Talk:Criminal tattoo

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance). Body Modification (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Thief in law#The Thieves.27 Code|Thieves' Code]] The anchor (#The Thieves.27 Code) has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I think the level of info for the Japanese section is currently about right. I'm based in Europe so don't know much about the US stuff. Please add anything you know! If there are other countries you can add (Mexico and S America?) please do! I have a copy of Baldaev's book and will try to add a bit more on the Russian stuff.

I have edited the info on the Aryan Brotherhood tattoos. I took out the claim they where founded in Idaho (I'm 99% sure it was Californa. Like "If it didn't say Idaho I'd be 100%" 99% sure) and added the fact that their shamrock tends to have "666" incorporated into it and why, also noted the fact the AB often hides the letters AB and "666" into other, less criminaly oriented tattoos. I'd like to add some information on American street gang tattoos but I'm not sure how to organize it, I'd say its a case of knowing to much to know where to start. What immeditatly pops to mind are the Six and Five point stars and crowns, but I'd probably start rambling about how Six point gangs tend to nominal allies while alot of Five point gangs have nothing to do with each other (and many are indeed enemies of pretty much anyone and everyone outside of their own gang). I don't know, I'd like to see the purely american gang tattoo culture represented but I can't write artical quality worth shit. -- Lich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.164.212 (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the version shown on screen is not the latest version. I suspect this may be due to a cached version but maybe there's a glitch in the wiki?

It would be nice to have some pics of tatts in question.

• Nothing here about swallow tattoos on the necks and hands? I've always thought that this was a British prison thing.

• swallows are a sailor tattoo i thought?

• • Swallow tattoo's are a "safe passage" tattoo. Nothing to do with criminals specifically. --Threatis 13:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Could be but I can'tthink of one person I know of with the swallows on hands who hasn't been isnide, and been told that it's something someone gets done at the end of a longer sentence to symbolise freedom. Just a thought though, probably has roots from all over.

I had heard that the teardrop tattoo by the eye meant that the one displaying it had killed a police officer ... anyone else heard this?

It actually stands for a fallen brother when they display the teardrop.

Just in case you wanted to know, the US rapper "the Game" has one of thse below his eye after his brother got shot dead

It can mean 1. You've killed someone (not neccisarly a cop) 2. Someone you loved was killed/in prison 3. One tear drop for every ten years you've served (not are sentenced to). Gang/Ghetto tattoos are very subjective. Bloods and Crips might use the same exact tattoo but have completely diffrent meanings, or the above is true but the tattoo has been around for decades with a diffrent meaning then they choose. Just examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.164.212 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tattoo has been around for decades and usually has a reference to prison.

Before all the celebrities started getting them it was a very bad tattoo to have. Depending on the region or prison it meant you were either raped in prison, property of a prisoner(s) as a sex slave or a child molester. It was forcefully applied on the face as a branding so the humiliation could never be covered up and they'd always be a target no matter what prison they went to.

When these guys got out of jail they were too ashamed to say what it meant so it was common to say it meant they killed someone while inside, yet it was quite obvious if they didn't serve extra time for the murder it wasn't true.

Times have changed and a lot of us older folk see this kids with the tear tattoo and shudder for a moment, to me it brings back memories of disgust, people to avoid. If only the kids knew the true origins and how uncool it is they'd think twice before wilfully branding themselves in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.82.40 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dot between the knuckle and joint of the pointer finger on the right hand and a dot on each finger between the knuckle and joint of the left hand (minus the thumb) is a northside tattoo. I don't got a reference but I know for a fact I am correct if anyone wants to look for one. 70.96.235.178 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page still needs a lot of work, and I can't tell if the Russian tattoos are an elaborate joke.

My main query however this line:

• Swastika - is forcibly applied to forehead and marks one for death, or is a sign of rebellion against russian prison authority. Is not usually associated with the nazi swastika.

If it marks one for death why would anyone want to have it tattooed for any other reason?! Bug 13:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The russian page isn't an elaborate joke, it maybe incomplete and even inaccurate in some specific meanings. But it's basically on the right lines.

I don't know about a Swastika on the forehead. But within a "normally" placed tattoo it isn't a nazi logo or a death sentence: it's more a willing show of defiance against the CCCP/soviet system (think of WW2 Eastern Front ie. your enemy is my friend). It doesn't even seemed to be used as an anti-semitic sign.

Not saying that there aren't plenty of anti-semitic tattoos, but the ones I've seen are more male stereotypical portrait type (hooked nose etc.)

--Selton1968 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clue to the answer to "if it marks one for death why would anyone want to have it tattooed..?" lies in the phrase "forcibly applied". The person wanting it tattooed (i.e. commissioning the tattoo) is not the wearer. Russian forehead tattoos are usually derogatory (to put it mildly!) and not voluntary.

Velada (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've got to be honest and say I'm not convinced on the accuracy of any of these entries. I know, for example, a crusifix on your chest actually indicates you served time in a specific czech prison. A good rule of thumb for russian tattoos: If the symbolism makes sense.... Your wrong. Russian Tattoos seem to be almost randomly picked and their meaning just universaly accepted. The picture has nothing, what so ever, to do with what it represents. I suspect that the "Theives in Law" spread alot of disinformation about what their tattoos mean. Also, it says something about raping a child to be worthy of despise inside a russian prison. Frankly fellas, as sad and sick as it is... No, it's not considered a cardnial sin with any Russian's I've ever met through my work. They may not be pedophiles themselves, but if pimping an eight year old makes them a thousand dollars an hour they have no reservations. Of course the three I know are not "Theive's in Law". Why is their no mention of the Ex-Military "Bitch" faction? -- Lich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.164.212 (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danzig Baldaev (who was a prison guard for 50 years, having been brought up in a Soviet orphanage after his anthropologist father was sent to the GuLAG) gave an explanation to the effect that 'prisoners in eastern camps are less tolerant of sexual offenders than those in western [i.e. western USSR]ones'; the point being that the western camps tended to contain the professional criminals, whilst the Siberian camps, like those in Kolyma, tended to have more political offenders (who were more likely to share society's norms regarding such matters).

Alix Lambert's book contains several interviews with vor v zakone bemoaning the fact that in the 'New Russia' there is a new breed of criminal, who don't respect the old codes; and that their tattoos are no longer accorded 'proper respect'.

From her interviews, it seems the tattoos are in a state of flux; some interviewees felt tattoos no longer had specific meaning, others felt that there would be a resurgence, as hierarchies sorted themselves. Baldaev lists tattoos collected over his entire career; so some of the things on the list may be obsolete.

As for the Bitches - they were a faction of the vor v zakone who collaborated with the authorities; so initially, and amongst themselves, they would have the same tattoos. A "Bitch" who found himself in a camp dominated by traditionalist vori might soon find himself with a forehead tattoo indentifying him as suki (Bitch), though! Velada (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing included in the page about the Yakuza and their tradition of tattooing members. A section on the Yakuza is most definitely needed. -sohoisdead 20.3.07

Why is the Russian section in particular tagged as needing references, when in fact it is the only subsection to give explicit references? (Although I assume the weblinks may supply references for other sections.)

Velada (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if any attempt was made to actually help out and FIND a source for all that material instead of just outright deleting it. Was it really likely to be challenged? Was the {{refimprove}} tag not enough? Did you forget that our goal is building an encyclopedia not tearing it down? <disgruntled>. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree, i came looking for the meaning of the clock without hands prison tatoo, and i had to look in the history section to find that.77.213.191.134 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of here mentioned rigorous deletion the redirect from ACAB to Criminal tattoo#Britain and Ireland doesn't make sense anymore. Nlwiki (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to how the article looked just before it was gutted. -- œ^™ 19:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "gutted" I say "brought into closer compliance to our policies of verification and no original research."-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now out of spite you delete the entire Russian section to prove your point? It seems you've forgotten to also delete the list of references. You don't have to take it out on the article just because you're sore that other editors here disagree with your judgment in editing. I won't revert because I'm just not that willing to fight for this article, but my assessment of the situation stands. -- œ^™ 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ACAB page redirects to here but all the material relating to the meaning of ACAB was deleted in 2009 by a blocked user. The Red Pen of Doom Yet it was never reinstated.

Europe==
Britain and Ireland==
A.C.A.B. is an acronym often integrated into prison tattoos in the United Kingdom. It is most commonly rendered with one letter between the knuckle and first joint of each finger, sometimes as symbolic small dots with or without the accompanying letters. A.C.A.B. can stand for All Coppers Are Bastards, or Always Carry A Bible, depending on who is asking and whether the bearer is trying to make a good impression. The British Oi! Punk band, the 4-Skins popularized the acronym A.C.A.B. in their 1970's song of the same name. It is currently in common usage as a phrase and tattoo amongst the radical European football fans known as Ultras. Bohemians Firm the BSC support tattoos of the slogan. A similar tattoo consists of the letters A.P.A.B. (All Pigs Are Bastards, "pig" in this context being derogatory slang term for police officer).

The Borstal mark (or "Borstal spot") is an Indian ink dot, usually located between the thumb and forefinger of the right hand. Borstals were UK youth detention centers, and the mark was traditionally obtained during an offender's first period of imprisonment. The borstal mark has been considered a status symbol among some criminals. The "Borstal Glove" consists of a tattooed outline of the back of the hand. A dot on the cheek bone is a diluted version of the borstal 'tear', a sign of completing a sentence at Borstal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.68 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say what the above said, I think acab needs it's own page94.168.210.123 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged for cleanup for two years, I'm sure some of the claims have been without sources for much longer. Giving editors who watch this article a quick heads-up before I start gutting the article of claims without sources, per WP:UNSOURCED. Furry-friend (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting and sorting sources:

Seems like there's a bundle of good sources to build an article from (and a few bad ones that can easily be removed without affecting verifiability). Furry-friend (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criminal tattoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131030224151/http://www.tattoo-designs.dk/prison-tattoos.html to http://www.tattoo-designs.dk/prison-tattoos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc9871: Regarding this revert, what do you mean "non-notable sourcing"? Sources don't have to be notable. The claim is made by a peer-reviewed study, published by the journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The study is widely-cited, over 366 times according to Google Scholar. I don't understand your objection to this source. Furry-friend (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with that source is listed in Limitations: "This was a self-reported data set with a 33% response rate." Any study that relies on self-reported data is not a particularly strong source and may be an outlier. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about the statement itself?! Do you two realize how many sources it would take to justify including such a thing? Not just one! And if only one study found such data it's not notable enough to be included here. This is astonishing to me. Doc talk 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was qualified with "a study". And thank you for bringing up these points here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are further sources:

the prevalenceof tattoos is much higher among those in mental health institutions (Newman, 1982), the military (Armstrong,Pace-Murphy,Sallee,&Watson,2000), and most notably, the prison population (DiFrancesco,1990;Manuel&Retzlaff,2002). Indeed,individuals with tattoos are more likely to have a criminal history than those without tattoos (Buhrich & Morris, 1982; Gittleson & Wallen, 1973), and studies have shown a positive relationship between tattooing and violence (Britt,Panepento, & Wilson,1968;Butler & Trice 1968; Newman, 1982), deviant behavior (Braithwaite, Stephens, Bowman, Milton, & Braithwaite, 1998; Buhrich, 1983; Ceniceros, 1998; Drews, Allison, & Probst, 2000; Raspa & Cusack, 1990; Roe, Howell, & Payne, 1974), and crime in general (Fox, 1976; Mallon & Russell, 1999; Taylor, 1968, 1970; West & Farrington, 1977; Yamamoto, Seeman, & Boyd, 1963). However, additional research has also pointed toward the exact opposite conclusions for the relationship between tattooing and deviance (Harry, 1987; Howell, Payne, & Roe, 1971; Rozycki Lozano, Morgan, Murray, & Varghese, 2011).

— Wesley G. Jennings, Bryanna Hahn Fox, David P. Farrington, "Inked into Crime? An Examination of the Causal Relationship between Tattoos and Life-Course Offending among Males from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development", doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.12.006

That's 5 studies that find a relationship between tattoos and criminality, plus the quoted study that does find a strong correlation, although not causation, which was never claimed in the article. I believe these sources are strong enough to make the claim of a correlation between tattoos and criminality. This is most definitely not a fringe theory. Furry-friend (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "additional research has also pointed toward the exact opposite conclusions for the relationship between tattooing and deviance". So even more studies may be needed... Doc talk 14:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deviance, not criminality. Regardless more studies are always needed... that doesn't mean that the source is unreliable or that it's a fringe theory. These six sources definitely justify the claim that:

Several studies have found a strong relationship between tattoos and criminality.^[ref]

Reference: Wesley G. Jennings; Bryanna Hahn Fox; David P. Farrington (January 14, 2014), "Inked into Crime? An Examination of the Causal Relationship between Tattoos and Life-Course Offending among Males from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development", Journal of Criminal Justice, 42 (1, January–February 2014): 77–84, doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.12.006

Unless you have any valid contentions of this source I see no issue with adding this claim, as it is well-verified by multiple studies over a long period of time and not contentious. Furry-friend (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Doc talk 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, this is not an isolated study. Nothing about WP:SCHOLARSHIP prevents the use of this source. I would also add that these studies are cited in secondary sources. Furry-friend (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you learn quick. You tried to use an isolated study for what I reverted, I believe? I'm done talking to you. Doc talk 15:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above it is not an isolated study, it was cited in a secondary source, a sociology textbook (and at least 365 other sources). You removed two references, one directly to the study and another to the secondary source which cites it. These additional five studies are well-cited too. I don't know how I offended you, I provided you with several sources to a claim that seems to me to be well-established and verifiable, with sources that meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP and of course WP:V. I take it you won't object to the claim I provided above (not the one you reverted, the one with the six new sources). Furry-friend (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest reading that study to see how non-isolated, non-fringe, mainstream, well-researched this claim is. Furry-friend (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources below, as I don't think it's a fringe theory either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Psychiatry, Psychology and Law - An association between criminality and having tattoos was noted more than 100 years earlier by the Italian physician and criminologist, Cesare Lombroso.
• Psychology and Psychiatry Journal - Findings indicate that while tattooing has developed a broad demographic appeal, there remain some strong associations with deviance, particularly criminality"
• College Student Journal - Tattoos have been empirically associated with several deviant behaviors...and criminality (Fox, 1976; Mallon & Russell, 1999; Post, 1968; Taylor, 1970; Yakamoto et al, 1963). Research on tattoos has documented a strong relationship between people with tattoos and antisocial personalities...or actual criminal conduct (Fox, 1976; Measey, 1972; Roc, Howell, & Payne, 1974; Taylor, 1968; Taylor, 1970).
• The Social Science Journal - Recently, Koch, Roberts, Armstrong, and Owen (2010) noted that only individuals with four or more tattoos – as compared to those with none, one, or two/three – were substantively and statistically more likely to engage in heavy drinking, use illegal drugs, have multiple sex partners, or report a significant arrest history.
• Riverfront Times - ""They are ten times more likely to have an arrest history..."
• Time - There is a strong association in Japan between tattoos and criminality
• Psychology Today - blog post by Theodore Dalrymple - The association in our societies between crime and tattoos has been long recognised.

And now we're getting somewhere. Lots of sources here. Come up with something NPOV using these sources. Doc talk 05:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are the same ones I gave before (Fox, Mallon & Russel, Post, Taylor)... I actually gave better sources than Isaidnoway—no offense, I only mean that peer-reviewed papers and university textbooks are better sources than newspaper articles—but you dismissed mine and accepted his, even though over half of them are the same sources. Furry-friend (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not going to go into how to add reliably sourced content with you. You can't see the forest for the trees. What does, for instance, the Time source listed above have to do with the claim from your one study that I removed? I am just not even going to start explaining the differences. The WP:BURDEN is on you. Doc talk 09:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The Time source is a bad source. It makes an assertion and doesn't back it up in any way. The study and textbook I cited have both their own data and relied on data from well-cited respected studies. There is no reason to prefer the Times source, which in total—"The unwritten ban on tattooed people bathing in onsen comes from a strong association in Japan between body art and criminality"—amounts to hearsay, while the studies and textbook actually have data and analysis, and are widely cited in the academic literature. Preferring the Time source over them is preferring hearsay over data, analysis, reproducibility, and wide acceptance. Furry-friend (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the difference between writing a sentence that can be attributed to multiple sources vs. parroting the results of a source and then claiming that the source itself is used elsewhere. I'm just not interested in explaining it because I truly don't think you're going to get it. Doc talk 09:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against citing a study's results... as is very clearly shown from this discussion, the results of the study are not WP:FRINGE, and the fact that the study is widely-cited and its results are in accordance to the results of other studies, means that it is not an isolated study. Is your objection about the quality of the source or about citing the exact numbers from the source? I'm sorry but your motivation for this revert are still not clear. NeilN objected to the citation because the study's sample was self-selecting; that's an incredibly valid objection and I accepted it. Your objections... are not clear. At any rate the revert has been accepted and the study is no longer being cited in this article. Furry-friend (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is the absolute last thing I'm going to say here. I have a far greater grasp of policy than you do. I am not responsible for your interpretation of policy. Every edit you make here is potentially subject to reversion for an endless variety of reasons. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. Doc talk 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't said why you removed a claim that was cited to a non-fringe, non-isolated study. NeilN explained his reasoning in a single post! Your reasons remain unclear. First you said "if only one study found such data it's not notable enough to be included here", then I demonstrated that it's not one study, so you said it's an isolated study per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I explained that it's not isolated (its results are consistent with well-accepted studies; it is cited in secondary sources; it has received many scholarly citations; it was published in a respected journal; and so on) and you said you're "done talking". So your objections remain unclear. Furry-friend (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The study conducted in 2004 among 500 adults between ages 18 and 50 that found an explicit link between tattooing and criminality is one study. Establishing "an explicit link between tattooing and criminality" is going to require a lot more than the results of one study, no matter how many times it is cited! More studies/references! That 72 percent of respondents with face, neck, hands, or fingers tattoos have spent more than three days in jail, compared to 6 percent of the non-tattooed population is absolutely not notable without other studies to back those very specific statistics up! Other studies, I'm sure, found very different numbers. Doc talk 10:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the references? The study cites many of the same sources you now accept ("now we're getting somewhere. Lots of sources here") and the textbook cites them too. It's not one study. It's one reference (two actually), but that reference cites several studies, which we now know (thanks to this discussion) provide "one of the strongest empirical associations seen in [social science] literature to date" (Jennings). Thank you for clarifying your objection. Furry-friend (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is no policy against citing specific numbers from studies; it was never claimed these were absolute numbers, only that one study found them. NeilN raised an objection to the methodology of the study and I accepted. Furry-friend (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there are administrators whom I question that can't even describe their often baffling misinterpretation of policy. You seem to being listening, or at least going through the motions of pretending to listen. I like your Moxie, kid! And now, alas, I must bid you adieu for now. Good luck! Doc talk 10:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how misinterpretation of policy applies here. WP:FRINGE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP were explored and the study was found not to fail any of their criteria. WP:BURDEN was raised but doesn't apply at all, even less in light of the study's wide acceptance. This shows there was no issue with interpretation of policy. The source complies with it in letter and spirit. In the end (actually in the beginning) NeilN pointed out the source has less-then-stellar methodology (but not dubious; it's still widely accepted, not isolated, and not fringe), so I agreed with removing it, but not for the reasons you provided. Eventually it became clear that you overlooked that the study cites some of the very sources that were later brought to light and accepted by you. Furry-friend (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criminal tattoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301075026/http://www.tattoosymbol.com/just-for-site/spider-web.html to http://www.tattoosymbol.com/just-for-site/spider-web.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2024 and 7 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryleeg (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ryleeg (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]