This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

i have browsed to bittorrent.com site and i have seen something like payment!

BitTorrent is still free. There is a page on the website soliciting donations, but these are not at all required. -- bbatsell | « give me a ring » 23:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, my fault. I was on bittorent.com :)

"Sharing Files" and "How BitTorrent Works", the first two sections of the article, contain a great amount of material that is identical. Almost three full paragraphs worth.

I'm sure that's not intentional - and as I'm not an authority on BitTorrent, nor am I much of a wikier, I'm leaving it, but I felt I should put something here.

I changed it a bit to make it more clearer. Hopefully this helps 70.56.249.159 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's changing way too fast to follow the individual "arrows". Animation speed should be around 5 to 10 times slower. -- anon, 2 Apr 2006

i second the above comment uri budnik 03:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the speed of the picture is irrelevant. The point is that the viewer can see that at the end of all of the actions, every peer has a complete copy of the data.-- Swuster 01:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is fine at its present speed, once you understand what it's meant to show. Look, for example at the seeder through one run, and you see how little it has to send (just each chunk once). Look at any other node and you see it getting its data from all over the place and sending out known chunks likewise. You don't need to think about each connection and each chunk - that's what BitTorrent does for you: it sorts all that out. I'm not sure if its allowed on WP, but a JavaScript animation like they use for some on-line weather sequences might be fun because you can set the animation speed, the re-start delay, and pause and single-step the whole thing. But I think that's unnecessary, just add some labels and an explanantion underneath, as a caption, IMHO. -- Nigelj 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the animation image; why is it gone? IMO it was nice in ilustrating the whole thing. (but indeed it was a bit fast) so if someone with wikiexperience could a) bring it back and b) make the distributing streams a tiny bit slower?! I'm a bit lazy and not experienced enough to do it myself at this time. Pictureupdater 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes the message does get across - but it could get across a bit more conveniently if it was a bit slower (heh, bit) and I wouldn't have to watch it repeatedly to, y'know, soak it in. Just a bit speedy, that's all. But if it's too much work to tweak, I can totally understand. ~Falos 128.187.80.2 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it is with the time intervals doubled, so the speed is halved, any better? http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9245/torrentcomprevisedxz1.gif ( Matt 13:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Infinitely better. If it could be slowed down even further for that one very complex image that's just a rat's nest of lines, it'd be better than infinitely better! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.115.4 ( talk) 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that that is better If people are having trouble understanding it, but the current image is fine just as a simple explnation. PenguinSamurai64 23:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Any chance you can make it show which client initiates the connection, by (say) drawing a connection in several steps that make it longer? - Pgan002 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It already shows that, to some degree. If you look closely at the ends of the lines, there are small arrows. There are also small "arrow ends" at the beginnings of the lines. I agree that it could be better, but I think it's good enough to get an idea of what's happening. IChrisI ( T/ C) 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit fast, in my opinion. MrFirewall 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Slowing it down should help some but I think it would also help if the arrows were more obvious. I wasn't aware that the lines had arrows until I read it here. Cerevox 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few external links and a couple of unnecessary headings. We don't need to become a repository for every BitTorrent FAQ and tracker that there is. That's what Google is for. Kevin 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the BitTorrent.com link back - we've not been squatted (I'm VP engineering at BitTorrent) Trapper 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In May 2005, on the same day the tracker website elitetorrents.org was shut down, Bram Cohen released a new beta version of BitTorrent that eliminated the need for Web site hosting of centralized servers known as "trackers".

Readers connect dots that shouldn't be connected here. This wording suggests a cause/effect relationship that is unprovable and biased for this supposedly "unbiased" encyclopedia.

I agree, somewhat. But could you word it in any other natural/easy-to-read way? Because I can't. -- logixoul 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the EliteTorrents info doesn't need to be there at all.. splintax ^(talk) 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aight, now that you said that, I noticed it was in the Copyright Enforcement section as well. I'm removing it from the problematic place. -- logixoul 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Under the subsection for API there is an external link to PEP, though with the entire URL and one of the brackets visible. I tried correcting it just now, but found that it is actually typed correctly and for whatever reason not displaying itself as it should. Does anyone know how to fix this? Take a look at it if you're not sure what I mean. 134.114.59.41 05:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It was an earlier link, which I have fixed, but it still reads badly. I don't know enough about it to improve the grammar. -- Mike Van Emmerik 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It currently says leeches are on asynchronous connections, but it seems like asymmetric makes more sense (i.e. download speed much faster than upload). Also another reason for accidental leeching might be firewall or port-mapping rules the user is unaware of, either in their Linksys-or-whatever router or a VoIP terminal adapter. However, I'm not clueful enough about the current state of the client software to know how well the clients deal with outgoing-initiated-only connections. Ttwaring 17:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetric is correct. From what I can see, you are no more likely to leech if you're unconnectable. That would just slow your upload and download down, since you can't connect to peers. (It's not like there are more connectable seeds than peers.. well, on average, that wouldn't be logical, though there could be some correlation between newbies not seeding and not being connectable..) splintax ^(talk) 13:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Availability

Is the definition of availability correct? From the definition, what i can understand is if there are only two peers with 50% of data each(both having same pieces) & no seeds, then the availability is 1. But the actual availability is 0.500. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I was thinking the same thing. Ill change it in a week if nobody gives a source of the opposite Martijn Hoekstra

Swarm/Peer/Seeder

First a Seeder is defined as a Peer who is sharing a complete copy, then in the Swarm section the size of the swarm is defined as the number of peers plus the number of Seeders. I changed this to accomodate the Seeder definition. If incorrect please also redefine Seeder. Martijn Hoekstra

Re the blurb on "broadcatching", it might be worth mentioning that the torrent indexer site TorrentSpy supports RSS feeds of torrents that are in specific categories (you can get RSS feeds of those categories). Just a thought. - nathanrdotcom 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The links to outside torrent sites have been consistently cut down, over and over, the past couple weeks. And it's way too short now. Some people objected to the links entirely for legality reasons, but most people seemed fine with them and said it was legal. Others objected to some of the links which explicitly mention copyright material, such as the Simpson's torrent. But in some cases, it seems like links were removed for no real reason, but I'm too lazy to go back through each page of the history to figure it out. I'm putting back up some of the links that were removed. If anyone has any idea why any of them shouldn't be put back up, say so here. 71.126.151.245 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to sites like Demonoid is a clear violation of at least the spirit of WP:C, and, I contend, the fact of WP:C. Links should be good faith examined to determine if they infringe copyrights, with the assumption that a torrent of a copyrighted file infringes copyrights. I will once again remove those links which I know from good faith examinations to breach WP:C. Pti 14:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem, however, is that the site owners over there do not control the content. So, for instance, Wikipedia links to Anarchopedia in the " Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not" article. Technically, I could post copyrighted material on Anarchopedia right now, or many people could post tons of copyrighted material. The official bittorrent search engine contains copyrighted material. And heck, since Google and Archive.org index random sites and quotes text in them (as well as keeping cached copies), then they keep copyrighted material as well. I think that the difference is that if a site EXPLICITLY hosts copyrighted material, in the sense of openly encouraging it, that it's a violation of WP:C. So, yeah, some of the links should come down.

However, I don't see why Demonoid should come down, but not others. I mean, Demonoid doesn't explicitly say it's for illegal filesharing. And there's just as much illegal content on Demonoid as there is on Empornium.us and The Pirate Bay, two links you didn't remove. One could even argue that The Pirate Bay should be removed too, because their name, the "PIRATE" bay directly implies that they're promoting illegal activity. Among other things that they've said and done. 71.126.139.169 16:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are (or were, the last time I looked and the last time I edited) internal links to wikipedia articles about the sites, rather than direct links to the sites. It's possible the articles contain links to the sites, but I'll leave those articles to someone else because I'm a bum.

I really do not buy the argument that e.g. demonoid does not control the content. A number of the sites I removed, I believe, claim that they remove copyrighted material when notified of it; however, they merely do this in an attempt to avoid legal consequences. They still knowingly participate in piracy.

Pti 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what protocol BitTorrent uses. Is it TCP or UDP?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.215.174 ( talk • contribs)

As far as I can understand, TCP. [1] - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{( Talk • Contribs)} 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I came here wondering the same thing. It appears to be TCP -- added to the article. -- Jon Dowland 13:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, BitTorrent uses TCP for most data, though clients with DHT or UDP tracker support do use UDP for those purposes. However, I think it's more accurate to describe BitTorrent as "utilizing HTTP", since HTTP is a subset of TCP... splintax ^(talk) 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I get how other p2p programs are able to connect and download from users, because they're all done manually. I was wondering however that how BTclients are able to connect to some peers and start downloading, while it doesn't connect to other peers? someone care to fill me in? ( Cloud02 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Not entirely sure I understand your question, however in some torrent clients there are adjustable limits on how many peers it will connect to. Also, some peers will always be 'unconnectable' (usually behind a firewall or NAT box, and no TCP port forwarding has been configured). Two unconnectable peers can't communicate with each other. -- ozzmosis 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "they're all done manually"? BT uses the tracker to communicate with peers - the tracker gives you a list of IP addresses to contact, and the BT client performs a handshake with them to initiate communication. splintax ^(talk) 14:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you are not able to connect to every peer. Sometimes the peer just logged off so you would be trying to connect to a peer that isn't running BT. Also Azureus is making a system that computes where you are on the internet. http://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Vivaldi_View AgentSmith15 02:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving trackers to Bittorrent_tracker and indexers to Bittorrent_Search_Engine. Why didn't you think of that. -- Dodo bird 18:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What do the Swarm numbers mean that some torrent websites give to their torrents? Examples: (1,11) or (2,29). -- Abdull 17:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's seeds to peers (i.e. 1 seed to 11 peers or 2 seeds to 29 peers). FYI, be prepared for a really slow download if that's the case. 204.38.191.99

For a recent assignment (on Bittorrent) I thought up a Formula that calculates the average optimal speed for a Bittorrent connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rformula.JPG

S(A) - Speed of the Average connection L - Number of Leechers in the Swarm S - Number of Seeders in the Swarm U - Average upstream connection speed.

This is probably a dumb question (Google didn't answer it for me, which is always a bad sign...):

Is Bluetooth limited to files transferred via the Internet? Strikes me there might be some benefit in implementing it in other file transfer situations such as e.g. Bluetooth. As I understand it, there are two useful characteristics to BT:

i. distribution of data to reduce loads on servers

ii. the ability to stop and restart downloads without breaking

Let's say your gaming device has a Bluetooth version of BT built into it, which runs in the background. Place a few Bluetooth seeding points in e.g. train stations and provide users with free new movies, clips and games updates on the fly (kinda like an ongoing Easter egg feature). Allow users to watch the progress of the updates and charge them for downloads completed over the Internet (works as a teaser ad, like with movies).

Is this feasible? Attractive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.169.116 ( talk • contribs)

Would be much more feasible to use a wifi access point (which Google will stream ads through in their new public wifi thing) since very few laptops come with built-in bluetooth but just about every laptop comes with built-in wifi. Cynical 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I didn't quite know where to put this- it's a little daunting for a first time Wikipedia commenter. I tried not to destroy anything or make a mess. Anyway I was reading the article and I thought it would be good to have the new SXSW music package of 1000 mp3s added to the 'legal uses of BitTorrent' section. It counters the argument that BitTorrent cannot be used for the music industries benefit.. this allowed 1000 artists to be discovered for free and will help many unsigned bands get much exposure and many of them after attending the festival and having their song in this package have recieved record deals. This means that the record industry will profit off the back of a BitTorrent project effectively. The link was publicised on the BitTorrent.com homepage in association with SXSW and I am really enjoying the free tunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.52.170 ( talk • contribs)

The section

The BitTorrent web-service Prodigem has made available an ability to any web application capable of parsing XML through its standard Representational State Transfer (REST) based interface.

confused me. An ability to what? Ducky 00:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What looked like interesting and potentially valid information was added by 87.103.87.220 [2] without edit comment, and admittedly without any citations either. But then, also without comment and with no cited dis-proving to boot, it was reverted half an hour later by Cynical. What's going on? Is this article 'finished' and no more detail is needed? Did Cynical manage to prove to his/her satisfation that that information was false? If so, why no comment to that effect? Surely a {{fact}} tag could have been added to encourage us all - including the user at 87.103.87.220 - to try to verify the information? Maybe it didn't suit Cynical's POV? Just seems a bit harsh and negative to me. -- Nigelj 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I tidied up this section a few days ago, but as I said in my edit comment at the time, it is an obvious honey-pot for link-spam. There is no way, as time goes by, that this article can hold a link to every legitimate .torrent file that someone, somewhere, would like to publicise. Maybe we need a few most-notable examples here, then a link to a new page where people can compete to list all their links, or maybe not even that - just remove the honey-pot. What do others think? -- Nigelj 10:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if somebody could go into detail about security issues of BitTorrent. A specfic comparison to other P2P applications would be of great benefit to those of us trying to convince our colleagues of the safety of using BitTorrent to distribute large video files.

References 12 and 13 show up to me as: ^ Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified ^ Error on call to template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified Mathiastck 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Encouraged by the 5th pillar of wikidom, I was (perhaps foolishly) bold in updating the How BitTorrent Works section. I found the who section informative, but it seemed to lack a clear beginning or end. I sucked what I felt to be the main juice of the article out and reformed it to add in a beginning and an end, and reword some of the more difficult passages. I appologize to the original author if I stepped on your toes, I tried to maintain your voice as much as possible while adding more structure and references.

I hope it pleases. -- Justinwiley 15:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief segment on broadcatching as a thing to come, but TVTAD ( http://www.tvtad.com/) does indeed do what that paragraph describes, listens to an RSS feed for new releases of series, and auto-starting them for download. If someone could add that to the wiki, itd be great.

85.164.1.105 10:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Etiquette section discussing the theoretical impossibility of a 1.0 ratio on a single torrent is of no practical relevance to anyone and a pointless thought experiment. Therefore I suggest it be completely rewritten or simply removed. It is true that it is impossible for every member of a swarm on a single torrent to reach a 1.0 or higher ratio. However, noone asks you to since most people realize that it is impossible. Private trackers track only a global ratio which is the sum of anything a user uploads or downloads on any torrent he participates in. A user might not get the chance to seed back a specific torrent at all remaining with a 0.0 ratio for that torrent but then get a 2.0 ratio on another torrent which makes up for it. It is perfectly possible for all users of a tracker to have a 1.0 or higher global ratio, both in theory and pracice. Unless someone has major objections, I will rewrite the Etiquette section, removing the irrelevant discussion of ratio on a single torrent.

Begin new comments from -- Spinoza12 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Please see my discussion of this very topic above on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BitTorrent#Etiquette_-_maths

... to see some objections to your post.

In particular this passage

It is perfectly possible for all users of a tracker to have a 1.0 or higher global ratio, both in theory and pracice.

In theory and practice, it is most certainly not.-- Spinoza12 23:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain myself again: All of the maths in the topic above are based on one swarm of one torrent. They are correct and it is indeed impossible for everyone to have 1.0 ratio on that one torrent. Trackers which record and enforce ratio however track your global ratio across all torrents and not single torrent ratios. Now if a user joins a tracker and only ever leeched one torrent from that tracker, the calculations are applicable. Since he was never further interested in the tracker and only wanted to leech that one torrent, he obviously doesn't have to worry about the ratio rules anyway so this type of user is not interesting in a discussion on the possibility of everyone to have a 1.0 ratio.

Furthermore, the type of trackers we are talking about which track and enforce ratios are usually always private, i.e. they require going through a signup procedure or being invited. These procedures create a kind of Internet community, not unlike a forum community which in turn results in the great majority of users being active on the tracker. Some of these trackers also have policies to purge inactive user accounts. Now that we have established that the majority of users are active and leech and then seed back lots of different torrents, the calculations no longer apply. We now have many different swarms on many different torrents. The only ratio that is tracked and enforced is a global one across all those torrents a user participates in. Also consider that the whole thing is a highly dynamic system: New torrents get added constantly which create new swarms, users suddenly decide to leech an old torrent which gives whoever is still seeding that torrent a ratio boost. Some users even upload their own torrents which means they upload a lot of data while not having to download anything which increases a user's global ratio very fast.

To sum it up: On a single torrent with a single swarm there will always be peers which cannot get 1.0 local ratio on that specific torrent. On a tracker with x users and n torrents, all users get a chance to get 1.0 global ratio by participating in any of those n torrent swarms where, over time, the ratio discrepancies between users even themselves out.

Begin comments by -- Spinoza12 08:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC) It is true that on a single torrent the 1.0 ratio is practically and theoretically impossible to enforce. And, if it is true for a single torrent then it must also be true for a collection of torrents.

If a tracker were to purge old and inactive accounts the global average ratio of the remaining accounts would probably increase. But by how much? And would it justify enforcing a 1.0 ratio for all remaining accounts? No one can tell. No one knows. However, if you were to purge all accounts with an average below 1.0 then you would get there eventually. But it would be very hard to get new members and get them to stay.

The gist of if it all is that enforcing global ratios even remotely close to 1.0 is dubious. If I had a tracker and wanted to enforce a close to a 1.0 ratio I would ban clients from uploading on a torrent as soon as each client reaches 1.0 on that torrent. Would that make my tracker better and more popular? Probably not.

What we need to understand is that there's always going to be people who have big and fast up-pipes who doesn't mind seeding for long times, and who would then be doing the swarm a favor but at the same time hurting everyone elses chance of reaching high ratios. This typically happens when new seeds are spawn on a fresh torrent. During the initial seeding phase, when there's only one seeder of a torrent, the tit-for-tat prisoners dilemma algorithm will ensure that clients who upload much also get to download much (and those who upload little get to download less). But this mechanism falls apart totally once there's more than one seed. The Tit-for-tat algorithm does not protect from defecting clients (clients not uploading) once there exists more than one seed.

Bittorrent seeds will then start uploading to the peers who have big download pipes with low latency irrespective of how much these peers upload themselves.

Enforcing ratios is social engineering designed to use bittorrent for something it is not quite so good at; Using it as a semi-permanent storage space. -- Spinoza12 08:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently updated this section. Apart from (attempting to) clarify some statements, the main changes were:

• replacing 'fragment' by 'piece';
• replacing the section about 'rare fragments' (which should be downloaded first) by a section stating that clients download pieces (/fragments) in random order.

Both changes are based on the BitTorrent protocol specification [3], which mentions 'pieces' instead of 'fragments' exclusively, and also contains no mention of 'rare pieces', but does suggest downloading pieces in random order.

All my changes were reverted by Haakon claiming only that "'piece' is not in the bittorrent terminology". I have reverted back to my revision, and before the page is reverted again, I would like Haakon (or anyone else) to provide a source stating that 'fragment' is the proper term, even though the official specification uses the term 'piece'. In this case, please replace the terms in the current revision, instead of reverting it entirely. My contribution contains much more changes (again based on the official specification) than changing this term alone. 130.89.167.52 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, I didn't notice all the other changes. This is what I get for editing first thing in the morning. Very sorry, and thanks for your work. Haakon 15:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The info on share ratio could be clearer, I think. I was trying to work out if each file being downloaded is treated separately, in terms of share ratio, or if having other files with a high share rating (acting as seeds) gives the user a better download global share ratio, and thus faster downloads. From the reference to a global share ratio on certain sites requiring registration, it seems that this is not the case in standard BitTorrent clients, but I'm not quite sure if I've understood this correctly. -- Singkong2005 ^talk 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Trademark notices are not necessary in Wikipedia articles. BitTorrent Inc can not insist on it being there. If the fact that BitTorrent is a trademark is of interest to readers (and at that point in the article), then we should leave it of course; I think it appears as out-of-place legalese which does not belong in an encyclopedia, so I removed it. The VP of Engineering at BitTorrent Inc reinserted it. What do others think? Haakon 11:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe rephrase it to something more encyclopedic, like As with other famous names like Linux, BitTorrent is a registered trademark. or something like that? -- ReyBrujo 11:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I went with a ™ and a footnote - that should keep my legal dept happy and not ugly up the article - does that work for everybody? I'm trying to balance the wikipedia way with the need to keep legal from taking over the issue. Trapper 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to abide by the legal department of your company. Sorry. Haakon 10:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see why it should be included Martijn Hoekstra 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Trapper 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC) OK I've taken the discussion to WP:VPP for a read on trademark policy - trademarks not defended can be lost so this is not somthing I'm willing to let drop. User:Haakon seems unwilling to enter into any meaningful discussion on this - hopfully we can resolve it at the WP policy level. Trapper 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia will try to fetch BitTorrent as a trademark. But IANAL, so I don't know if others can try to trademark it because BitTorrent didn't pursue Wikipedia but had done others. I stand on my opinion that making the sentence a bit more encyclopedic is acceptable. -- ReyBrujo 19:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Think of this the same way open source is licensed - people can use the BT mark subject to a polic and part of that policy is saying on first use that it is a trademark - if folks have no prpoblem with GPL then should not have a problem with this. Further in this cass I think it is important because the article gives the impression the BT is simply the name of a potocol, it's not. It's the name of a product and a company. We could approach it in the headers "This article is about the protocol for the client, see BitTorrent Clientsand for the company that owns the trademark "BitTorrent" see BitTorrent Inc" - does that work? Haakon can you live with that? Trapper 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the suggestions to come out of the Village Pump is to determine if the trademark status is encyclopedic in the sense that it's unexpected for some reason. The thing that might be confusing here is the inclusion of "BitTorrent" in the {{ IPstack}} template which is displayed at the top of the article. I imagine none of the other application-layer protocols have trademarked names. If so, that would be worth mentioning. Melchoir 20:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody put it back - was't me I'm hopeing for a consensus here first Trapper 03:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)