" 

 == Why I deleted your edits == 

 Hi Shangora, you seem to be new here, and I've just steam-rolled over some of your first edits. I thought I'd try to explain why, so you don't get the wrong idea. 

 The piece of text you added about solitary wicca wasn't necessary, because the article doesn't say that solitary wicca is in any way wrong. Wikipedia has a specic policy of avoiding taking any ""point of view"" (See Wikipedia:NPOV), and all that can or should be written is factual, verifiable information on the subject, such as ""So-and-so author claims that Solitary Wicca is a valid form of Wicca for such-and-such reason"", or ""so-and-so other author claims it isn't"". I personally am of the traditional variety of Wicca, but I try to avoid letting that bias me - there's plenty still in the article that's reflective of non-traditional, eclectic Wicca that I haven't touched. Regardless of what I think, that is now one of the uses of the term Wicca. So back to that section you added: it wasn't really necessary to the article, and it was written from a strong ""Solitary"" point of view, and it also hadn't been very well proof-read for spelling etc. 

 The second section I removed was the creation myth. I removed this because it was a) more lengthy than is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry (Wicca is already well over the recommended limit) and b) because it is only one author's concept of a creation myth, and although it has been inspirational to some Wiccans, it is not broadly representative of Wicca. 

 Having said my piece, I now want to welcome you to Wikipedia and apologise for being the big bad wolf.  "