User talk:KingKuma118

Welcome!

Hello, KingKuma118, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

This is why your edits to Seven princes of Hell have been reverted. The list was sourced to Peter Binsfield's work, and additional (sourced) lists should have been added to a different part of the article, rather than erroneously misrepresenting Binsfield's list. Furthermore, the ordering of sins is subjective, so we can at most only say that this theologian or that demonologist believed that this sin was worse than that, if a source is provided showing that they believed that. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]