User talk:GRAHAMUK/Archive 5

ABBA the Movie

Hi Graham. Sorry about that... It´s a big news for me to know about The name of the game video. I thought just the other (from Gold video) was used as promocional video. fizzerbear 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Very nice the addition of "original" about the promo video of TNOTG... now it sounds better.

fizzerbear 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well-designed

Although this may be a widely held view, it is controversial; I think my iPod is definitely innnovative, but in some ways poorly designed, e.g. its short battery life and inability to record voice or radio. "Well-designed" sticks out at me like a sore thumb as I read the opening paragraph, and seems to invite contradiction. And I can see no purpose to including the adjective, besides for promoting or glorifying Apple. From the NPOV page: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Am I wrong? thejabberwock 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I see your point. But not sure about your example - as the iPod was never originally designed to be a radio or record voice, you can't really say it's badly designed as a result. Later models address the issues you mention in various ways, while leaving the door open for third party accessories, which is one way Apple helps the iPod dominate the market. My toaster can't record voice or play radio either, but it makes fine toast. OTOH the iPod is very well designed for its function, both the physical device and its software, and that's not just my view, but of many commentators in the media, etc. That also goes for many of Apple's other products. They do pride themselves on good design, so while I agree that they may fall short of perfection quite often, they are probably better (and in the view of many pundits, are better) than the average in the industry. Graham 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree that Apple is "better than the average in the industry." But I think that subjective statements, even if held by a majority, should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Again, the adjectives do not serve an encyclopediac purpose, and they seem to go against this guideline. thejabberwock 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Virgin Blue 737.jpg

Greetings. Way back in 2003, you uploaded Image:Virgin Blue 737.jpg and tagged it as pd. I was wondering why it's PD. Did you take the photo yourself? (Do you remember?) Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should probably be changed to PD (self made). But it was uploaded long before the recent copyright paranoia set in. WP can have it with my blessing. Graham 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cassette Deck reply

I think the question was probably, "How much does a cassette deck cost in India?". Without additional information it is unanswerable, and probably inappropriate as well (because it doesn't discuss the article). I appreciate your humor, but don't think it clarified the issue. If you wish to attempt an answer to an evident newbie, be my guest. --Blainster 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, well, I can't see how I could answer that, if that was indeed the question! I thought it was something to do with the dust question which was already there, which is maybe why I couldn't make sense of it. Oh well, no harm done - if the poster wants to try again, he probably will. Graham 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Intel iSight Cmaera

Check out the link I provided with my RVV. The right hand column clearly states 4x the resolution as previous iSight camera. Also, the MacBook Pro has 2x the resolution. This can be found simply by going to apple.com.

Re: Resource fork

Hi Graham. You're right, it's by no means a bad article. I've certainly seen—and probably even written—worse. I added the cleanup tag as I think the writing style is a bit uneven, and the article could do with a clearer structure. More a bit of spit and polish than anything else.

It's the sort of thing I'm not very proficient at, so I decided I'd mark the article and come back to it at some other point.

As regards structure, one possible divide I had in mind was to split it into the following sections (in no particular order):

• brief intro
• filesystem and communications (dual forks, streams and attributes in other OSes, binhex et al)
• the original and actual use (metadata for some documents, CODE resources, GUI resources etc)
• Limitations (slow, prevented swapping in blocks of code; 'the resource manager is not a database')
• the APIs and other implementations
• the history/future/influence.

What do you think? Cmdrjameson 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this over to Talk:resource fork and comment there. Others may want to contribute too. Graham 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding copyvio deletion of RIAA equalization

Funny you should say that -- what we acutally do in cases where there are good edits in the history is to delete them all and restore those without the copyvio. I just checked the deleted edits again in case I had overlooked something, however, your original article was (with a few sentences omitted) appears to be a word for word copy of [1] -- they even have the same external link. Thus, my deletion was correct; unfortunately, the about.com article doesn't have a date -- if you can show that their article came later (your creation was September 2003) then we may be able to restore the article.

Oh and by the way, the article had been blanked and listed as a copyvio since January 4th -- so please don't accuse me of vandalism; you may wish to review the procedure on WP:CP .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Duh. It's a word-for-word copy because THAT article got its text from Wikipedia! You may like to check that you haven't inadvertently made the same mistake on all the other articles you have deleted. Many sites use text from Wikipedia, so just doing a search for the same text is bound to find matches. As far as this one goes, I know for a fact that it's not a copyvio, I wrote that text myself straight off the top of my head. Unfortunately, without the history, there's no way to go back and check any of it. As far as being listed since Jan 4 is concerned, I didn't notice it until now (and only because it got recreated), so the process is faulty if this sort of thing is allowed to happen, when in fact the article was actually perfectly legitimate. The point of deletion is to get rid of bad or "illegal" articles, so if a good one gets binned, the process needs revising. Graham 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Only that article, unlike all the other articles that About.com mirrors from Wikipedia doesn't say it came from here. You say you wrote it, they say they wrote it. If you don't like the procedure, please feel free to comment on its talk page. Good articles may get caught and that's why its possible to restore them but more than "cause I say so" is necessary in proving that you wrote it. I've looked through the history quite a bit and due to the fact that sentences added to the article over time all appear in the About.com article, it seems more likely that the guy writing for About.com copied it from us; I'm going to restore it. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. It may be his word against mine, but you can check my contributions - I just don't do that sort of thing. In the meantime, I have emailed him via his published contact address and asked him to acknowledge his source. Assuming he does so this should quell any doubts. Graham 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the same and sure enough, he's acknowledged your article as one of the sources. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

QuickDraw

It appears I have proved my own ineptitude once again. Well done, me. :) You know the funny thing is that I originally recognized it as pixels (and changed the number from 65,535 to 65,536.. I guess ADHD kicked in and I forgot the main idea ~_~ Either way, I'm a little confused. Is this saying that it had a max resolution of 65k pixels (which wouldn't make sense), or that it did things in 256x256 pixel chunks? Or something else? Dan 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it means exactly that - it had a max resolution of 64K pixels. Now, when the Mac was developed 64K pixels at 72 dpi represented nearly 76 x 76 feet! Pretty big, so the designers must have thought that 16 bits for the size fields was more than adequate, especially when you consider the original screen was only 512 x 342! This size is totally independent of colour representation - Mac grafPorts retained this resolution forever. These sizes only describe the LOGICAL drawing area available, they don't describe the dimensions of actual image buffers. That information is provided by the BitMap or PixMap data structure, which is supplementary to the grafPort. For a BitMap, only three pieces of info are needed - a pointer to the buffer memory, the byte offset between each row, and the width and height of the image. 1-bit images were arranged with 1 pixel = 1 BIT, so there are 8 pixels to the byte. This means that the byte offset between rows could reach the maximum of 65536 pixels, which is 8192 bytes. Everything was hunkydory, because it was impossible for a bit image to ever exceed the logical size of a port - even 76 x 76 foot images were feasible, if you had enough memory. When colour was added, things changed. For 8-bit colour, 1 pixel = 1 BYTE, so an image with the same dimensions as a 1-bit image needed 8 times the memory. Each pixel contains an index value which is used to look up the actual RGB colour in a secondary structure called a palette or colour look-up table (CLUT). Since 8 bits holds only 256 possible values, the sets the maximum size of the CLUT to be 256, though it can contain any RGB colour, which is where the 256 out of a possible 16,777,216 comes from. The PixMap structure in a colour grafPort contains all of this information - the pointer to the buffer, the byte offset between rows, the image size, the CLUT, and other data which describes the layout of the colour data in memory. PixMaps are independent of grafPorts, which retained the 16 bit dimension fields. Things only started to get a bit awkward when 24 bit colour came along. Here, 1 pixel = 4 BYTES (1 byte for each R, G and B, and 1 byte unused). grafPorts didn't change, PixMaps didn't change, only the layout of values in buffer memory changed and the pixMap told QuickDraw how to interpret the data. The problem was the byte offset between rows (called rowBytes). When each pixel takes 4 bytes, you can create an image which can't be displayed, because the grafPort is wider than the available row offset. This was a real issue for rendering to high resolution devices such as typesetters. Anyway, that's a bit off the point; the point is that the dimensions of the grafPort are independent of the colour depth. The colour depth can be thought of as being at 90 degrees to either the X or Y axis - a Z axis if you like (though don't get confused with 3D images!). The grafPort sizes tell you how many PIXELS there are, but the BitMap or PixMap structures tell you how pixels relate to actual memory. Sorry this is so long, and drifts off the point... hope it helps anyway. Graham 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

unregistered editors

I just read your remarks on your user page. I agree with much of what you say. In particular I think it is desirable to require people to be registered in order to edit. I have around 220 articles on my watch list and patrol them regularly for vandalism. It almost never happens that a registered user exercises his/her command of "dirty words" to deface an article. On the other hand, many times the unregistered users make useful edits. The good edits are generally one-time efforts by someone who may have expertise in one subject, checks its article, sees something obviously wrong, and corrects it.

I've had set-tos with a couple of people who have eventually gotten long-term bans. Unfortunately there are people like that who have driven good people away. My defense against the nastiness of that sort of person has been to recite my one-word mantra, one that I developed from a long period of personal and major discomfort due to pre-Wikipedia stress factors. As the Dao De Jing says, the reason one suffers pain is that one has a "person" that injuries can attach to. My yoga teacher of a couple of decades ago had a similar outlook. Her advice, "Detach." So with that in mind I just repeat, time after time, to myself, "Ego." It may seem paradoxical, but repeating: "Ego, ego, ego..." for a while drains the poison off to somewhere else, or undips me from the pool of venom, or something... Anyway, my ego-attachment goes into remission and I can then deal dispassionately with the problem -- which may sometimes mean going away for a while and letting it die for lack of fuel.

I suffered a great deal growing up for lack of objective information. I think making it continue to be available world-wide is worth some pain. But it is also important to remember that one does not have to deal with every problem nor does one have to invest any certain percentage of one's time on it. P0M 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

past tense of to fit

I did not know that, thank you for letting me know, and changing that back. 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

editheadz

You, sir, are an idiot. I have moved our text here: http://www.freearchive.org/wiki2/index.php/Tape_editing see if we care. It's not that wikipedia means anything, you know? Your bullshit administrators ruin everything anyway. Pull your crap on your dogs or cats or kids, we don't care for it.

Oh right, like "This article sucks and you know it." isn't abusive language. Hypocrite. Eat shit and die, loser.

Sticks and stones. The article certainly does suck - if you seriously believe tape editing was an innovation of the 1980s you're on another planet. I was splicing tapes before your mum even got herself knocked up. You will now be blocked. Thanks for playing. Bye. Graham

Not even close to this you were, you deluded dinosaur: http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/editheadz/video/x2zrdu http://www.dailymotion.com/related/5027682/video/x30a42 You wouldn't even come near that level of skill, and you know it. It's exactly because of delusions of grandeur like yours that this had only become a recognized artform in the 1980s: You were never really good at it. We were. 195.64.95.116 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice illustration

Oooh, you're the one who created Image:Deep Stall.png? Heh, I should have let you create the stalling illustration, the deep stall one looks really good. What program did you use for it? Are there any obvious things I can do to make the stall (flight) one look a little better aesthetically? --Interiot 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of mine. I used Adobe Illustrator on Mac OS 9, but since then I switched to Mac OS X and don't have Illustrator working any more. Actually looking at that image again the "flow lines" are not really right in the stalled case - I'd like to redo them but I can't find any free drawing software for Mac OS X that I'm really comfortable with. I tried Eazydraw but it's actually not very easy to use if you want to do things Illustrator-like, though it has thousands of built-in shapes most of them are not much use to me. If you're using Windows you probably have more possibilities (The Mac is great for graphics - if you buy the expensive pro software packages). I guess the only thing I could offer with regard to the stall image is to make sure that the flow lines get anti-aliased when they are rendered - I think Photoshop does that by default. Graham 04:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the aliased flow lines come from the original GIF from the .mil website... I guess they'd look better if I re-traced them. For vector graphics, have you at least tried out Inkscape? The bonus is that its native format is .svg, which is a good format for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia can scale the image to be arbitrarily large, but still sharp. --Interiot 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Golden Earring

You posted on the Golden Earring talk page that another article on WP states that Jaap Eggermont was a member - which article, please post on Talk:Golden Earring - thank you very much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you!

I'm the one who should be thanking you for your kind and courteous comment when I first showed up. You were a good ambassador for Wikipedia and really made me feel welcome. My enthusiasm waxes and wanes with my courseload and stress level (not always in the expected or correct phase though). That story has been up on my userpage for a while... I plan on taking it down soon and replacing it with a meditation on article ownership and the origins of what is now WP:POINT. Now we return to arguing about Lift! moink 05:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Hemeloverlay.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hemeloverlay.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't think the image is used anywhere now - I created it to discuss some issues but it has served its purpose. In any case the source images that went into it probably have dodgy copyright status being Ordnance Survey based. Graham 10:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Seen you before...

Interestingly, a long time ago when I browsed Wikipedia as anonymous user just one single time, I remember checking out userpages as well. Now, a while later, as active user, I decided to check yours and found that I've seen your page before from back then (I distinctively remember the "observations about Wikipedia" bit). I just felt that I should notice it here since it's pretty funny how I somehow found the same person out of the many tens of thousands that are registered. It's a small Internet, I guess! --Michiel Sikma 07:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

re "pushbike"

Sorry about the "inane" comment. I figured a "pushbike" to be a pushcart or a scooter-like thing that a child gets a running start with. In any event, you will note that there are dozens of particular types of "bicycles" highlighted and described later in the article, none of which warrant bold-facing in the first sentence as synonyms for "bicycle." Interestingly, "bicycle" gets 80 million google hits, "bike" gets double that, and "push-bike" gets about ... er, well ... some tiny fraction of either. Most of the "hits" I checked include the words "push" and "bike" but not "push-bike." I'd prefer that you include the term somewhere else in the article. Sfahey 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A pushbike is a bicycle. While the google hits seem to suggest it's not such a common term (though pushbike and push-bike together yield 400,000 hits approximately - not a small amount), I believe that doesn't reflect the real usage of the word, which is highly prevalent, especially in Britain and Commonwealth countries. Perhaps because it's more colloquial it doesn't get used so much in written articles. It's almost always used when a person is making sure they are not talking about a motorcycle, which are also very often called bikes. If a person were to search for "pushbike" they'd get redirected immediately to Bicycle, but unless the term is included early on it doesn't reinforce the fact that they've found the right place. Having said that I'm pretty sure most people would know that a pushbike is a bicycle, so it wouldn't be a huge loss if it were moved - but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to me to harm the article to include it. Graham 04:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You're a father!

Congratulations with Catalina! I guess you must have put her picture there after I came here to leave a message earlier, since I didn't see it then. I'm not sure what you guys do in England when a child is born, but here in Holland it's customary that the father gives his friends and colleagues rusk with what we call "mice"; pink ones if it's a girl, and blue ones if it's a boy. So here's to you! --Michiel Sikma 09:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Macintosh_128K_technical_details

Not sure if you're aware that your recently created page has been listed for prod. JGF Wilks 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what on earth "prod" is meant to mean. Seems it (somehow) means that a merge tag was added to it, though so far no reason is given. I created the article in response to a request on the talk page for Apple Macintosh, and it was always meant to be moved to a more appropriate place once enough information had been gathered. My own view is that it probably shouldn't be merged with the main article for Macintosh 128K, but could exist perhaps as a subpage there, or stay where it is. However, having started the article and notifying the original requester, not one other person has added anything to the page, which leads me to suspect that nobody is all that interested after all. Graham 16:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Electronic Amplifier Class C.png

Based on what you wrote on the image description page, I'm guessing you made this image yourself. If this is the case, could you please clarify this and change the license tag to {{GFDL-self}} instead? Please also do this for any other images you may have created. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sabotage?

Somebody has added Wallace and Gromit in front of Sir Alec Issigonis in Mini Moke. Think it's sabotage.--Wilfred Pau 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Haunting

Oh, I completely agree. It probably will. I've just been pretty pissed lately, and so I've been venting it on my page... though I don't actually look at it very much. I sort of figure no one really looks at it anyway. No, I haven't seen the QuickDraw bit... care to link me?

Thanks for the concern, though, understanding is always nice :-) Dan 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The QuickDraw bit is above here, about 10 sections or so up. Graham 04:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

CHILDREN'S ENCYCLOPEDIA

A message I put in a couple of weeks ago does not seem to have turned up, so I am trying again. This was a query concerning your article of 2003 on the Children's Encyclopedia, in which you referred to interest being taken in this by social scientists. I hoped to follow this up, as I am writing a book reviewing the contents of the Encyclopedia in its edition of 1908-10. I have made a fairly extensive search for such work, and find very little; but I would not like to miss anything significant. I am not familiar with Wikipedia procedures. I shall check this page again, or I can be E-mailed on mtracy@skynet.be. MICHAEL

The comment refers to a couple of papers I turned up using a straightforward google search. I couldn't say if they count as 'significant', and I seem to recall there were only a few references. Graham 11:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter! Best wishes for your family. Regards, C S (Talk) 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Steve Harley

I have read your diatribe, (for the second time, as pure chance would have it) on the Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel talk page, whilst nodding along madly. Harley was a huge talent (I have most of his Cockney Rebel stuff on vinyl), but a conceited prick, who managed to alienate almost everyone. A great shame. If I had to choose one former 'idol' to advise some young pretender "how NOT to do it", Harley would probably be my choice. (Current mega-tit, Pete Doherty, runs a close second). Keep up the good work. What the hell are 'chooks'. Can we eat them ? Or mate with them ? Or just 'throw 'em on the barbie' ? Regards.

Derek R Bullamore 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page layout

Graham, after your comments about talk page readability I have given the talk:damping factor the 'LC treatment ' that I talked about. THis has not involved physically moving anyone's posts (except 2 of mine) but just uses headings to split up the page. It also saves vertical space because most posts now start at the extreme LHS of the page. As a fairly impartial participant in the damping factor discussion, I would be grateful if you could look at the reformatted talk page and give your frank thoughts on it either here or on my talk page. Thanks for your time!--Light current 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW Congratulations on the birth of your daughter!--Light current 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

8-track tape

Good point on rewind being impossible. It has been many years, but I did remember using a few machines (not car units) which had FF. One, I believe was a Japanese Roberts brand, which combined reel-to-reel, 8-track, and cassette in a single unit. --Blainster 02:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess faking a rewind by fast forwarding around the entire loop would be possible... but so slow as to be virtually unusable - imagine just wanting to go back a few seconds. Graham 05:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What's "wrong" with me

I didn't realize that "fitted" was a UKism. But this is an article about a technology written by an American for an American company. This article really should use American spelling and grammar conventions. I don't edit articles to bring them to Canadian spelling (which is a blend of UK and US spelling), and you probably shouldn't edit American-centered articles for UK spelling. But what's really "wrong" with me is that I really didn't appreciate your tone. I'm not interested in getting in an argument over something this stupid, so if I misinterpreted you, let me know. -- Steven Fisher 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I appeared to adopt a combative tone - not intentional, though this is the second time I have changed this particular thing. "Fitted" isn't a UKism, it's just that "fit" used in the past tense is an Americanism. The policy regarding use of British/American (or other flavour) of English is that whichever was used for the original article remains, regardless of whether the article is about a predominantly British or American thing. In general, British contributors write about British things and so on, so for many articles there is a correlation between subject and flavour of English. In this case, I happened to create the article using British English despite it describing a technology that originated in the US. However, I describe "fitted" as correct not out of a belief that there is anything more correct about British English, but in this case because "to fit" is a regular verb and thus its past tense is "fitted", as with all other regular verbs. Some dialects turn it into an irregular verb, which I consider a colloqualism. Graham 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Sorry about my overreaction. Let us speak no more on that subject. :) The only problem with fitted is that most localisms are recognizable. Fitted isn't one we recognize, though, and just looks like an error. -- Steven Fisher 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:195806.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:195806.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

(Please note that the image was removed due to a fair use violation: magazine covers can only be used in articles about the publication itself, not in articles about the subject on the cover, unless the fact that the subject appeared on the cover is particularly significant. In this case, the exception does not apply.) Thanks. TheProject 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Grahm me and you will edit ABBA...

I for one think the people who edit ABBA treat the band as if it's the best band out there, and give the band more credit then it deservs..So yeah, I dunno about you, but I have been FIXING alot of biased shit on that page, I need your help. -Dragong4