always something that crosses my mind when I see a bunch of new users all working in the same direction and in eager agreement with each other but violent disagreement with others... Ma'at, I seem to recall that has something to do with truth and evidence-based judgement... I don't know how to determine if users are sockpuppets of each other. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:KitMarlowe2

Seems to be back as User:Pahuson. Thought you might like to keep an eye on that, as there was massive stated intent to ignore policy on the part of the former account.--Vidkun 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

SVG

Do you know how I can convert a PNG image to SVG with Inkscape? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Anthony5429 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Question here

Hey whats up!!! I seen the script of theban or thebian on your user page And i am wondering if I could download that from wikipedia so i can use it. I would use that to write on my user page but since many people consider it the alphabet of satan but it's really the wiccan alphabet.--Bloodsource 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex Sanders (Wiccan)

Hi - My main concern is that the names of the siblings are not shown - there are clear policies regarding verifiablity, and of using placemarkers for unverified information (although, for the life of me, I cannot remember where this is stated explicitly). How, for example, do we even know that there were siblings? I leave it to your discretion as to whether it is better to remove the information, or to pare it down to something along the lines of "he had / has three brothers and two sisters" - the names themselves being of little material value to the article. - Tiswas^(t) 08:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Witchcraft Deletion

The world is a very large place. What may seem uncommon and unusual to you in your realm may not be in others. I am referring, specifically, to your deletion of the few sentences that you have dubbed an "essay" on white and green witches. This is not original research. More than half the statements were sourced and I can easily source the other portion.

I don't know what is common or uncommon in New Zealand, however, it is VERY COMMON in the U.S. for witches to identify in this manner. Only this evening I watched a highly rated, mainstream, primetime, major network reality based television show - the entire episode of which revolved around a green witch and her family. As is common here, she was very careful to repeatedly identify herself as a "green" witch.

The discussion of white witches was in the article before I touched it. I only expanded, clarified and sourced the material. If such identifications are unusual in other parts of the world, then the text needs some clarification to make the statements specific to the U.S. However, I do not believe that the material should be deleted entirely simply because it does not conform to one group's beliefs in one part of the world.

Rather than getting into an edit war over this - let's discuss it. Good will to you. MegaMom 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

I've opened a deletion review about the deletion of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Thought you would want to know. IPSOS (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, you might want to join the discussion at Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn#Modern Revivals section. IPSOS (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Builders of the Adytum

Aside from the stylistic probs, the main problem is 'ooooh, sounds a bit like' http://www.bota.org/ - scroll down a bit on the b.o.t.a page and the stuff about group work is there in its entirety too. We may have to start over from scratch. Not that B.O.T.A probably will mind- hey, it's a free ad.:)Merkinsmum 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was more worried it might count as a copyvio type thing. We could always include the stendentious claims, for NPOV.:)Merkinsmum 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Did you know Andrew Chumbley? I never met him though my ex worked with him magickally for a short time, but I heard at one point that his hair looked a bit like yours does on your userpage.Merkinsmum 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Never met him, no. I haven't read much of his stuff either, though I have done a fair bit of work on his article. He seems like a really interesting guy. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In response

I responded to your magic POV statement at my talk page. Wasnt sure if you were watching it or not. Since there seemed to be some disagreement (which i just realized what was going on). I wanted to let you know so you cna read my response. It seems we both made a bit of an error and were completely off track. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chumbley piece continued

Hello mate, Thank you very much for your overview on the Chumbley piece, you've been an absolute gem. Latest is a move to have the article deleted, which seems a bit like overkill. Do you think that is warranted? I put a note on the discussion page, but discovered I could as well come over here to your place. Good to read about you - all best, reineke 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Fuzz, Long time! Just to add another thanks for your input and continued interest. I noticed that old friend redblossom altered his user page to remove his edit CV, and add a comment. I believe he also posts as 'Zain' on Lashtal.com, where he has made similar comments of the stuck-record variety; 'Zain' writes "has" when he means "as", just like redblossom. Anyway hats off to you matey, hope it's sunny where you are :) reineke (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiccan Article

Thanks for the links. I really needed them because I'm not on here much, so it's kinda hard to learn to use all of the controls and articles. Keep in touch --Piro-san. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piro-san (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reincarnation and Karma in Wicca

Hey Fuzzypeg, I like the edits for the most part, though I still don't really think they need sections unto themselves, especially given how short they are...such are generally discouraged (at least that is what I've found in my time here). Perhaps these could all be placed in expanded prose under a general "Beliefs" second-tier header? However, I don't quite understand this sentence: "Some Wiccans believe in the las of karma as well as the Threefold Law." What is 'las'? In a brief search, I can only find that 'las' is another term for karma. Any help here? Also, unless a citation can be found, that particular section/sentence should probably be deleted after a week or two. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm competent to be editing the article, but I try anyway ;) In all seriousness, I think people don't do much to the article except for vandal fighting because you and Kim seem to be by far the most knowledgeable and competent writers we have on the subject! And that's as strong an endorsement of skill I can think of. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks

I just have to thank you for your comments concerning the controversy section of Church and School of Wicca. I've done a lot of work on the presence of material on issues of a Magical, Neo-Pagan, Occult, and Shamanic nature (among a few other interests) in Wikipedia, and it is rare that I get a compliment for my efforts. I consider your interest to have been sincere and thoughtful, and I am happy that I was able to supply you with the information you needed. Please feel free to contact me if you see something I can help you with that seems to be in my field of experience. Rosencomet (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wicca citation removals

Hey Fuzzypeg, I was looking through some of the changes made recently, and noticed two citations were removed without any being adding in their place. I'm just curious as to why this was done. Regarding Hermetica, I thought the citation dealt specifically with animism; for High Magic's Aid, was the wording really changed significantly enough to render the citation unusable? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good deal then. I just seemed to remember the animism reference when researching the proper citation for Hermetica, but I suppose I am mistaken. My only real problem was that references were removed (though in this case removing them was the right thing) without new ones being added. Perhaps something can be found in the future. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Wicca, Triumph of the Moon (TOTM)

Hi Fuzzypeg. You have said that wikipedia is not the place for your critique of TOTM, please let me know where the place is because I would want to read it. Thank you for your courtesy, I also am glad to have met you. Jeremy (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page for templates relating to pagan topics

Hello there Fuzzypeg, I'm aware that at least five different templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area. I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles, and I'd suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. I'm writing to you because I know you have been involved with these articles quite closely. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Of course if you want to have a 1:1 discussion about this, then please do reply here or on my own talk page. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

email me?

Thanks!--Vidkun (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

horsemans word lead

i wondered about that. i actually saved the one you wrote because it lead into the article so nicely and i didn’t want to get rid of it completely. i was just concerned about duplicating the information. i'll revise the old one to duplicate as little info as possible but keep the spirit of the original because it was so nice and concise. the topic really is fascinating and there are so many social, religious, and economic issues that this one relatively unknown topic brings up that i’m surprised it hasn’t been thoroughly researched. r33nicholas (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kabbalah

You wrote:

Editing at Wikipedia is supposed to be a joy, and it really can be. The thrill of personally adding to the repository of human knowledge! The pleasure of debating with worthy peers in your field of expertise! It's a real shame when people don't experience Wikipedia as the stimulating and supportive community it should be. Fuzzypeg talk 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The "joy" of editing Wikipedia. I wish I could have experienced it. But it is good to know that it is there, even if I have missed it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, concerning my removing that link, and other controversies, I suspect that you (and some others) think I am motivated by religious views I hold. That is not so. I do not have a religious affiliation, and am closer in my personal views to Greek and Roman philosophy (particularly Stoicism), than to traditional Judaism. I am trying to get the article right, not to impose a personal biases. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, I wish there were more people, as pleasant to deal with as you, editing Wikipedia. But I hope that you understand when I say that I have enough controversy already, without trying to make changes to the Sephirot article, when it is almost certain that someone will object to that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUK

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifarious1 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Witchcraft and Checkusery

You might want to keep an eye on this RFCU case. I had originally filed it after O oPK reverted me, but rescinded it after he explained himself on his TP. I've refiled it after looking a little closer at the history. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pentacle image

Thank you very much for that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishvax (talk • contribs) 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hermetism

Thanks for the change, though I imagine many other wikiprojects have the same since that's copied text. Looking at your userpage, it seems that you could be a great member of the WikiProject. Please consider joining. Thanks. KV(Talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?!??

ME accused of vandalism? Did you notice the wikifying I made on that awful article? I just deleted what was learly unrelevant information. Firrao's parents were totally unrelevant and unfamous people; Firrao himself is totally unrelevant, figure his parents! Anyway I wouldn't have problems to accept that info, if decently written in an encyclopdeical style. Let me know. Ciao and good work. --Attilios (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• First of all I want to thank You, that You paid attention and read this article. The importance of the Roman Catholic Cardinals during the ages has never been underestimated. They have always been accepted with the rank of Princes of the Church - a state compared to the members of the Royal families. In the past ages almost all of the Cardinals were from noble or Royal families themselves, too. I know, that the religion itself is always a controversial topic - to believe or not is very personal. The history of Europe since the end of the Western Roman Empire and the history of the Catholic church until the 20th century are bounded together.
  The style of one article is something that always can be improved and I will never object such improvement. The reason that made me to refer to You can be seen very easily, and You saw it. Once I asked User:Attilios not to delete information from the articles I have created or edited, but to write in the talk pages if he thought something is less or not important, which I think is a normal practice. When I plan to edit some article I always write short messages to the author or the main contributor of that article and even I wait for a day or two, before starting a major edit. The second reason was the fact, that he threatened me if I persisted in returning the deleted parts with Vandalism, which I think is very abusing itself. I, myself would never do such thing to him. That is why I didn't nominate him for Vandalism, but just wrote a letter to an administrator. I highly respect his work as editor and contributor - he has done a lot, so I decided to reach a solution without adding vandalism templates. If it is so hard to him not to delete parts of the articles, that are created or edited by me, I asked him not to edit them, but to leave this work to other editors. I feel personal attitude in his work and I am very sorry for it.Drjmarkov (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thank You again for reading the letter to User:Attilios. I work on the biographies of the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and I have chosen a system to search and write about them: (1) their titular churches; (2) chronologically - up to nowadays. Following this order I came upon an article created by him and this set me in very difficult situation. The article is very short and needs big improvement, but I was afraid that this would be accepted as confrontation with him - something that I didn't want to happen. As I said, I prefer the descent tone between the users. I just wanted to say, where I see the problems and if he wanted to add information or to object to do it. Because I noticed that he was usually frequently online, I set this term of 24 hrs- to save time, not as a menace at all. About the diacriticals I will agree with You, nevertheless there are many examples that are opposite. The existing of the #REDIRECT pages is objected in general, so their persistence is not sure. About the place to find those non-English characters - of course I know the table in the edit page. For my satisfaction I think he got my idea, that I don't want war with him, nor with any other user in the second message he sent me. I hope this conflict is ending now.Drjmarkov (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong

OK, I've now read the case. You asserted that it is ground-breaking, but I cannot find any sources to back your claim up. AFAICT, the case was a set up by 232 Canadian FG practitioners as a sort of 'class action libel' case against a small-run Chinese newspaper whose persistently critical views and articles offended them. They succeeded in taking it all the way to the supreme court. The case was summarised by the judge as" as to the effectiveness of a class action in the context of collective defamation, as opposed to its availability, there is no certainty [...] "The evidence is not sufficient to allow the Court to come to the conclusion that the contents of the impugned articles... are false, grossly inaccurate, published to incite hatred and derision in Canada or persecution in the People's Republic of China"

or in plain English: "The court rejected the plaintiffs claim of class action, and stated that there was insufficient evidence that the journal had published false and grossly inaccurate articles in order to incite hatred and derision of Falun Gong practitioners"

I still doubt the case is worth citing. The source document is a primary source, and although it may have picked up coverage, but there are no secondary sources I could find. If include this apparently minor civil case, there could be endless edit wars over the Truthful, Compassionate, and Forbearant (sic) behaviour of FG practitioners, attempting to silence the movement's critics. I'll leave it for you to decide whether that's desirable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have replied to your comments here. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wicca portal template

Hey Fuzzy, am I guessing correctly that you don't care for the new {{Wicca portal}} template either? If this is the case, I will probably go and revert those changes as unnecessary...the template itself is nothing more than the existing Portalpar template with the Triple Goddess symbol included. If you peeked at his contributions, he apparently went template crazy with more than just Wicca. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Quorty

Please intervene with regard to the user Quorty. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.

Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian views on magic

Good fix of my edit. Though as far as I'm aware, those where the only three churches/branches/{insert term here} that actively embraced both the pagan spiritually of earth and control of matter, and the teachings of Christ, though often in a more gnostic interpretation than a branch one. As for the spelling, all branches of all religion, spirituality. and non-religious philosophy that I have studies have always termed magick as being wholly separate (as does the Oxford Advanced Dictionary of International English History). Magic with k, with or without c (regional differences, see differences between British English and American English for understanding of the C. The K, is used in everything from Wicca to Tao super-spiritually, and Tazo Buddhist Philosophy (Original/non-religious philosophy of which I practice). The key separation being in the knowing intention of falsehood (sans-k) and the spiritual acceptance (+K) of some secondary force which may or may not be supernatural and may or may not be scientific. If that is easier to understand the reason I differentiated the two. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

isms

Thanks, I did appreciate your input and no offence was taken. I do agree with you that 'isms' shouldn't be used to dismiss academic sources out of hand (and I take your point concerning Hutton versus Dashu), but I do think it's important (especially in a highly charged article such as the witch hunt article, which requires extremely careful assessment of primary sources), that 'isms' be kept as far away as possible. It's fine to cite 'ism' treatment of history, as long as people are aware of the effect the 'ism' is having on the treatment. In this particular case I know of no reputable scholarship on the witch hunts which takes Federici seriously, draws the same conclusions as her, or even refers to her work. And that's before the glaring errors which even I (as a complete amateur myself), can identify. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your hard work uploading authentic public domain images of the Rider Waite Tarot. This is been a great benefit to articles which must use them as we now have appropriate images. Smiloid (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Fuzzypeg, This is Condolence sayin "whats poppin?" has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Book of Mirrors

Hi Fuzzy, looking for an opinion on something. The article Book of Mirrors was created middle of last year, and has received virtually no activity since then. Even more, it has no citations. I've never heard of it, though the specific term is in Google around 10,000 times...unknown how many are directly related to paganism. I'm close to prodding this as non-notable/unreferenced, but I wanted to ask what you thought. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've gone ahead and prodded it.

Goodness, need to get your talk page archived! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)