Hello, Attafire! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! WLU (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved your sources to a sub-page, just below your welcome.
I have also redirected the page to satanic ritual abuse, for which it seems to be a POV or content fork. The sources and concepts seem substantially similar, an updated version of SRA now that the "satanic" part has been thoroughly discredited. Noblitt's current opinion is very much a minority, and presenting another page as if it were taken seriously by the scholarly position, is undue weight. The sources used to justify the lead are not reliable. Many of the sources are also rather dated from the 90's discussion of satanic ritual abuse, making it a mis-use of sources and original research to call it other than SRA. Please note that the status of satanic ritual abuse (and it's many, many synonyms, including ritual abuse, sadistic ritual abuse, ritual-torture abuse, mind control abuse, etc) as something that is not taken seriously. This has been brought up at the fringe theories noticeboard, administrator's noticeboard, the sources that support the ideas have been vetted by the reliable sources noticeboard, and one editor who sustained a push to represent the idea as credulous has been banned from the topic. This issue is settled, please discuss at talk:satanic ritual abuse but please review the archives so we do not have to repeat ourselves unduly. WLU (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think I get it. The editors that run these pages at wikipedia don’t take this seriously, so we can’t discuss this in this page. This is alright by me, I don’t want to break any rules here.
I know this can’t be on a page, but a few years ago I had a friend who was telling me these types of stories and she didn’t know anyone else who had these types of things happen to them. She finally found a therapist who knew something about all this stuff and she seemed to get better after a year or two. I had never heard anything about this, so I started looking up books and such. A lot of these books were college types and seemed to take this stuff seriously. I thought I could help her and others like her by taking the facts and writing an article, so they would have a place to read about this.
Everybody and nobody runs wikipedia, there's no one person but we all must adhere to the policies and guidelines. You can discuss on talk pages, but changes to mainspace require consensus.
Personal experience is not a reliable source and can not be used to expand any pages. The problem with ritual-abuse-torture is the inheritance from satanic ritual abuse, which is now discredited. You're also citing sources as if RAT were the same thing as SRA despite the articles using different terms. If they are the same thing, you've created a POV-fork or content fork. If they're not, you can't use the SRA articles on a page about RAT.
Having a sub-page is OK, but you can't link to any mainspace pages. Talk pages are OK, provided you're in some way trying improve wikipedia. Having it, but doing nothing with it is OK, I guess, but kinda pointless. I really don't see it going anywhere based on what I saw before, but it's possible that I'm wrong. I strongly suggest you review the talk page and archives of satanic ritual abuse - many of the references are in common with RAT, and it seems to be a fringe topic. WLU (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
