User talk:Heylittledhampir

Welcome!
Hello, Heylittledhampir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

A summary of site guidelines and policies you may find useful

 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * 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.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Crocell
I have reverted your edit to Crocell because the Crowley/Mathers edition, the Rudd/Skinner edition, and Joseph Peterson's critical edition of the Lesser Key of Solomon all refer to Crocell (and indeed all of the other demons) using masculine pronouns. To date, the only versions I've seen that refer to any using female pronouns were written well into the late 20th century at latest. Given the lack of empirical evidence regarding anything in the Lemegeton or demonology, the figures mentioned within are handled akin to fictional characters: older texts take precedence, with later differences being treated as deviations, and modern re-imaginings mostly being ignored unless the author is notable. You're plenty welcome to edit articles relating to demonology, but it is recommended that you use higher quality sources. An early version of Joseph Peterson's critical edition (which compiles the oldest texts) is available for free on his website. The Crowley/Mathers edition (lower-quality but a common standard) is also available for free online. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)