Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2007

Vital missing information

When were the various specs released?

Also, what is the throughput of 1.0, 1.0b, and 1.1, respectively? This article doesn't mention it until 1.2. This is typical of other references on the web-- they're very vague about it. Another site [1] mentions that 1.0/1.0b is 460kpbs and was increased to 721kbps in 1.1. Is this correct?

--Paleozogt 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Radiation

I have heard about all the research on cellular radiation that Motorola et al don't want us to know about. I have experienced the power of that radiation when my cell phone is close by my land phone during conversations on the latter. So how much radiation is my poor brain receiving from my Blue Tooth hearing device when it is on my ear?

I couldn't agree more. Bluetooth article missing health section. A summary of http://www.swedetrack.com/images/bluet05.htm and others (web seek for bluetooth radiation) is needed. --Nkour 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be a great favour on humanity if somebody could dig out info about radiation harm.--Darrendeng 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of the lower level of radiation a Bluetooth headset should probably be better for health versus the full power of a cellphone right beside the head, but in instances where a wired headset is possible and there are no radiation concerns (ie. an MP3 player) perhaps the added exposure so close to the head (particularly by the young) should encourage more research and discussion. Lexor1969 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The current text is the usual alarmist rubbish, pointing to an obscure reference about radar exposition (which essentially reiterates a 10 mW/cm2 limit, way above what Bluetooth implementations are capable of). The rubbish needs to be replaced by some text that clearly indicates that there are no known hazards from low-power 2.4 GHz signals like the ones used by Bluetooth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.154.39 (talk)

Can someone please look into the discrepancy between the high output of bluetooth sated here, and low output as is stated on the main article "Wireless electronic devices and health". The two articles have contrasting descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.252.93 (talk • contribs)

I've looked at it. Regardless of whether there is a health hazard or not, the existing text is complete nonsense, and provides no illumination on the subject. The lone citation contains no relevant information at all -- it says nothing about the 1.5-2GHz range, let alone the 2.4GHz range of Bluetooth. It's about a very different device, for which it found no health hazard, but it would still be irrelevant if it had concluded otherwise. The expression "high output" is meaningless without a reference point. Bluetooth output is lower than that of cell phone radios (except for class 1 Bluetooth, which is about the same as cell phones), and 6 orders of magnitude lower than microwave ovens. So Bluetooth is "low output" relative to them, and "high output" relative to what "mobile device"? Your key chain? I'm replacing the whole text with a "no known hazard" and the reference provided by Darrendeng above, plus a reference or two to studies that leave the door open to a possible hazard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfinlayson (talk • contribs)

Cheers for boldly removing unsourced information, there should be more editors like that. -- intgr 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said that the radiated output of Bluetooth (whether in terms of SAR value or electrical fields)is much higher than other mobile devices needs to get a grip. Class 1 Bluetooth may have power approaching that of mobile phones, but Classes 2 and 3 (the main classes used) operate on much lower levels. The potential for health risks is not much higher (unsourced as well)- a bluetooth gps receiver in your pocket gives off FAR less radiation than your mobile phone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2007

Bluetooth derivation

Does anyone know why a data transmission protocol came to be named after an ancient Danish king? It's not vital to the article, I know, but since somebody has .....asserted that that is the derivation, I'm curious to know more... - IMSoP 22:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've read somewhere on the Internet that the reason could be one of two:

1. The first chip (or whatever) looked like a tooth that was blue.
2. King Bluetooth was known for his communicating skills and in uniting warring tribes (or something like that). It was an apt name for a communications protocol.

Also, the Bluetooth logo was also supposedly taken from the sign (name in their alphabet?) used by the king.

--seav 16:15, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.bluetooth.com/about/ says that the SIG was named after the king because of his role in unifying Denmark and Norway. I'll see if I can find out more and add it to this and the Harold Bluetooth article. -- Kimiko

Found the complete story on http://www.bluetooth.org/bluetooth/landing/btname.php So, yes, the technology is named after the king in honor of his unification of the tribes, and, yes, the logo is made up of the runes (Nordic ones that is) for H and B. I couldn't find any Bluetooth images of something that looked like an actual blue tooth, although some products have a blue extremity. -- Kimiko 19:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Weird: I thought it was because he'd created a (historical first) standard version of the Runes to be used in his kingdom (Harolds Runes) - which makes a lot more sense, since Bluetooth is a communication protocol. His unifying the "tribes" of Norway and Denmark basically amounted to some squallid political intrigues with him claiming the part around modern Oslo and subduing the rest as his vassals... and then losing the whole thing to his son, Sven Forkbeard. O tempora o mores. Problem is I don't have any reference to give to confirm the runes story...

Actually, the correct runes would be G and B. H isn't present in any form I've heard of. It would also make more sense with G being Gift, and one definition of B as Liberty. Gift of Liberty would make sense to me for a wireless protocol. It may not be vital to the article, but there are some people who do want to know. 66.216.148.171 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Jace

The runes are the combination of H and B in the younger futhark rune alphabeth, used in scandinavia.

Origins of "BLUETOOTH"

The essential reason for the well marketed name Bluetooth have little direct connection with Denmark

Bluetooth is a wholly British creation and one of the many examples of British science that makes the UK the leader in science medicine and technology in the world-(official stats please check new pats/advances-(USApop300m- 34%UKpop60m-10.5% Japanpop145m-10% Germany pop 90-5% etcetc)

One of the peculiar characteristics of modern times is how Britain is continually and cleverly "put down"- in the public eye as the worlds leading scientific innovator-as indeed it is put down in almost every other area also -London is now the established centre of banking and business in the world for example outstripping New York while some 18 of the biggest blockbuster films of the last thirty years(all marketed as American ) have been made in London and are by normal measurements British/American

It was therefore important when marketing Bluetooth to find a name that would cleverly distract from any suggestion of its British origins.As Sony Ericcson obviouly has(apparently) Scandinavian origins , a Danish name could easily seem appropriate.

Unfortunately there is a lie involved in this also because the Sony Ericcson organisation operates from London-where its research is based-and is -again from a "real"point of view-as distict from legal technicalities etc a British company

The marketing of Bluetooth is a superb example of the way there is almost a fanatical obssession to prevent Britains scientific eminence from being widely known. The media seem only interested in Britain for its pop music or health scares....a sorry business indeed.....that the British government does nothing to correct.....JP

Incidentally the name Bluetooth was of course choosen carefully by a British marketing consultancy...

The whole thing above from "Origins of Bluetooth" and down to the start of this sentence is wrong.And very much so. The radio technology for Bluetooth was developed by Ericsson in Lund, Sweden. Mossig 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So it says in the article now, but why on Earth would Swedes use the name of a Danish king? You'd think that would be the last place they would look for inspiration. Unless the inventers are Danish-oriented Scanians, the "British company trying to disguise the origin" version certainly sounds more credible... --dllu 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavians are not that nationalistic, especially when it comes to the old sagas about the Viking age. Furthermore, the office of Ericsson where the development of the technology started is in a place of Sweden that was actually a part of Denmark in the times of the king in question. And the book which gave the inspiration for the naming is one of the more famous swedish books. That the origin of the name is as described right now in the article is supported by numerous sources, the fable about the British origin lacks all supporting evidence, and is probably somebodys idea of a joke, or a test of playing with the minds of Wikipedia editors to see how gullible people are. Mossig 20:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction, how can a radio frequency be secure? And is "low-cost" actually supposed to apply to the frequency? 213.23.136.189 13:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The virus was written as a proof-of-concept by a group of virus writers known as 29a and sent to anti-virus groups. Because of this, it should not be regarded as a security failure of either Bluetooth or the Symbian OS. It has not propagated 'in the wild'. Brilliant. "Nobody broke these locks in public this time they really are secure."

This section needs some work:

• The information is out of date.
• External links are imbedded in the text, and in some cases not even identified as external (depending on the skin you use).

See also bluesnarf. Andrewa 14:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the non-existent Waleed algorithm from the Security measures section of the article. It looks like a clueless newbie edited the article on 19 August 2005 and added "waleed" between "SAFER+" and "algorithm", and then some well-meaning editor wikified "waleed algorithm" into a red link on 28 September 2005. Then a spammer followed the red link and created a nearly content-free article on 9 November 2005, with a link to his web site. --DavidConrad 06:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Bluetooth Profiles - own page?

I suggest that the section on Bluetooth Profiles be moved to it own page "Bluetooth profile" as it unnecessary clutters the Bluetooth page, and then could be expanded as well without distracting from the core of Bluetooth itself. Comments? -- Warpedshadow 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done in September 2006 (but under "profile" and not "profiles". I changed your link accordingly). -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth Audio Streaming for Headsets

Hello! I'm a new Wikipedia editor who's done a lot of research on Bluetooth for audio streaming versus for phone headset use and found that it's difficult to find out the consumer reality vis-a-vis A2DP and mobile devices such as MP3 players and Pocket PC's. It took me forever to figure out what works, what doesn't, what I need, and what I need to do. I wanted a heaset that (a) worked as a phone headset with my Pocket PC Phone (Pocket PC 2003 SE), (b) worked as headphones with audio streaming directly from the Pocket PC, and (c) worked as headphones for non-Bluetooth devices. It's quite difficult to understand the differences between the three, and there is probably demand out there for some good information. (Incidentally, I settled with the Plantronics Pulsar 590 Cordless Headset and was able to use it for direct audio streaming after installing a software patch on my Pocket PC. I am quite happy with it.)

Does this type of information fit here (or anywhere)? I know it's helpful because there's just no good resource out there to explain in simple terms to consumers why, for instance, they can't listen to streaming audio on their Bluetooth headset, or why they need an adapter even when their mobile device is Bluetooth- (but not A2DP-) ready.

I wrote the following for a product review. It's written from a first-person point of view, so the format is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but would a more encyclopedia-type version be helpful somewhere in this or another article?

BLUETOOTH AUDIO STREAMING PRIMER

First, a little background on Bluetooth audio streaming for the tech-impaired. Bluetooth is a wireless technology that, unlike infrared, does not require line-of-sight access (meaning that you can keep your MP3 player or phone in your pocket or even in the other room) and, unlike WiFi, is merely a local connection for interaction between two of your personal devices. It has most commonly been used for mobile phone headsets, allowing someone to use such a headset without cords, something that greatly increases usability (as those who've used a corded headset can attest).

I'm on my second Pocket PC Phone (now called Windows Mobile Phone) and have long wanted to have not only cordless access to the phone, but cordless access to the music too. It would seem that if the former can be done, the latter should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, in fact, almost NO Bluetooth headsets can be used for this purpose. There are "Bluetooth headphones" out there that not only have no phone functionality but also don't connect directly with your device but rather with a separate adapter you must connect to the audio port of your device, which partially defeats the entire purpose.

It boils down to Bluetooth "profiles," and the profile used for phone communication is different than the one for audio streaming (known as "A2DP"). What I wanted was a single headset that (a) could communicate directly with my Pocket PC as a phone headset, (b) could communicate directly with my Pocket PC as headphones to listen to music or for watching videos, and (c) could communicate with my non-Bluetooth MP3-player via the audio port.

THIS headset DOES accomplish all three of these things...with one caveat. The device you're using to stream audio MUST be Bluetooth enabled WITH the A2DP profile in order to stream directly to the headphones without having to pass through a separate go-between device.

As of March 2006, only a few Pocket PC's, MP3 players, and other mobile devices have this A2DP profile; most Bluetooth phones (mine included) only allow for phone-headset use. Thus, I had to find and download a patch for my Pocket PC's Bluetooth stack to add this functionality. Fortunately, this solution worked easily and flawlessly, which is important given that unofficial patches in general (for other needs/devices) have caused me headaches more often than not.

If you are using a Pocket PC 2003 Second Edition and it uses the "Widcomm/Broadcom Bluetooth stack," search on "Broadcom Bluetooth Stack Patch for PDA2k Pocket PC Phones" in a web search-engine and the first link or two will allow you to download this patch. You CANNOT use this patch if you have the Microsoft Bluetooth Stack.

How do you know which stack you have? Turn off Bluetooth by clicking on it and selecting "Turn Bluetooth Off." If you see a red X in the lower right-hand corner, you have the Widcomm/Broadcomm stack. If you see a line through the Bluetooth icon, you have the Microsoft stack and cannot use this patch—in other words, no audio streaming for you!

Windows Mobile 5.0 will, beginning soon, have built-in A2DP functionality; otherwise, implementation is spotty across the market. And don't buy a Windows Mobile 5.0 device expecting that you can download an update to give you A2DP. It's up to each manufacturer whether to release such an update, as Windows Mobile is specific to the design of the device, and you may end up out of luck.

Any thoughts?

Cory Fryling 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention - my phone (Motorola A1200 MING) does have this functionality (stereo music over bluetooth) but does not want to send music to my bluetooth headset (mono speaker + microphone). This is not a technical limitation of bluetooth but simply a matter of implementation; I know this because there's a hack that lets me send music to my headset. Fry-kun 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth vs Wi-Fi

I've added a bit to the Bluetooth vs Wi-Fi section, as well as cleaning the heading (it's not just companies that use this stuff).

• Some of the claims I find dubious (Wi-Fi isn't Ethernet??), and the blatant ease-of-use argument is plain missing. I've been working in IT for 10 years and I'd much rather use BT to transfer my business card to another person than set up a FTP, SMTP or perhaps SNMP server to handle the request?
  • Why no, Wi-Fi certainly isn't ethernet. Ethernet is defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard, with sub-standards per speed (10, 100, 1000, etc.) It has a very simple topology and utilizes electric signaling. Wi-Fi is the technologically unrelated 802.11 standard, with a more complex topology and, most importantly, electromagnetic signaling. The only reason you might think that Wi-Fi and ethernet are the same thing is if you use "ethernet" as a word meaning "networking equipment," which is no more accurate than saying you googled something on MSN. Nentuaby 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that Wi-Fi transports IEEE 802.3 frames (perhaps with extensions to allow hand-overs and roaming?). Thus, even if the 'physical' layer is technologically different between 802.1/2/3 and 802.11, the Link layer is identical or nearly identical. It depends on your definition of 'Ethernet', in that case. If you take 'Ethernet' to denote only Layer 1, then Ethernet and Wi-Fi are entirely different (but this isn't made clear in the article). Alexios Chouchoulas 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Bluetooth makes it simple, why is nobody mentioning this?

Lipatden 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Patent Dispute

On 4th January, 2006, Google News pointed to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003506916_bluetooth030.html, which describes a dispute about Bluetooth patents. Patent number 7,149,191 (Johansson-Gardenfors, et al.) has 6 Suominen patents references, the earliest of which is 5,926,513 (Suominen; Edwin A. (Phoenix, AZ), Voboril; Charles J. (Fountain Hills, AZ)), filed January 27, 1997. According to Bluetooth, the specification was developed in 1994. If this is the earliest of the Ed Suominen patent that is referred to in the news article, Bluetooth may not be in as much hot water as the news article implies. Gringer 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions about connections

I have 3 questions:

• The article doesn't make clear it if inside of a piconet the transfers between masters are slaves are made in both ways or if only the master can broadcast and the slave receive. (it says "data can be transferred between the master and 1 slave" but I don't know if that between means both ways)

Could a slave send data to its master? If so, does the slave exchange roles with its master when transmitting or doesn't need to?

• If there are only two devices, is there a master/slave configuration? or that scenario occurs only on piconets? If there are no master/slave how is each device identified?

• Can a piconet have more than 1 device working as a master/slave connecting to another piconet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.11.144.176 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

BT Audio Gateway

Audio Gateway in one service supported by BT. It is not mentioned in the article. I believe it should.

--Xerces8 09:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the audio distribution profiles? Bluetooth profiles are documented in the Bluetooth profile article, which currently includes Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) and General Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP). -- intgr 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Beauknit reference -- truth or myth?

I can't find any reference on the Internet regarding the Beauknit logo... at least, any reference that doesn't look like a recycled version of this article. Can anyone cite a reference on this? ---Ransom (208.25.0.2 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Bluetooth dongle

I've added the section Bluetooth#Computer Requirements - please someone inspect it. Just remember there's no Bluetooth without a dongle... -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Multi-link

How many can Bluetooth devices can I use in the same time? Does it matter which specific Bluetooth dongle I have or only which Bluetooth version is it made of? -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know more about this. IIRC, the article mentions it in passing ("Simultaneous transmission from the master to multiple other devices is possible, but not used much") but doesn't go into any further detail. I'd love to be able to use 2-3 bluetooth headsets to listen to (same) music, e.g. going for a walk with a friend and sharing same mp3 player. Didn't research a lot into this, maybe it already exists..? Fry-kun 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of innaccuracy

I removed the line "The name "Blue Tooth" can be attributed to the infamous altercation between young Jarmsie Davis and J. Beard in Autumn, 2003."

It is not only irrelevant (it was in the section "Bluetooth Profiles"), but it also completely contradicts the section "Origin of the Name and Logo"

ElementC 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention games consoles.

I have removed the reference to gaming consoles at the bottom (not the top), simply because I believe it's not important for this article, and the information is in the wrong section (Nintendo and Sony are simply using Bluetooth technology, they are ot part of the consortium.) Also, the information does not make any citations.

Information about these consoles and their respective controllers should be in their own articles, and not in the general Bluetooth article just because they utilize the technology.--Coolbho3000 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi in networking

This article doesn't seem to explain the difference (and relative merits and problems) between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi very well - specifically that Bluetooth is more analogous to USB and Personal Area Networks (and the smaller range associated with those technologies) whereas Wi-Fi is more analogous to Ethernet and Local Area Networks (and the greater range). Anyone object to rewriting that section? Sbiki 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth Profiles link?

I would like to see a more prominent link to the Bluetooth profiles page. Currently, it's only referenced as a "See other" link at the bottom. Kquainta> 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My phone plan does not include text, pic messaging, etc., over att's data network. would it cost me extra to use my phone's bluetooth capabilities to send pics, videos, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.42.164 (talk) 01:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a support forum. No, Bluetooth does not cost anything since it doesn't go through the provider. -- intgr ^#%@! 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Basic stuff

Is the bluetooth signal digital or analogue, and how is the radio wave modulated - FM or AM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.148.47.124 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Digital. Neither. Or rather, it is GFSK modulated, so it is a kind of FM, but that name is most often used for the analog use of the modulation tech. Mossig 10:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

references

I added a reference for the information on bluetooth's range, and I also provided references for some other uncited information.

I'm working on a device with a class 2 bluetooth chip, so I needed to clear up a few things regarding the range, and I figured in the meantime I might as well contribute to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2kx (talk • contribs)

Thanks! Note that I reverted your answers.com reference since it's a Wikipedia mirror, and thus not a reliable source. -- intgr ^#%@! 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Two or one linux stack ?

The article claims there are two BT stacks for linux, but then mention only one.

--Xerces8 07:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Un-needed commas, bad grammar

The article overall tends to read like it was written by someone who speaks Japanese with a lot of the word "a" being omitted -- not that that's a major problem, it just makes the text not flow cleanly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredricRice (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead link in footnotes

The first footnote (under "Rerefences") gives a 404 error.

--Xerces8 07:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that!

Andreasbecker 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no mention of the term "interoperability" which is the key to Bluetooth

I am surprised that there is no mention of the term "interoperability" which is the key to Bluetooth

I am actively doing research on this field, and I will consider adding a section pretty soon.

Likely because Bluetooth isn't particularly "interoperable" or "universal," which is the most serious flaw with the technology. With USB, the OS simply needs the appropriate drivers. With Bluetooth, you must have a bluetooth receiver and stack which support the appropriate profiles for your device, and you must have drivers for the bluetooth device. In some cases, the applications you are using must be compatible with the bluetooth stack you've chose, as well. This is the reason that, while relatively common in cellphones and other devices which are developmentally static, Bluetooth is rarely implemented in desktop and laptop computers. 66.167.51.233 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Name Of It

I just can't get it out of my head, why would something like this be called bluetooth. What puzzles me more is that there was a tv series in english, which was supposedly takin place in France during WWII, and the english was supposed to be french. Most characters were french but there were few british agents, and they all speaked english. But british characters were speaking realy lausy english. There was an english spy who cold her self blueteath which could actualy be bluetooth in "poor french".

Is there any connection beetwen this name and inteligence?

Or, if not, why is it called bluetooth?

mimosveta

Actually, it's already in the article, buried way down at the bottom under "Origin of the name and the logo". Seems like it should be mentioned in a few words (e.g., "named for King Herald Bluetooth of Denmark") in the lead section, possibly with a link to the appropriate section. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick link fix

Somewhere (was a very quick fix and i dont remember exactly where, so check edits if you want) it said "code name Seattle" and linked to the page of Seattle, WA. I removed this link because it seemed fairly irrelevant to link to the city.

76.200.119.77 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this aritcle needs to take a course in technical writing.

I am a technical writer, but I just can't edit this piece. I tried, but I don't know enough about Bluetooth to properly write about it. I will end up leaving out important things if I am left to do the honors here.

If someone understands Bluetooth better than I do, then go to it. Please -- I beg of you -- please avoid using words like "connectivity," "bandwidth," and "throughput." Figure out how to use simpler words that are more meaningful. I hope that someone out there can dumb down the language here, so that the average Wiki reader can get more out of this article.

Thank you.

SammyJames (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)SammyJames

I think that this article needs to be re-written so that it doesn't sound like an 8th grader wrote it. Example:

Wi-Fi is more like traditional Ethernet networks, and requires configuration to set up shared resources, transmit files, and to set up audio links (for example, headsets and hands-free devices). It uses the same radio frequencies as Bluetooth, but with higher power output resulting in a stronger connection. Wi-Fi is sometimes called "wireless Ethernet." This description is accurate, it also provides an indication of its relative strengths and weaknesses. Wi-Fi requires more setup, but is better suited for operating full-scale networks because it enables a faster connection, better range from the base station, and better security than Bluetooth.

Problems with flow, punctuation, incorrect word usage. I think this article needs to be flagged for a clean up.Kakomu (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)