Talk:LimeWire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wait, I have a question...

wait... so my relatives use this in a different country, so they cant be sued right? The US supreme court cant sue someone in another country, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizkid357 (talk • contribs)

You can't get sued just for using the program. If you use it to infringe copyright, some rights organisation in your own country can either send a complaint to your ISP, which may in turn forward that complaint to you with a polite warning, or they may attempt to get a court order to make the ISP disclose your identity so they can request money from you under threat of litigation. In most countries none of these are going to happen. On a sidenote, Wikipedia talk pages are generally for discussion of article content, not for general Q/A :-) Haakon 20:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So if I download songs and put them on my iPod is that illegal? --Steven91 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But, is downloading songs and listening to them an infringement of copyright? Julz

That depends on your jurisdiction. Distribution is illegal in most countries, downloading is illegal in some. Check your country's copyright laws. Haakon 00:28, 18 [June 2006 (UTC)

Free Software?

- "LimeWire is a free and open source, released under the GNU general public license"

free software Gronky 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Limewire Java

Correct link Vorash 17:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

and what about linux? on Linux ususally rpm package is used no ? Vorash 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean doubts about content ? Do you want to say that Sun's JVM has the same version for all platforms ? Excuse me ...how could it be ? Its a different platform and different exe file !!! JVM of PC can't run on MAc !! Its impossible !!! Vorash 16:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that at all. Obviously the Java binaries for each system are different. However, the LimeWire install packages do NOT install the Java JRE. It only installs the platform-independent .jar and related configuration files and maybe a small boot program. Under Linux, the "limewire" executable installed by the rpm is a simple batchfile that chains to "bootLime.sh" which in turn launches Java and so on.

Please note that the bare OS-independent download is about 4 Mb; this is just the .jar and related config files. The install packages are 1 to 2 Mb larger. A Java JRE install is 15-20 Mb in size. Do the math yourself. -- Viajero | Talk 17:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't install any Java JRE FULL 15-20mb package. I downloaded Limewire and it installed basic "J2SE Runtime Environment 5.0 Update 1" which size is aproximatly 1mb (when compressed). I also uninstalled both java and Limewire (it also deleted "Java" directory), and installed LimeWire again to be 100% sure. And again after LimeWire instalation it installs "J2SE Runtime Environment 5.0 Update 1". YOu also don't need my opinion !! YOu can uninstall Java on your computer , to download LimeWire installation and to see by yourself how it istalls JAva!!Vorash 17:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It makes a sense, because if Installer doesn't install Java you will see the note on download.com about "Java" requirements. Download.com will not publish any software that requires additional uncommon software components, without prior warning. See by yourself - programs that require java have in their "Minimum requirements" "Java Development Kit" note on download.com. Link1 ,but LimeWire 4.8 dosn't have this note in "Minimum requirements". Vorash 20:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm......and finally : Limewire on its site claims, that Windows installer includes JRE :))) Vorash 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hah! If you look closely it says the JRE installer. I got a message back from a lead LimeWire dev and here is his explanation:

On Windows, the LimeWire installer will install JRE 1.5 if it detects the machine doesn't have Java, or has a version of Java below 1.4.1. All Macs come pre-installed with Java, so the Mac installer doesn't do anything. The Linux installer also doesn't attempt to install Java.

The Windows JRE installation goes in a few steps. We ship Sun's tiny stub-installer, which will contact Sun and download the appropriate parts for the JRE. If that doesn't work, we'll download a compressed version of the JRE from our site and try a full install. Both of those are installed silently. If neither worked, we'll try doing a full-blown non-silent JRE install also.

So, in fact you and I are both right. You are correct in saying that the LimeWire Windows package installs Java; I am correct in saying that Java is not included in the distros. :)

FWIW, he also adds this:

you probably should also mention that you can download the code from limewire.org and build & run it yourself (or download the prepackaged zip file) and it will work on any computer with Java. The installers are really just packaging, for ease of use for the casual consumer.

I have updated the article accordingly. Does it look ok now? -- Viajero | Talk 17:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we can shorten a passage about windows installer and remove versions's numbers (because its only a current state). In return important info about Macs's Java preinnstallation can be added.Vorash 06:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

Hi! I noticed that you have been reverting the edits that the anon ip 62.194.17.184 (talk · contribs) made to the LiveWire article. I have now warned this IP that he/she is in violation of the three revert rule. At the moment the last edit to this article is another revert by this IP, which I have not reverted (if I am to block him on the 3RR at some point in the future I should stay out of the debate). I suggest that you don't revert this edit either, as that would put you in violation of the 3RR too, but you might want to open a discussion about these edits on the talk page for this article. JeremyA 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy. As I understand it, the 3RR does not apply to reverting clear and obvious vandalism, so either of us can (and should) act in this case to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. (I have already done so.) Pretending that a known and documented harmful spyware application is harmless is one of the nastiest, most anti-social activities one could possibly undertake on the 'pedia, and a long-term block is usually appropriate for it. In this case, I am assuming good faith on the part of the user, and have chosen to block for only 24 hours. But I (or any other admin) should stand ready to apply a mch longer block if the offences continue.

Essentially, there are three levels of anti-social behaviour on Wikipedia:

• Simple bad edits. These can be a pain, but usually fall into the content dispute arena, blocking is not normally appropriate.
• Vandalism that damages Wikipedia pages (blanking, inserting nonsense, etc.) For this, we warn, and if need be we block, usually for 24 hours, sometimes less, or longer for gross violations, especally if repeated.
• Vandalism that threatens to harm Wikipedia readers, such as infecting them with viruses, or as in this case, spyware. This is the worst of the three categories.

I'm not sure if 62.194.17.184 intended harm or not — in fact, I suspect not — but regardless of his motivations, the consequences of his actions were clearly and squarely in that third category. I have placed the following message on his user talk page:

It is not acceptable to make and promote external links to known viruses or spyware products. This is not fair or reasonable, and exposes Wikipedia readers to an unacceptable risk of infection. Limewire is something of a special case, as it now claims to have reformed, and no longer be spyware. Nevertheless, even if the latest version is legitimate, Limewire is a known and documented cause of damage to people's systems and needs to be dealt with very carefully.

When your 24 hour block expires, you are welcome to return to Wikipedia, but you must edit with due care for the welfare of other readers or you will be blocked again. 3 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

Tannin 3 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

This is not software that I have either used or investigated, so I'll take your word for it. JeremyA 3 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, part of my job to deal with the consequences of Limewire and other similar infections. We see the destruction it causes every week. Tannin

POVs

Program that contains Spyware cannot be classified as spyware ! "Spyware" is software component/secondary programs, it is not an end-user program !. THere are 1000s of free programs that contain adware/spyware components, but these programs are usually not classified as "Spyware". See Category:Spyware for components that can be classified as spyware. Vorash 3 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Also LimeWire is not containg any spyware right now. THe most reliable source for this info is download.com, because they check every program before releasing it to public, and if program contains "spyware" they write in notes about it. Vorash 3 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

If you download it and your machine is infected, then it is spyware. Simple as that. Pretending that the other components are somehow "not part of it" is absurd. Sure, they may be contained in different DLLs and written by different prgrammers, but the package you get is the package you get. I suppose you are now going to tell me that there is no water in Coke. Hey - they just add the water later, don't they? It's not really a part of the drink, is it?

The point is, what do you get when you download the progrm. Arcane programmers' issues are not relevant here. What is relevant is that this is a program (which may or may not be reformed now - they say is is now clean, but do we believe them, seeing as we know they have a track record of lying to and tricking people) that, if you install it, will infect your computer. Tannin 3 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

I don't understand what we actually discuss here ?? Do you have any evidence that the program contains spyware ?? If not, why it should be classified as spyware ? Vorash 3 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)

read the links in the text. Tannin 3 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Link that you provided says: "Limewire (Current versions of Limewire are clean. Older versions bundled spyware) " Link. We are not talking about versions that were released two years ago, we are talking about current state. Vorash 3 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. This is an encyclopedia, a compendium of human knowledge, and we do our best to describe what is known. We know that Limewire was spyware, we know that it cost countless thousands (millions?) of computer users time, money, and privacy violations, we know that it is a product produced by a group that has a known and documented track record of dishonesty and, not to put to ofine a point on it, fraud — for that is what spyware is essentially all about, fraud.

This is a very significant and important thing to mention about any company, group or person. Whatever the current status of Limewire, it will be forever tainted by its sleazy past. Failing to mention it, and mention it prominently, would be to mislead the reader. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Tannin 4 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)

I updated the page a bit to be POV neutral. There's no reason to use scaremongering. LimeWire is free of any spyware or bundled software and has been for over a year. If you want to say it used to, then do so in a educational fashion, not in a way that scares. I also removed the links to "Computer Associates", because their product (PestPatrol) is one of the worst, if not the worst, spyware-finding programs out there. It classifies everything and it's mother as spyware. If you want an accurate view, use a reputable program such as AdAware, Spybot, or Microsoft Anti-Spyware. I also removed the category of spyware, since it is no longer spyware. I also removed the other link about spyware, because it was further fearmongering, listing LimeWire under "infected" (with the fact that it no longer is only in small print). Remember, you can state the truth and the history without your opinion creeping in. That's what Wikipedia is for. 68.175.72.61

Tannin, would you like to please state your agenda? Writing a NPOV article is not being a fanboy. Writing an article that clearly ignores the current state of affairs (writing as if it were two years ago) is also not NPOV. Please write an article without trying to scare people. I would very much appreciate if you would cease your defamation attempts and allow Wikipedia to present the clear, concise and current facts. 216.27.158.74

Tannin wrote above:

We know that Limewire was spyware,

Fine, we should and do now mention this.

No, you are trying to hide it way down in the body text

No one is trying to hide it. The introductory paragraph of something should not describe the history of it from two years ago, it should describe the current state.

we know that it cost countless thousands (millions?) of computer users time, money, and privacy violations,

This is spyware in general, not specifically LimeWire, right? This should be mentioned in the spyware article, not here.

No, Limewire itself. It has caused massive problems, notably with spam.

Please detail _exactly_ what spam problem LimeWire causes. To my knowledge, there is none.

we know that it is a product produced by a group that has a known and documented track record of dishonesty and, not to put to ofine a point on it, fraud

Please provide citations please, otherwise this qualifies as original research -- Viajero | Talk 6 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Nonsense. See the references I already gave. They provide ample proof - which you have not even tried to deny.

There are no reputable references. You've pointed to a single source (Computer Associates) which has been proven to be inaccurate and out of date. Others have pointed to many other sources that give LimeWire a clean bill of health.

As one of those who develops LimeWire and the one who builds the LimeWire installers, I find your statements to be everything from insulting to outright slander. You clearly have a personal vendetta. Take it off of Wikipedia.

Spyware

Before we add that it is bundled with "spyware", we need to include which computer security experts consider it to tbe spyware. -SocratesJedi | Talk 6 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

All of them. If you don't know whaqt Limewire is, you are obviously no expert. Tannin

This is incorrect. Neither AdAware, Spybot Search & Destroy, nor Microsoft Anti-Spyware classify LimeWire as spyware nor adware. Neither does industry experts, such as Ben Adelman. Neither do third-party sources who scour their software prior to listing, such as download.com. I do know what LimeWire is, and I am an expert.

You are obviously talking about the current version. Tannin 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

The current version is the version that should be described in the most detail, and first. Historical facts should be duly noted at some point in the article. There should be no attempt at fearmongering, nor should there be an attempt at whitewashing.

Tannin, lighten up. You are turning this page into a personal crusade, which is entirely inappropriate. If you don't like P2P apps like LimeWire, that is your POV. -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

I disagree. Historical facts should be available regardless of how bad it may have been or how good/bad it may be today. I can't imagine any encyclopedia article that would omit significant historical facts.- Jim 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On what evidence do you base that smear/accusation? Tannin

Don't spout nonsense! You are the one trying to whitewash this program, which is famous throughout the computer industry as a source of nasty infections. There are plentiful references to demonstrate this. See, for example, Spyware Weekly Newsletter November 24, 2004 at Spyware Info, or read this typical educational institution [policy document ], noting carefully the description of the product: "LimeWire automatically installs LimeShop, which monitors your on-line purchases and redirects sales commissions belonging to other referring sites to LimeWire. Uninstalling LimeWire does not automatically remove LimeShop." There is any amount of evidence out there. All you have to do is look for it. Or talk to any competent computer tech. Tannin 8 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

User Tanin watch your language !! You already violated 3RR rule now you starting to insult people ! Vorash 8 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

You are the one making the accusations. You watch your language. Where is your evidence for the accusation you made? I am trying to maintain a balanced and honest article which properly warns our readers about a dangerous product. You are trying to hide documented public facts, which is one thing, and facts which, if hidden, could cause direct harm to Wilkipedia readers, which is another thing altogether.

I am unaware of violating the 3R rule. If I have done so, please revert me. Tannin 8 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)

All your expressions like "Don't spout nonsense", "whitewash this program", "revert fanboy whitewash" are insultments !! Nobody trying to whitewash this program, its you that trying to scare people ! You also don't have any respect for the obvious consensus against your opinion. I don't understand what's the purpose of your reverts ?? Limewire will never be listed in category spyware because your minor "unusual" opinion is not supported by majority of editors of this article. Vorash 8 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the "majority of editors", it is about documented, verifiable facts. These I have provided. Why are you ignoring them? Is it because I'm lonely?Tannin

Tannin, LimeWire no longer contains any spyware, bundled software, or anything of the like you have repeatedly mentioned. It is wrong to pretend that it is the most important thing that should be mentioned. The fact that LimeWire used to be bundled with it is important, yes, but not such a terribly important thing that it deserves first mention. In your haste to revert, you have included truly wrong information (the wrong edit that LimeWire is proprietary, which it is not -- the source is fully at www.limewire.org). Please take a step back, take a deep breath, and look at what is important in this article. It is designed to give information about LimeWire, which includes not only the program, but the open-source nature, the distribution mechanism it allows, the current state of the program, the features it has brought to Gnutella, AND the fact it used to bundled with spyware. Your gibberish about the "documented, verifiable facts" is just that -- gibberish -- they're facts about the past, not the present. They belong as historical facts, information the user can look at and use while developing their own opinion about LimeWire. You have continuously written bogus information (such as saying LimeWire is a source of spam, which is an outright lie), and included wrong edits (that I mentioned above, with the proprietary client). I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's processes to know how to prevent problem users from continuously and wrongly editing an entry, but should you continue to ignore the information and dialogue that everyone else is presenting, it may become necessary to learn. User:Kynes

First, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy re factual accuracy and responsibility to readers. The web is littered with evidence of the guilt of Limewire. Here is another one: http://www.spywarehub.com/News/kazaa_Stealing.htm and there are any number of others. You are the problem user here, as you keep on removing the evidence against what appears to be your favourite program. This is seriously irresponsible behaviour on your part.

Secondly, it is the most important thing, by far the most important thing to mention, as it has the potential to directly harm Wikipedia readers, and also as it is the thing that Limewire is most notable for. Tannin 8 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

You appear to be the only editor here who has such profound problems with the past history of LimeWire. The web may be littered with evidence of history past, but that is because most webpages are not updated with the frequency of Wikipedia. It is everyone's duty on Wikipedia to ensure that articles are kept up to date with the most current information, despite other sources not updating as quickly. You are preventing Wikipedia from providing the user with the most current information, and are instead dwelling on scary facts that have already been resolved. Allow the LimeWire article to continue to evolve. No one has attempted to remove any "evidence" of spyware, everyone except you has instead attempted to place the information where it duly belongs. User:Kynes

Tannin: The information about past versions of LimeWare is interesting but not fundamental in the way that your version of the lead suggests. The "potential to directly harm Wikipedia readers" only applies to versions released more than 14 months ago. The hostility that flowed from the use of spyware in this application is worthy of note and would have merited detailed attention in the lead in 2003 but things have moved on since then. I have tried to reflect both sides in the lead whilst moving your detailed criticisms lower in the article. I would like to see the "computer experts" sourced, however. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

I have updated the page to remove lots of duplicate information (the constant edit/reverts were leaking sentences left and right). The introductory paragraph now still contains the spyware mention, though it is getting a little large. I think it should be split into two (the historical spyware mention being a second paragraph so it stands out more and the reader isn't presented a blob of text). Since the spyware category is still being disputed, I left in the NPOV that Vorash added. Let's please resolve that. LimeWire may have contained it in the past, but it certainly does not now. It should not be categorized as spyware. I also edited the SHA1 additions from Theo, mentioning that LimeWire also uses Tiger Tree hashes for downloads, so it is not as vulnerable as one may think. More information about the format that LimeWire uses is at http://open-content.net/specs/draft-jchapweske-thex-02.html , but I wasn't sure where/how to link to that. The incorrect fact that LimeWire was proprietary was still in the article, so I removed that, and re-included the mention that LimeWire is GPL (which is certainly important). Perhaps we should also include mention of other programs that have branched off from LimeWire's code (such as LionShare: http://lionshare.its.psu.edu/main/ ). User:Kynes

Regarding the status of spyware bundle history in the limewire article

Even if Limewire continued to be dangerous, it is not necessarily the most important fact. For example, Uranium is very dangerous if improperly handled, but the page does not discuss that first because it is not the most important aspect of Uranium. Indeed, it is nowhere noted in the header. Similarily, any bundled spyware is not the most important aspect of Limewire, the fact that is is a commonly used P2P program on the Gnutella network is. If it has past history, then of course in due course the article should discuss it with appropriate citation and I invite you to make those changes with appropriate peer review at a proper place in the article because it seems like something you care about and would enjoy. Can you work with the community to produce an article on LimeWire that keeps the most important issues first (P2P, Gnutella, popularity, how it works, etc) and then include a detailed history on the spyware status from inital release to the present day? The article would benefit from this layout. If you disagree, I'll be happy to further discuss, but I think this is a fairly good plan. Do you agree? -SocratesJedi | Talk 9 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Agree Vorash 9 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

A P2P program is not Uranium. To my knowledge one cannot download Uranium from the internet two minutes after reading about it on Wikipedia. --JRandomLoser 00:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I got WinFixer, the terrible pain in the you know what virus/adware/spyware w/e it is from the free version of Limewire off the limewire site. Apparently the Pro Version does not contain this.

Resolution

The hysteria surrounding this article seems to have died down. Tannin has posted his request to settle this on the Administrators' noticeboard and was responded to negatively (in the sense that it is a content dispute and other editors correctly noted it no longers contains bundled software). With this in mind, I would like to remove the NPOV categorization, since we seem to have resolved the disputes. There are also a lot of unnecessary links and references. The "Obfuscated XML" reference, for example, is unnecessary -- there's no mention of XML in the article, even. The 'SHA1 Break Rumored' and 'Hash Function attack roundup' both link to the same content (on different pages), so I would like to remove one of them. Also, I think we can get rid of various spyware external links -- this is an article about LimeWire, not about spyware. If someone wants to learn about that, they can visit the spyware page. If someone does want to keep a reference to LimeWire's spyware status, I recommend that it not be the 'eTrust Encylopedia entry', since that is ages old and has been completely irrelevent for the past year and the foreseable future. The 'LimeWire Review' link is also 4 years old, and the program has changed drastically since then, so that one can probably go also. If there are no objections to this, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes tomorrow morning. You're all welcome to make the changes also. Kynes 20:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There is to be no original research. Can you provide any sources, news stories, etc? Haakon 15:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Why yes i can but some one delete the link here my link i found on the web.[[1]]

Thanks. Spam is not unheard of on major file sharing networks, and this seems to be just one instance of spam. To avoid it, do not download files that are unrealistically small (for instance, 300KB for a four minute long song is way too small and is always spam or a trojan. I use LimeWire and steer clear of tiny files like that, and I have never encountered what you are talking about. Haakon 10:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Efree is spam definintely. It's hard to avoid dowloading if you're working at Mach speed for unfamiliar tracks. No room Mr. smarty pants. He might's well be in cahoots. The liberal dickwads at efree, how come their web address is a buncha BS. Real spam at least directs you somewhere. Efree is an effete batch of downloaded Make Fun of Bill Clinton Voiceovers that I don' Need on my iTunes. Eff the those guys.

It only takes one second amendment homie to find you. In that spirit, keep leaving the bait, white boy.

itunes integration

What does the itunes integration on their site mean?

A networked playlist appears in itunes with your limewire music. Thepcnerd 07:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Version bundled software was removed

I was just reading the changelog for limewire, and it lists that the bundled software was removed in version 3.9.4, on 4.20.2004, i am going to change the main page to reflect this, can somebody double check this though? thanks. Deltantor 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions about LimeWire

If you have a query about the program itself, go to their website - google for "LimeWire". Do not replace other people's posts with your quesns, either. Killfest2 04:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be in the article

I know that Limewire might/will damage videos that you watch when limewire is running. For example lets say you are watching a music video on lets say winamp, lets just say. Then not only will you see that the video moves slower and the sound moves at normal speed but also that even if limewire is turned off then there might be permanent damage to the video file. But I dont have any refs to add I just know from personal experience. And if you dont believe me then just try it yourself make a dubble of some video files. After that start limewire let it run for maybe 30 min and download stuff, and watch some videos at the same time, do this for a few weeks then compare the copies you made with the untouched files and see for yourself. But again I have no refs and no other proof so I dont know how to add it to the article FishHeadAbcd 15:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No it should not. ChuckDizzle 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not it is a good warning, Do not play video files when running the program otherwise they might get damage. It is in no way meant as something bad about the program just that people should not play video files when the program is running, otherwise people will learn it the hard way. For example warning do not drink and drive, warning do not play video files when Limewire is running, you migh regret it. FishHeadAbcd 19:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for warnings. It's also not for total nonsense. Chris Cunningham 07:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's common sense to just copy and paste the file in a different folder and then let the file play.--ChuckDizzle 22:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Limewire Sued

According to a number of reports posted within the last hour or two, the RIAA and a coalition of record companies have sued LimewireLLC--see (for example) Yahoo News, News One --JWMcCalvin 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertiser?

Anybody else besides me notice that link purporting to give away limewire PRO? Not sure if it does or not, (not interested in bricking my system) but the page looks suspicious, doesn't link to the official Limewire site (links to limewire.org instead, a dead link), and contains a complete rip of the Wikipedia article.

Not sure if anyone cares. 70.233.130.184 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it run on free software?

I know that Limewire itself is free software, but does anyone know if it depends on non-free software?

It depends on a JVM, but there are free Java implementations, such as Kaffe and GCJ, and there are non-free Java implementations, such as Sun's.

Can the free software JVMs be used to run Limewire? I would like to mention this in the article. Gronky 00:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)