User talk:Kim Dent-Brown/Archive Jul 2007

Hayward
Oh, it's part of the discussion now at Deletion review. Basically, someone will be coming along soon to improve on that, if at all possible. Besides, there is precedent. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the explanation. I can see from the precedent that this is not a one-off procedure, but it seems to me it would be better for an article like this to start off in someone's user space sandbox, rather than in mainspace (where it will attract the attention of new page patrollers like me!) However, apologies if my uninformed tagging caused you hassle. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

IHO
GlassFET and IPSOS are working as meatpuppets again! See the recent RFC/IPSOS etc. and REQUEST TO ADMIN TO SUSPEND AFD

Mandrake Press is where it all started - trying to get rid of the modern Mandrake Press. They both have a declared interest in Golden Dawn and IPSOS has an interest Sexual / Magic Tantra. Mandrake of Oxford runs the Oxford Golden Society and publishes books on Sexual Magic. The very name IPSOS is connected to this subject (he created an article about his own name).

These two are meatpuppets with a serious conflict of interest whose sole intention is to remove the modern Mandrake Press and promote the rival Mandrake of Oxford who they support. (Look at the attempt to duplicate material in Mandrake Press mid Mandrake of Oxford AFD.

Furthermore, the two companies shouldn't be compared as IPSOS and GlassFET are doing. That is misleading and shows quite childish editing principles. There is a clear distinction - Mandrake Press belongs in a Mandrake Press article. Mandrake of Oxford does not (wrong name)! Furthermore, Mandrake of Oxford went through an AFD - Mandrake Press has not. Mandrake Press has survived a number of split attempts by these two in order that they could subsequently delete it - clearly they feel it would not stand scrutiny on its own. However, it does surely have a place in the Mandrake Press article.

Other Admins have restored the modern company before! (Unsigned comment by 86.141.96.147)

Here's your new friends in action just over a month ago : meatpuppets with accusations of more sockpuppets because they disagree with IPSOS | Why not eliminate ALL refernece to moderngroups entirely

These two have a history and they are good at concealing their past (Unsigned comment by 86.141.96.147 03:12 16 June 2007)

IPSOS is attempting to circumvent your proposals
Following the removal of Mandrake of Oxford article, GlassFET removed the modern Mandrake Press from the Mandrake Press article -- which was their intent all along in order to promote Mandrake of Oxford. They twice tried to split the old and modern. They have achieved the primary goal of getting rid of the modern Mandrake Press now they are moving to reinstate Mandrake of Oxford.

IPSOS is now trying to get the 2nd AFD overturned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_17#Mandrake_of_Oxford

I wondered why they hadn't followed your suggestion. . . I figured they were up to something

I can assure you Coldmachine is INNOCENT. Please see this for what it really is! Please investigate Coldmachine thoroughly. . . Coldmachine is innocent. If Coldmachine is found to be innocent the AFD cannot be overturned as proposed.

PLEASE. . . see IPSOS/GlassFET for what they really are -- meatpuppets with a COI.


 * Arthana (Unsigned comment by 86.141.96.147 23:10 17 Jun 2007)

An Odd Coincidence?
GlassFET has put a notice on his user page he's gone on holiday. So no posts are occurring?

So why has IPSOS stopped posting too.

Are these meatpuppets the real sockpuppets?????

Coldmachine and I are truly not the same person!

If I was a sockpuppet (of anyone) why would I ask for the AFD on Mandrake of Oxford be suspended and dealt with independently from ALL interested parties - my post, at the bottom of AFD page, is still on record. Why would I do that except to protect the integrity of Wikipedia!!!!

Please consider reinstating Coldmachine and I (perhaps on probation). We really did nothing wrong!


 * Arthana
 * Unfortunately I am not an admin, just a newbie editor and so have no powers here. I find this whole mess a little disconcerting, with the competing claims of both sides difficult to choose between. I'd prefer to judge the issue on the basis of asking what would I, as a reader, find most useful in the article. Personally, the answer is that I'd prefer the maximum information about the original Mandrake and its successors. But your input (and that of IPSOS/GlassFET) does not particularly help in making my mind up in this respect. PS: I would finf it helpful if you would sign your posts with the ~ so I know who is who. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Verification for Wikimedia Board Elections
I confirm that I am User:Kim dent brown on Meta, using a signature like this one: Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  12:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kim Dent Brown on Destructive creativity
Dear Kim Dent Brown,

Your comment on destructive creativity is appreciated, thanks for sitmulating further updates. However, the source. possibly mentioned as "related to parasitology" is actually realted to Socio-economic parasitism, a form of destructive creativity. Definition of destructive creativity: "The drive to create new profitable sources of income that are not beneficial to society can be denoted destructive creativity." This academic source is verified and simply needs to be read through to see - it is not parasitology.

Other sources give descriptions of destructive creativity in Terrorism, in Crime, in Software engineering, where destructive creativity is defined as “trying to brake, trying to falsify, being nasty” in internet crime. One source is focused on "Destroyers vs Builders" struggle. Psychiatric underpinnings of behaviors causing crime, destruction of property, attacks on people, self-destruction, vandalism and other crime) are described in very carefully worded medical terms on three thousand pages of DSM-IV Sourcebooks on destructive behavior of diagnosed people with mental disorders, who, sadly, engage in destructive creativity by committing various crimes. Undiagnosed and untreated people may still have intermittent destructive behavior.

A conference of experts from eight countries stated on September 11, 2006: in crime and terrorism the possibility always exists for destructive creativity in terms of both weapons and operations. This may include a new generation of destructive devices, etc..

Real-life software engineers, economists, criminalists, lawyers, doctors and other people, mamas and papas, are still dealing with destructive creativity every day. The definition of destructive creativity for software engineers: braking, falsifying, and being nasty, is similar to professional instructions for law enforcement and forensic psychiatrists who are dealing with destructive behavior in society. Even deleted from Wikipedia it still exists in big real world, remains in human minds, and causes everybody knows what. Thanks for efforts of tolerance to my funny English. This experience is highly interesting. Helping people see pieces of the elephant. Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cobalt Boats/Yachts
hello,

why was my article deleted? i wasnt finished with the article and when i came back from lunch it was simply gone. I was not attempting to advertise, and im sorry if i have done so. if i have, how can i correct it??

thanks, Valentino --by Valentino Constantinou 17:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Valentino, I didn't delete it but I did tag it for deletion which drew the attention of an admin who agreed with me that it read like advertising. That may not have been your intention, but the text did read just like a sales brochure. In addition, you cited no sources that established the notability of your subject. There are some specific policies that relate to companies here. If you can draft an article that critically and objectively describes the company (its weaknesses as well as its strengths), and cite it with references to good secondary sources, then you'll stand a much better chance. You could draft it on a page of your own such as User:Vc1492a/Cobalt which is away from the main space and will let you work on it in peace. If you'd like some feedback on a draft I'll happily provide it. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks!

Hi Kim, Got your message
and thanks for the note. I have copied the "Operational Errors/Deviation" draft to my own space. Please feel free to delete it if it is not proper in the main space. When I got time, I will try to make it better before I put it back.

Have a good day! --Natasha2006 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Storm's homecoming.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Storm's homecoming.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct tag (Crown Copright expired) added. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  12:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merry meet! :)
Merry meet, dear Kim! :) Please, don't mention it; in fact, I apologize for choosing to protect it for a shorter time than you requested, tho it seemed more prudent to me at this point. Let us hope it will suffice this time, tho I don't get my hopes up... Wicca is indeed a controversial subject, and it's a beautiful pleasure to see knowledgeable and dedicated experts like you taking care of that article and its related topics with so much effort. Please, if any difficulties with these articles arise, don't hesitate to contact me, and I'll do my best to help, k? I won't leave you without taking the chance to send you a late Midsummer greeting, and a tiny gift in the words of dear Scott Cunningham...

It's great to meet you! :) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 11:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WikiLove, Phaedriel! I appreciate the protection, and 2 weeks is a very nice breathing space. If we need respite again after the protection expires, I'll ask. I wish I could write code like you to prettify my response (but will have to leave that to my daughters who are learning fast via MySpace...) So I'll just say thanks again and Blessèd Be!

Mwiggle
Re this: Just for clarification and because I made the same mistake: While deletion of speedy deletion and AfD notices is not allowed, deletion of proposed deletion notices is indeed allowed, although it should ideally be accompanied by addition of referenced content to overturn the deletion reasons. —AldeBaer (c) 16:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The template expicitly states: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason ." —AldeBaer (c) 16:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AldeBaer - my speedy removal tag was actually not for my ProD, but for a CSD tag that a previous editor had applied and which the original editor had deleted. I probably didn't make that clear. Anyway, we'll see how the ProD goes... I'm still getting the procedure clear for CSD, ProD and AfD so if I am goofing up please do tell me! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for the clarification. Btw, I've added a comment to Hander99's talk page, explaining the proposed deletion and need for references . —AldeBaer (c) 17:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point you added wrt WP:DICTDEF. —AldeBaer (c) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake of Oxford
I've added citations from Dave Evans' book. Could you pleaase take a look and see if that makes a difference to your position? Currently it looks like "no consensus". Another users has also added a lot of citations. I think the article is supported now. IPSOS (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

my article
Yes, there are no google hits for my article obviously. I said in the article (that you should have read instead of skimming) that it is VERY UNKNOWN. The only reason I know of it is my grandfather gave me a book when I was a child that spoke of it. (Unsigned comment left by Magiccat 25 June 2007.

Personal attack removed--NAHID 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Magiccat - yes I did read the article. There was no mention of your grandfather's book in it, which would make an excellent reference. If you try and re-write the article then have a look at this guidance to help you use this evidence to support your claim. PS: please put comments at the bottom of a talk page, and sign them with four tildes like this ~ so that people can see who has written what. And your final comment is a little rude - it's best not to use language like this, people tend to complain if it happens more than once. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Uploading
Hello, thanks for the work you did to create HMS Storm (P233). It was on my to do list, but you beat me to it! Thanks for knocking one of the S class off though. I've just finished the T class and I'm onto the U. I don't know what I've let myself in for! Over 100 submarine articles to create, groan! Congratulations on getting Storm on the 'Did you know' (though I am mildly jealous, but it's well deserved! (the result, not the jealousy!)). One thing I wanted to ask about is your uploading of the images. I've been wanting to put ones onto at least some of the articles I've been creating, but I've absolutely no idea how to go about it, and frankly it's a little off putting to be faced with all these dire warnings about uploading improper images, etc, so I've really no idea what sort of image would qualify and what wouldn't. I've managed to steer clear of this for a long long time now, but now I have an account I thought I'd ought to learn. Would you be able to offer some guidance in this matter? Once again, many thanks for your great edits! Benea 18:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea, sorry to have pipped you to the post on Storm! I'm no submarine specialist, but One Of Our Submarines has been a favourite on my bookshelf for years and it semed to be crying out for an article. Much easier to get the info straight from Edward Young's book than the arcane sources you have to trawl through...


 * Re images, yes the copyright warnings are a bit scary. For stuff from WWII and earlier the answer is to use the template. Paste it into the Summary box on the image upload page, and add any text you can about where you found the image. If I don't know the circumstances I just put something like "Photograph taken by unknown military photographer circa 1943 and hence subject to expired Crown Copyright". As I understand it Crown Copyright only lasts for 50 years, so anything taken earlier than 1957 is fair game. You can then leave the drop-down box for 'licensing' with nothing selected. Book covers are OK too but under 'fair use' and only to illustrate an article or section about the book itself, and you have to select 'book cover' from the licensing box. Hope that makes sense - I'm no expert, but it's kept me out of trouble.


 * Having looked at the images you've recently added, it seems like you've already worked this out! Lovely photo of Thetis/Thunderbolt by the way, looks like a work of art. Good luck with the rest of the submarines - you've set yourself a real task there!  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  08:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've been reading through the guidelines and have made a few tentative steps. So far everything seems to be going ok!  You're right on the arcane sources, I suppose I'll get there one day though.


 * As to the pictures, I was pleased to come across that one of Thetis/Thunderbolt, one of the best I've seen so far. In fact it led me to the archives of the Imperial War Museum, which seems to be a goldmine of images, all under free use due to crown copyright, so that should keep me going for a bit.


 * Kind regards, and keep up the good work! Benea 08:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IWM stuff is great - just looking at it now. I'll add some photos from there myself to share the load - just found a nice one of Snapper. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  09:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So I see! Thanks a lot, every little helps.  Have fun! Benea 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template fix
You're welcome. Usually templates that have parameters, such as tnavbar-collapsible, describe on the page or on the talk page what you need to do to get it to work correctly. For more on templates in general, see Help:Template. Happy editing, mattbr 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing personal attack
Hello Mr.Kim, I've removed personal attack from User talk:Kim Dent-Brown.Best regards--NAHID 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Exegesis on the BoS
Hi Kim, it's been nice seeing you around Wikipedia. Plenty of good work has been done at your hands in the last couple of months!

I have some concerns about the discussion at Talk:Gardnerian Wicca, which I'd prefer not to bring up on the talk page there, but bounce off you first:

I'm very happy for the sources of the BoS texts to be discussed, however I and many other Wiccans would be quite uncomfortable seeing the BoS quoted at length. There are two reasons for this.

First, and most obvious, that is still treated as a secret, oath-bound text. Despite the fact that some sections of it have been published, I'd prefer not to trumpet these texts at everyone who reads the article(s). If they're interested they can follow a link and read it. Ronald Hutton takes a similar approach in his Triumph of the Moon in avoiding where possible quoting oathbound texts, even if they have already been published.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the exact contents of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows are not publicly known. A number of texts have been published, each claiming to be the BoS and each differing from each other. I can't speak for the Gardnerian book, but I know that the Alexandrian book has never been published in its entirety. Even the Farrars missed sections and made alterations. I suspect the publicly available Gardnerian books are even less authoritative. This is compounded by the fact that in some traditions (such as early branches of Gardnerian Wicca) the books differ substantially: Gardner told his early coveners in Bricket Wood that the book was to be used as a personal cookbook, and that they were at liberty to add, remove or change whatever they wanted. It was under this understanding, I presume, that Gardner, or more likely one of the New Forest coveners added the Crowley material.

I personally would keep quotations to an absolute minimum. I also think there will be very few cases in which a quotation is necessary or even that helpful. If the Book of Shadows article did fill up with quotations it would make it very difficult for trad Wiccans to edit, since they wouldn't want to correct or elaborate on any of the quotes. I don't know quite how we go forward with this, but I thought I'd ask for your thoughts... Thanks, Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with you. I made the comment about exegesis not to invite detailed quotes at length, but to encourage another editor (whom I felt was making vague and unanswerable criticisms) to be more specific. Clearly, no genuine BoS is going to be permissible as a source, by definition! And secondary sources like the Farrars or Kelly will be better used as citations, rather than to quote from extensively. I think if we can simply sketch the development of the BoS, and acknowledge its different contributors, with references to a few published books that will more than suffice. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  10:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Submarine Badges
Thanks for that! You're right, they do look good, and add another side to the article, which is a nice twist. It's also nice to have a bit of colour, since the photos are pretty much exclusively black and white. I've added one to HMS Stonehenge (P232), along with a photo and some extra information, and I'm pleased with the result. Though now I've seriously discovered Uboat.net, I suppose I'll be tempted to incorporate a lot more info on the other subs now. This is turning into a bigger project than I thought!

Well, happy editing, and thanks again, Benea 08:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, glad you liked them. I agree about the colour, on the whole I think they're very well drawn and they add a personal touch too. I'm getting seduced into more articles here - somehow I ended up drafting a template for the Odin class submarine as well as writing an article for HMS Olympus (N35). Today I must ignore this and do some work!! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  09:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HMS_Vox_badge.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HMS_Vox_badge.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the fair use rationale - which was there in the original edit. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Time tavelling Sub?
In - Image:HNoMS Ula.jpg you claim taken by unknown naval photgrpaher prior to 1045? I knew naval hradware was advanced but not to the extent of time-travel :-O ;-)

Have corrected to 1945, as I assume this is what you meant.. ShakespeareFan00 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol!! This is the secret behind the successful Norman invasion of England a few years later... Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  13:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

HMS Varne
My appologies Kim, you have the right of it. Just checked Conways now and its as you say. Had only checked 'Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy' which only listed the one sub. By all means revert the edit and arrange the page as you want. Galloglass 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Galloglass, I've altered the page a little to remove the reference to Ulla, but left the pennant number out of the page title for the redlink. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Message from Smitty2k55

 * The motorola zante page is a page in which i created after reading i feel this user deleted it and did not try to have a conversation with me! User:Smitty2k55.
 * Hello Smitty2k55, I didn't delete your page, that was done by Lectonar after I had tagged the page for speedy deletion. What happened is that I was watching new pages as they were loaded and believed that yours met the criteria for speedy deletion. I tagged the page and Lectonar saw the tag, agreed with me and deleted the page. I'm afraid I can't remember now what was in the page: I tag a lot of articles for speedy deletion every day, but I only do so after very careful thought. Yours was probably because it didn't make sense or did not establish the notability of your subject. I left the usual message on your page, suggesting that you put a tag on the article, but maybe you didn't have time to do this. If you want to try and draft the article again so it doesn't get deleted, try starting it at a page in your user space like User:Smitty2k55/Motorola Zante. Let me know and I'll look at it and try to help.


 * You left this message on my editor review page and at first I thought you had put it there by mistake (meaning to leave it here on my talk page.) But now I think perhaps it was meant to go in my editor review: please feel free to repost it there if you like, I won't remove it again. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  21:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with your prod
I'd agree with prodding Chud (Skinny Puppy) as a non-notable prop. If the article were cited correctly, it might qualify as a merge at most. However, I'm lost on your including the justification that Skinny Puppy qualifies as a non-notable band in your prod.Horrorshowj 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. They may only have reached No 102 on the Billboard chart as their best performance but I see from their article that they clearly meet WP:MUSIC. I had never heard of them and obviously didn't search hard enough after I checked out the one link on the Chud (Skinny Puppy) article. I've amended the prod. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kim.Horrorshowj 00:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks very much for that, nice to get some recognition. These submarine articles are coming together pretty well, but why did they have to build so many of them! Happy editing, and thanks again! Benea 12:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. When I looked at the sheer quantity of edits I thought 'there goes a thankless task if ever I saw one'! I realised what you were doing when I saw the pic you uploaded to HMS Varangian (P61). I'm obviously searching the wriong bit of the IWM website for photographs as I didn't find one. Where are you getting them all? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I struggled as well to start with. Then I found that they tended to be listed as HMSM rather than just HMS.  That should bring up pics for most submarines, though confusingly, one or two are down as HMS instead.  Sometimes just putting in the name of the sub without a prefix brings results as well, for example Thule, instead of HMS Thule.  I think I've got this image uploading down pat now, but perhaps I'd better take a break for a bit, and return to the real world!  I've just noticed the time, it can be quite absorbing doing all these pictures.  Have fun! Benea 12:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to drop a thank you for your positive thoughts in my RFA. They came right when I was stressing out over the whole thing, and I really appreciate it. Thanks again,  Citi Cat  02:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Submarines
Thanks for your great work on submarines. It is just worth noting that where dates appear in full they should always be wikified in full (allows for auto formatting), and of course ship names in italics. Thanks, --mervyn 11:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My (Kwsn's) RfA
Thank you for your input at my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed, but I'll try to make improvements on the concerns your brought up. Hope to see you around. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But | seriously | folks   09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Witchcraft Article
Okay? I think your edits are great! Thanks so much for your help. As for the use of the terms "white" and "black" witches, I understand the point you are making. I have heard these terms used more in the context of simplified explainations provided to concerned outsiders or new comers. Drawing a distinction between their perceptions of witchcraft and actual practice can provide some measure of comfort. I'm not certain I could provide a citation for the whole black/white thing and it may not really be necessary. I'll give it some thought. Thanks again for your help.MegaMom 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)