|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Musicians||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Metal||(Rated C-class)|
For one thing, I've heard that Paul Black played drums for Faster Pussycat before Mark Michals did.
Gringo300 04:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
sleaze rock, hair metal?
I know it's not often easy to catagorize a band into one genre, but in the first line the article as it stands refers to the band being a "sleaze rock" band (which is not a genre defined within Wikipedia). The stub tag has them as a "hair metal" act. I don't know much 'bout metal, but from what I've seen while looking up sleaze rock elsewhere, these two genres seem contradictory. Any metal gurus out there care to elaborate?David Henderson 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
--- They're Sleaze Metal, which should be defined within the Glam Metal page but isn't as of now. Other bands within the Sleaze Metal tag would be L.A. Guns, Jetboy, etc. They're more about the music than the image, so they aren't Hair Metal. They're more White Trash than New York Dolls wanna bes, so they aren't Glam Metal. It's Sleaze.
- From what I understand, Guns'N'Roses would also be considered sleaze. Gringo300 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I would consider bands like Bon Jovi, Cinderella, and maybe Warrant to fall into the "hair metal" category. Guns N' Roses, L.A. Guns, and Faster Pussycat, I agree, would be "sleaze metal". In my opinion, Faster Pussycat was probably the single most underrated metal band of the 80's.
- I'd have to describe at least parts of Faster Pussycat's first album as blues rock. Gringo300 07:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Add Taime Downe's
This article displays blatant favoritism towards Brent's version of the band, and doesn't even acknowledge that Taime's version of Faster Pussycat is also a touring band, which released a new album pretty recently. I would say that Taime's band is more relevant and this article shouldn't state that he is a "former member". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacko suede (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
I would disagree that either should be presented as more relevant than the other. Unfortunately as sometimes happens there was a disagreement and people went their seperate ways. Now there are 2 versions of Faster Pussycat. Neutral POV can reflect this easily by simply telling the band's history in an accurate fashion, stating that there was a split, and talking about the 2 bands as they are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:43, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I've done a fairly major edit to the section dealing with the 2007 situation where there were briefly two versions of the band in existence. As Brent has dropped his claim the dispute would seem to be ended and I think the article can be concisely wrapped up. Rather than remove all the material relating to this (as has been done and then undone in the past), I've re-formatted it into the past tense and tried to present it in a more objective way. I've also added a number of citations to validate the various claims and counter-claims, including more from Taime Downe than was there previously. I think this information belongs in the article, as it is a fairly significant event in the bands modern history, but it needed moving to a more Neutral POV and cleaning up from what was previously a commentary into a set of fact. I've tried to approach this withotu favouring either party's version of events. Please comment on anything that needs adding or editing and whether it now appears more neutral. I would propose that the Neutrallity tag could now be remvoed, subject to general agreement. If anyone is unhappy with what I've done, please add a comment here so it can be discussed. I have tried to make this neutral and factual in good faith, if the end result fails in this regard it is by ommision, ignorance or mistake, not from being partisan. As such can any suggested changes please be discussed without revisting the argument. --ThePaintedOne 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave the neutrality tag on till the end of the month, of no-one objects before then I'll take it outThePaintedOne 19:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- No one has commented further on this, so i'm going to take out the neutrality tag. I think the cleanup to the Brent info with added citations makes the article NPOV. The Rocklahoma stuff is still contentious, but has been clearly marked as needing citation and cleanup, so I don't think it unbalances the article as a whole (see also below). If anyone is still unhappy with the NPOV position of the article, please comment here before editing --ThePaintedOne 08:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Bathroomwall.jpg
Image:Bathroomwall.jpg is being used on this article. 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.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Stop Changing The Genres
Faster Pussycat NOW is an Industrial Rock band, not hair/sleaze or whatever you want to call it. And why is there no "Current Members" listing? TAIME IS PUSSYCAT. Along with their newest album has been removed from the discography. Trivium9786 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a Trivia tag to the trivia section. Most of the things listed here relate more to individuals than the band, and would be more appropriate in their articles than here. If no-one objects, I think most of these could be transferred away and the trivia section collapsed. ThePaintedOne 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- As no-one has objected, I'm going to collapse the trivia section now and move the items to other pages/areas --ThePaintedOne 08:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Items 1 and 2 are already covered on Taime Downe's page and not needed here
- Item 3 Should be covered on those bands pages with citations if relevent.
- Item 4 moved to Brent Muscat page.
- Item 5 moved to Taime Downe page.
- Item 6 moved to history section
- Item 7 not a significant fact - deleted
- Item 8 This is gossip. With citation it could be put on Taime's page, but as it seems rather derogatory I'm just going to delete it.
--ThePaintedOne 08:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Having just tried to neutralise the name dispute section of the article, I think the recently added commentary on Rocklahoma once again moves the article away from NPOV and is potentially contentious. I have heard of the incident, but from a quick search I can only find references to it on gossip and chat sites, none of the rock music news sites (e.g. Blabbermouth.net, who usually cover FP stories) have made mention of it. I have done a breif edit, changing the commentary style to a more factual recounting (mostly by moving it to the past tense). I've also added a weasel words flag, as this is currently all hearsay, and numerous citation tags. I think this makes clear to any casual reader that this is not current proven fact. However, if no citations can be provided, I think the section will have to be heavily edited or removed. I would have thought some reference to this incident should be included, as it seems pretty likely something happened, but without citation it certainly cant stay up as it is now.
As I'm going to review the page at the end of September with regards the Neutrality tag anyway, I'll review this section at the same time as well.
Any comments on this, please add them in here on the talk page. Can I also suggest that before adding any other potentially volatile material that makes ref to the band dispute, it be discussed on the talk page first. ThePaintedOne 09:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No-one has commented on this or added any references. I'm going to leave it up a little longer with the citation and weasel words tags. But if nothing is done to clean it up within a couple of weeks I think it needs to be either trimmed down to citable facts or removed. I'll also search again for reliable citations on this incident. --ThePaintedOne 08:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone has (not unreasonably) taken out some of the 'rumours' in the Rocklahoma section. Whether this stuff is rumour or whether it is fact, it is all completely unsourced which makes it unsuitable for wikipedia. I said a couple of months ago that I was going to review this section and if no sources were added remove it, but i've been too busy of late to keep up with wiki. So, I'm going to leave it till the Xmas break then either clean it up or remove it, depending on whether any sources come to light. If you want this section to stay, please add some sources, or at the very least discuss in here why the section should stay.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been months now since this was put up and no-one has provided any citations or references for this incident. I'm not going to completely remove it, but I've cut it right back to a general paragraph and left in the weasel words tag is it's still hearsay. I'll probably kill the whole section soon unless some refs are provided.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This section was first shortened, then completely removed, due to the lack of sources. It has now been re-added with two sources, but the copy returned also includes biased language (e.g. 'brutal' and 'infamous') and claims which are not supported by the sources (minus the previously added citation tags) and therefore constitute OR, it was also generally worded in a partisan way and clearly not npov. Other additions to the article seemed to be trying to continue the Brent vs Taime dispute which has been legally and finaly settled. I've removed the unsupported material and re-worded what remains to make it npov. I've also added a couple of extra pieces which are supported by the source (Taime leaving the stage early and the crowd reaction to his comments). Please note I am not taking sides in any of this, but wikipedia is not the place for the dispute. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Having just checked the second of the two sources, its a blurry photograph taken from behind and posted on someone's blog. You can't see the persons face or any context to prove its even at Rocklahoma, let alone that its Taime and the result of him falling off an (unseen) golfcart. This is clearly not a reliable source and wikipedia explicitly bars self published sources for articles on living people (WP:SPS) even if the photo did show Taime's face as he visibly sailed off the back of a golf cart. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
BRUTAL was used to describe the comments about Brent at the Rocklahoma show in All Acess Magazine. Theres nothing to dispute, A reputable source was listed. You sound very biased and taking sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not at all biased, in fact having seen and enjoyed the Brent Muscat version of the band live last year if I'm biased in any direction its the other way (I spent quite a bit of time writing the name dispute section and adding refs to stop it being deleted out of hand). I am just trying to keep what is written here within wiki guidelines. The stuff you have previously posted was clearly anti-Taime and this isn't the place for that. The incidents (which to be honest are not hugely notable anyway) can be described in a neutral way, with sources quoted, but that is not what your previous edits were doing. The version on there now is not an unreasonable compromise, although it needs rewording to past tense (I'll do this now). This is wikipedia in action, multiple editors working on a subject to reach a sensible compromise :) .--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
With ref the 2008 section, I moved the info on Faster Pussycat's 2008 tour to the '2001 to present' section, as otherwise that section makes no sense. It would need to be '2001 - 2007' with a seperate section for 2008, but there is no particular reason 2008 should have a section to itself so why break the format?. I don't see the relevence of the Brent Muscat info, the quote about FP being dead doesnt add anything to the previous citations in the name dispute section. If it goes anywhere it should be there. What he is doing now is not relevent to Faster Pussycat as he is no longer a member, unless you want to put in every activity of all past members on an ongoing basis? I've already added the info to Brent's page and it is better suited there, otherwise it is just promotion for his band, which is not appropriate. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- By way of compromise I've moved the Brent info to the name dispute section, which is the most appropriate place for it as its his last connection with the band, and only removed a single line of copy which is clearly promotional. I think subsequent editors may remove it as off topic, but lets see. The tour info is in the 2001-present section so I've removed the now redundant 2008 section. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it again, the tour info works better at the bottom so as to maintain the chronology, but giving 2008 a section to itself for one line doesn't make sense. It would help if the 2001-2005 part could be fleshed out so more sub-heading could be used in the 2001-present section. A source for the tour would help as well. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not write anything anti-taime, I just stated facts of what happened. If you are a fan you know its a fact what he said about brent and how he fell off a golf cart. the picture is real, every fan knows it, I really question whether you are a fan or not since you dont know about that.
Theres no reason why the Rocklahoma section should be flagged as neutral, since your such a fan why didn't you post the articles to back up the events of Rocklahoma yourself since you have taken it upon yourself to be the main writer of this wiki page?
Obviously you are not doing such a great job, this page is open to anyone who has facts on the band. You are not in control of it. It makes more sense to make a 2008 section because there has not been much actvity going on and people should be updated. I'll take it upon myself to undo your changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a fan who didn't go to Rocklamoma and as I live in the UK didn't see much coverage of it either. Wikipeida presents everything as Neutral Point of View, that is one of the fouding priciples it is based upon, as is citing reputable sources, frankly the whole 'fell off a golf cart' thing isn't really notable anyway, even if you could cite sources. The fact that 'lots of fans know this happend' and someone puts a blurry picture on a blog does not make it of sufficient quality to put in an encyclopedia, in fact as I stated above wikipedia rules explicitly forbid it. Try reading some of the Wikipedia policies before you continue editing, otherwise you'll have this happen to you over and over again. Wikipeida is not a blog, or a music magazine, or somewhere for discussion of partisan events, I'd suggest starting with Neutral Point of View, What Wikipedia is Not, Notability and Verifiability. Incidentaly, a lack of edits on a page is often a sign that it is a pretty reasonable summary of its subject and needs none. Either that or the subject simply isn't doing very much that merits mention.
I have a life though and really can't be bothered to spend more time in an edit war with you, so if the irrelevent line on Brent's new band and a '2008' heading are that important to you, they can stay in till another editor comes alond and gets rid of them as inappropriate. However, the link to ticketmaster has been removed as it is both an advert and not a source.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Everything that I wrote are actual facts. Thats what Wikipedia supports. Wikipedia is open to anyone that has factual data and the reference to back it up like I did. Important facts about the band are what belong here. Like I said your just a fan giving their opinion you don't control this page. You don't think the incident in ROcklahoma is notable, well many fans will disagree with you including me. Being that I'm American and FP are an American Band I have alot of info on them. BTW I will put back the link to ticketmaster because thats where you go to buy your FP tickets for the summer tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- You consistently misunderstand the problems with what you are posting, it has nothing to do with how big a fan you are of FP, but whether what you are putting in is within wikipedia guidelines. The bar for entry to wikipedia is not just being factual, it is being notable and verifiable. I didn't say that the Rocklahoma incident wasn't notable, in fact if you read further up on the talk page you'll see I said precisely the opposite last year when I first edited this section. What I said was of questionable notabillity is the fact that Taime fell of a golf cart. I understand that this caused great amusement to the fans, particularly in light of what he'd said on stage (which incidentaly I think was way out of order and would stop me going to see his itteration of the band if they ever toured over here again). But what is amusing to fans or circulates on blogs is not necesarily notable for an encyclopedia. As for the ticketmaster ref, obviously they sell the tickets, thats why I removed the link as being an advert. A citation ref should be a link to a reputable third party source that verifies the event, of preference something like a news article from a respected magazine or newspaper, or a published book from a notable author (WP:VERIFIABILITY). You haven't even bothered to link to the relevent page of the ticketmaster site, you've just put up a URL to the Ticketmaster homepage, which doesn't reference anything to do with FP. Even if you did link to the correct page, the link would expire in a month or two and break your ref. Refs are not there to promote tours, or to make it easier for people to buy tickets, they are there to provide citations for facts. To this end, I've taken the two minutes necessary to find a news article referencing the tour and put that in as an alternative ref. This is from Blabbermouth who are very consistent with reporting on FP, leave thier news articles online for a long time and have been used as a ref on this page before.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You said it wasn't notable, once again everything that I write here are facts, I don't interject my "fan thoughts" , Any person who has brought tickets online knows to type in the artists name on Ticketmaster. I put the link back up because its notable and a fact, thats where people buy tickets for this tour. Everything that I write here so far is notable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Once again you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a place to sell tickets or act as news source for fans. It is completely inappropriate to put a ticketmaster link in the article. Advert removed.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not put a link to sell tickets, you keep interjecting your opinion on the band as a fan and thats not what Wikipedia is about, its about stating facts that can be backed up. It's really unfortunate when 1 fan wants to monopolize a Wikipedia page and won't allow any fans to contribute like your doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- You put in a link to a place that sells tickets. You are injecting just as much opinions. You need to cool down a bit and start taking yourself and this article less seriously, and start listening to others. --Regebro (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not interject any of my opinions, I listed the facts on the band. The link is to a list of tour dates on their current tour. How is that interjecting my opinion? The fact that ThePaintedOne had to call in a thrid party over a link to tour dates shows he needs to cool down and not take this page so seriously. That shows hes monopolizing this page as a fan. He also felt providing certain facts on the band were not important. You should really advise him since he has monoplolized this page . Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Communication requires that both parts are listening. You are not listening. --Regebro (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Third Party Opinion
I came here to offer a third party opinion. Generally, facts are not always appropriate for an encyclopedia — we cannot add them unless they are verifiable facts. Also, they must be in good sources and we must apply judgment that they meet that standard. Then we must add them with a neutral point of view and neutral tone. Mentions in fan sites are probably not enough for verifiability, since they might not apply basic journalistic discipline nor neutrality. Editor sexygamesdice (talk · contribs), please review the verifiability policy before making more edits here. Words like "brutal" and "infamous" are also not encyclopedic. Even if a source uses them they're probably not appropriate in this article when presented as fact. Please see the guideline Wikipedia:Writing better articles, in particular the section on informational tone and style in articles which suggests "The tone... should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Despite two third party opinions being given sexygamesdice (talk · contribs) is still ignoring the consensus and just keeps reverting the article to thier version. I'm not going to keep undoing this as that would just become an edit war. However, I will explore further dispute resoltion options as much as time allows for what is not exactly the most important article on wikipedia. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
RfC to end potential edit war
Thanks so much Owlmonkey, Everything I provided is verifiable with facts to back up what I say. All my links are to legitmiate sites not fan sites. I think more than 1 fan should agree on whats important on this page. 1 Fan should not be monoplozing it like ThePaintedOne. I didn't use "brutal" or "infamous" for the article which you stated I have. I have read the article on the Jewish Holocaust on here and they use harsh words to describe that event,"brutal" everything can't be sugarcoated when it based on facts, there is no neutrality on the Holocaust, then you have unfactual page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You used brutal in a submission comment and you added "infamous" when you added the text "the photo of the incident is infamous on the web" just after "fans say it was karma for the Muscat comments". The first is mere opinion, and the latter sounds like attributed fact, to fans generally, but surely not all fans thought that. The ticketmaster link is inappropriate. You're right that no one person should monopolize an article, and I recommend you pursue the standard dispute resolution processes if you must, but mostly I ask that you work together on this with other editors and get more familiar with guidelines for article content. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not in the article anymore, i removed the word "brutal" myself awhile ago along with the other quotes you mention. I edited that all out myself. That's not an issue. That was not my wording, I was quoating an article anyway that I have listed in the article from a reputable news site. I read an article on the Jewish Holocaust on Wikipedia and the word "brutal" is used there, so when you say "brutal" is not encyclopedic thats not true. Other artists like CHER have links to ticketmaster for their tour dates. Compared to other artists like cher, Van Halen, KISS, Faster pussycat has a very small article. I feel this issue is really small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I came to comment on the discussion above, as requested, and that language was part of the discussion. In response to your specific points, context matters. If "brutal" was the accepted way among scholars to describe attila the hun's conquests for example, then an encyclopedia might include that; but only once it had become the de facto way of describing an event — when it goes beyond opinion into accepted fact effectively — but on an article like this? more likely it's opinion. as for ticketmaster, i don't see a link to that on Cher's article or her tour page articles, which does it appear on? the majority of the articles that refer to ticketmaster are linking to the Ticketmaster article, others use it as a citation, so there does not seem to be a precedent really to promote a particular for-sale product or event here. Otherwise the encyclopedia might have links on every product related article for where to buy it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't even bother to research the article because you did not know that I edited it myself and took out all those words you acuused me of including. So how can you come here as an effective 3rd party when you are not properly researching this article? Chers article has a link to Ticketmaster the Jewish Holocaust article gives "brutal" as an opinion, not noted by scholars. i edited it out myself on this article. Its not an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- You included those terms with these edits. They were removed the next day by ThePaintedOne (talk · contribs). But I'm glad to hear you agree that they were inappropriate and you removed them yourself elsewhere. The Cher article does not link to either the Ticketmaster article nor the ticketmaster.com web site, each time I've checked including just now. You're completely welcome to critique my effectiveness as a third party. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... there seems to be a history going back over a year on this article, being edited in similar ways by new accounts making the same changes. Question for you Sexygamesdice (talk · contribs), were you also the person who made these edits here and here, here. Then smaller but similar edits here and here? There are more, that's just a sample. These are from user accounts Paradise visuals (talk · contribs), Babybackbuns (talk · contribs), Roadcrew5 (talk · contribs), Rockohio3 (talk · contribs) and others. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can't be him. Those edits are correctly spelled. (Not complaining about spelling, here btw. It's OK to add badly spelled things. Somebody else can always fix the spelling.) --Regebro (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the word "brutal" myself along with the other words you accused me of earlier awhile ago like I said previously. Cher article has a link to ticketmaster. Go check the IP Address on those accounts , none of them are me. Faster Pussycat is a band with Millions of fans, common sense tells you fans would be contributing to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexygamesdice (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to stay out of this (presumably because I'm so busy pretending to be Owlmoney), but it is not really accurate to say you removed those words from the article. I removed them, which you complained about a little bit further up this page, and you the then declined to put them back in when reverting parts of the article. Not undoing my edit isn't exactly the same as removing them yourself. In fact I thought this was a rare example on this article of multiple editors working together to improve the copy within wiki guidelines.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\bticketmaster\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.