User talk:Anna Frodesiak

If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there. To leave me a message click here.

Archives

1-22, 23, 24

Template:Hainan

If you don't object, I will merge the content of {{County-level divisions of Hainan}} to {{Hainan}}, as has been done for the templates for every other province/region of mainland China. I feel that the much more detailed amount of content in {{Hainan}} gives some undue weight, but I suppose we can afford something like this for {{Hainan}} because of the low number of county-level divisions on the island. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello my friend. I'm not crazy about the idea.

When you say "...undue weight...", do you mean to Hainan over other provinces?

When you say "...has been done for the templates for every other province/region of mainland China...", I just looked at a few. It seems that you merged them. Could you please point me to the discussion that occurred before you did that?

The fact that other provinces have it this way doesn't make it best. Visitors to an article about some chicken dish certainly don't want a fat template containing half Prefecture-level cities and Administration Office for Xisha Islands. That template is best for articles about cities, towns, etc.

This essay makes good sense: They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider splitting them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic.

In fact, I want to propose the system Hainan is using for other provinces. Now, almost all provinces have nothing at all like { {Hainan} }, and only templates like { {tld|County-level divisions of Hainan} }.

Templates in articles such as Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui are typical. The templates are of no interest to visitors to non-place articles. And, these provinces lack templates like { { Hainan } }. Would you be interested in cooperating to create these templates?

What I made is modelled on Gibraltar, Hawaii, etc., by the way. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding point by point...1) Undue weight...yes over the other provinces. 2) As per policy on consensus, a complete lack of opposition is to be taken as tacit consensus. The only person that I had discussed the mass mergers with at the time was LLTimes. 3) Something as specific as a chicken dish should not be featured so prominently in a provincial template anyway... And would they be better served by a cuisine navigation template? 4) If we are going to include a potpourri of random specific subjects, we obviously will not have the space. I suggest trimming it down to what the templates for the US states do. 5) Well we can use Hainan as a testing area, and then move on to the rest? The template for the state of Virginia lists all of its 140 county-level divisions, and that has stayed for years, indicating readers don't have much of an issue seeing them there. Except for Hebei (170 or so) and Sichuan (180 or so), listing all of the county-level divisions won't be too problematic if we downsize the list as well. As far as I see it, when for example, an "old" Chinese was raised in a county-level division (Y) outside of prefecture X's metro area, they are more likely to identify with Y, not X. Combine this with the level of sacredness Chinese people take their ancestral homes... and you can't really remove the counties. 6) I would be willing to model after what ZH-Wiki is doing... do a search for, say, Template:吉林, and you won't find one. The editors there have split topics off. I recommend that part, but still modelling after the US states (broad topics, counties/county-level divisions). 7) It seems you are modelling much more after Gibraltar than Hawaii.

If we still do not have a solution, I think this discussion should move to somewhere more centralised. Not at all a small matter, but I still think a bottom-top approach is more efficient. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Well, I'm not sure undue weight is a problem when it comes to provinces. It's not like they compete. Anyway, let's leave that till last. If we embark on a navbox improvement for all China, that will become moot.

2) There was no discussion before hand. That's no problem at all. You boldly did it and nobody barked. That's fine by me.

3) Hainanese Chicken Rice can be left out of the navbox, but certainly the template is appropriate in the article. Thus, good rationale for splitting the templates, as those visitors won't care much about county-level divisions.

4) Some trimming makes sense. I would go with overall physical size, more than anything. Comprehensive, yet visually navigable.

5) As for a separate county-level division navbox: The more the merrier if in its own navbox. A complete listing is best.

6) Hainan as a testing area is a great plan for { { Hainan } }. If you are referring to a combined navbox as a model, I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure we need a model for { { County-level XXX } }. All provinces already have that sorted out. What they are missing is { { Hainan } }. I suggest we make a model and present it at Wikiproject China. Such a template can really give a great at-a-glance view of the flavour of the provinces. A real asset, I think. As it stands now, the differences between provinces are unknown to outsiders. The navboxes can really help.

7) How can you model after what ZH-Wiki is doing if you say they've all split off? I don't understand.

8) Gibraltar or Hawaii, both have the right idea. The bottom line (no joke intended) is for visitors to get a good overview without shopping through widely-scattered categories. The Hainan template, as it is now is pretty good, as far as I am concerned. As more Hainan articles are created, swap in the better ones, keeping the overall size the same.

I think we're fundamentally on the same page here: We both want to visitors to learn as much as possible about each province, in the easiest way possible. Where we part slightly, is that I think fat county-level navboxes should be separate. But I hope to convince you that, when expanded to the lovely { { Hainan } } example size, keeping them apart makes sense both aesthetically, for ease of navigation, and for the ability to omit one when necessary.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

6) Hainan is the least of our worries in including administrative divisions because there only are 23 of them. I agree to disagree with you for most other provinces/regions, but not Hainan and possibly not Ningxia. I suggest a simple vote on the county-level divisions to resolve this matter, and it's about time we moved this discussion anyway. Whatever we do, we need a PRC province navigation box on each provincial template.

7) ZH-Wiki has one template for the county-level divisions, higher education institutions, protection areas, and key CCP officials as far as I can see, and I don't see entire templates dedicated anything else.

8) I still fail to understand you...the Hawaii template is much sparser and you are a comparing a state template to a territory topics template, as well as an easily-spotted-on-the-world-map archipelago versus a tiny city. —HXL: 聊天 (T) 和 貢獻 (C) 23:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

6) I will stay out of decision about administrative divisions and what should be included. I do care that they are not part of the main template that has lots of topics. I really think visitors don't ordinarily care much about administrative divisions.

7) Can you give me an url?

8) Sorry. I did not remember correctly. See Barbados template and Wales template. Those are what I had in mind.

So what can we agree on here? Whatever you say about administrative divisions navboxes I will agree to. Can you agree with a Hainan-style or Barbados-style or Wales-style template? I think visitors will absolutely love it.

Let's see if we can get on the same page here, then propose something at project China. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for not archiving this...I have been robbed of my Internet access, and when I can, I will post a thought-out reply here. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 05:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilensky's

Nice pics on Wilensky's! Do you happen to have any that clearly shows the Wilensky's (yellow smile), coca cola, and green "moe wilensky" signs?Jeanpetr (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a bunch more. (Sorry about the low quality.) Memorabilia, class of coke, sandwich with two meats, more interiors, fuzzy pic of a yellow smile that looks like a pot of mustard. If you like, I'll email you the lot. You can upload them as your own, public domain. But, I suggest cropping, brightening, saturating, sharpening with Irfan or the like. They're pretty rough. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you put can put the pics up at some gallery I could just select, but I guess I can just go and take a pic at some point too. Thanks in any case! Jeanpetr (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't really. An email would be best. The whole group is less than 9MB, so would fit in a single attachment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Peperoncini

HOW DARE U REMOVE MY EDITS TO PEPPERONCINI! MY OPINION IS ENYCLOPEDIC! SIGNED PEPPERONCINI LOVER

Oh yeah? We don't take kindly to pepperoncini lovers 'round these parts. Damn hippie. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WE WILL INVADE CANADA AND TAKEAWAY ALL YOUR ABOUTS IF THIS HARASSMENT CONTINUES.

Keep your mitts off our aboots or we'll come over to Hawaii and grab every lei we can get our hands on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I SORRY. CAN U MAKE LEIS FROM MAPLE LEAVES?

We can and we do. But we don't wear them around our necks. We stick them to our bodies with maple syrup because we don't know how to make clothes. We only have igloos and cops on horses here. No buildings. No clothes. We just sit around shivering waiting for you Americans to run out of money then come and kill us and steal our igloos to extract the ice for your daquaris. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, we should quit this. Stalkers will think you're a real vandal, or they'll think you've been into the Hawaiian punch. This'll keep ya busy: YouTube the old Sesame Street bit "Cowboy X". The subtle message to kids just dawned on me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Watched it, remembered it fondly, and then somehow, clicked over to the Bein' Green video by random chance. Jim Henson was (and is) a genius. The world is an empty place without him. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're the one we're worried about, Anna.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please settle down, as I must note that Wikipedia is not the place for "social networking". CHAK 001 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CHAK, I'm afraid you are mistaken and/or misinformed. Socializing on Wikipedia is most certainly allowed, and using Wikipedia to talk to other users on their talk page is encouraged. Feel free to take any concerns you might have to a higher authority but please do not leave messages like this on my talk page. Since you didn't "get" the joke, I would be happy to explain it to you: I was poking fun at one of Anna's recent reverts while she was on vandalism patrol, in particular, a revert of a silly edit an IP made to Peperoncini. My comment on her talk page was intended to parody the typical newbie's reaction to having their innermost thoughts about a subject removed. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, the reason I put up a notice is that I believe that it must had something to do with socializing as per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Please let me know if that is false. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, my friend, why don't you tell me what part of that policy applies to the above discussion? Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not want to disclose for privacy reasons. Socializing on Wikipedia is not permitted as per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Those are commonly seen especially on Facebook. Yours and Anna's statement (after the first, up till Qwyrxian's statement, which seemed OK) did not comply with the policy as I stated. According to that page, Wikipedia is not a social network like Facebook and Twitter (period). CHAK 001 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CHAK, since you can't specifically cite the part of the policy that pertains to this discussion, I have to correct you. 1) Socializing on Wikipedia is permitted. Writing an encyclopedia involves collaboration which is a social process, and socializing is key to the success of Wikipedia. 2) Leaving friendly messages on user talk pages is permitted and encouraged. 3) Having fun and contacting users with funny messages about their vandalism patrol is entirely acceptable. If any of this isn't making sense, feel free to ask questions, but I'm going offline for a bit. The fact is, nothing about this discussion is in violation of the policy you cited, and there is a huge difference between socializing (a necessary component of an encyclopedia written by people working together to achieve the same goals) and social networking, a distinction that seems to have escaped your notice. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, regardless of which, there was a Wikipedia discussion regarding the use of socializing, although if I am to discuss about that, I am undecided on such because although I may support socializing, I fear of such personal attacks and other problems while attempting to edit on Wikipedia (either the article or the user's talk page). That was one of my points why I am being cautioned in regards to socializing. CHAK 001 (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks here, CHAK. You evidently are not familiar with the parody of BIFF. In any case, let me give you an example of how socializing works on Wikipedia and how it is the primary component of productive work: Back in March, Anna and I were socializing on this page about art. That discussion was very fruitful, and directly led me to create a new article and a DYK about The Magpie (Monet). Socializing helps build the encyclopedia. And parody, like the one in this thread, helps editors relax and feel carefree. When you're in this state of mind, one is in a position to access flow, which allows productive work to commence. Is this making sense, CHAK? Most importantly, see the criteria for group flow, which is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of Wikipedia. Note also, how socialization is an essential part of this process, and how parody falls under the "playground design" and "craziness" model. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I've just been sitting back reading this, laughing my guts out. :) CHAK: Further to the socializing flow thing: We were talking about the ISS, which lead me to astronomy browsing, which led me to create 1999 LE₃₁ asteroid, which is now screaming toward us, and will take out the Earth next week. See how it all ties together? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

More suggestions...

Anna, I noticed that you sometimes put articles in whole words when referring to help pages such as Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You should shorten those up the next time that you wanted someone to read articles related to help within Wikipedia. For example, I suggest "shorten" into WP articles.

For instance, as shown above, it can translate into WP:DTR, WP:CUV, and WP:RPP, respectively. I think that before you type in the whole word, I suggest that you look at the articles first. So far, you are doing well on inserting Wikipedia shortcuts, though I would still insert those shortcuts when possible (I should note that the only exception for using my talk page is that only the Wikipedia article shortcuts such as WP:BLOCK can be used, and that no other shortcuts may be used). CHAK 001 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CHAK, I don't mean to intrude, but the exact opposite of your recommendation is best practice. Anna is actually doing the right thing. In other words, using shortcuts may appear helpful to experienced users, particularly after the full term is used first, but it is generally discouraged in wide use because it alienates new editors who aren't familiar with the alphabet soup. For more information, see Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia:No-no, Wikipedia:When IAR is ignored, and most importantly, Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! Less alphabet soup is better than more, and Anna has the right idea. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What is really concerning here is that CHAK is doling out all sorts of misguided advice to all sorts of users, including at least one new user who (unsurprisingly) appears to be grateful to have been taken under the wing of someone so "experienced". I have had a word over on CHAK's talk page, and Anna has been banging her head against this wall for a while now, on and off. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If CHAK is learning from his mistakes, then there's no problem. But if he keeps giving out the same bad advice, then something needs to be done. There are many different ways of learning, but sometimes, making mistakes can be a fast track on a learning curve to expertise. On the other hand, it could be a competence issue. I can't comment on CHAK all that much because I don't have all the facts, but it seems like his heart is in the right place and he just needs a mentor. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. If s/he was learning. I am not convinced that is the case, and the above message is an example given that s/he is aware that Anna has been around here for some considerable time. It would have been far better phrased as a question along the lines of "Hi Anna, is there any particular reason why you choose to use X rather than Y ?" The warning templates that are being thrown around are also more often than not inappropriate, and this is an issue that Anna has been trying to resolve without a great deal of success. (IMO, and with no offence intended to Anna). - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CHAK, everytime I see your username, I'm reminded of Cha-Ka from Land of the Lost. :) :) Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, Anna and I have already discussed over my template use; if you want to talk about that, please discuss that at my talk page (specifically the subsection "Just a little advice"). CHAK 001 (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather talk about Land of the Lost actually... :) Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

CHAK: Actually, yes, I only prefer shortcuts with experienced users in disputes. I linked some shortcuts because I was just grabbing everything relevant I could find and it was the fastest way.

Sitush: No offence at all. Sometimes communication is hard.

Viriditas: I'm sure his heart's in the right place. He's made a great improvement to his user and talk page, removing lots of warnings and stuff. Honestly, if he stayed away from the bureaucratic and law enforcement areas, and stuck to article work, I think he'd be a very good editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it is obvious why he is doing it. He thinks that aping admin work will get him the tools. This is one reason why I believe the current approach is a failure. In other words, we are training bureaucrats, not encyclopedists. We need to be in the business of unifying knowledge, linking together all of the specialized disciplines, such that the information flows freely from one area to the next, in an unbroken chain of understanding. Instead we are, as you have previously noted, intently focused on filling out 27b stroke 6's and looking around for Mr. Archibald Buttle. I think we've had enough of that. What we need to do is train researchers, writers, and generalists, who understand how to unify knowledge and make it accessible to the reader. The focus on administration tends to outweigh these things, and presents an unreasonable overhead on the purpose and future of the project. More to the point, virtually every administrative task can be automated; you can't say the same for writing and maintaining articles, not yet at least. If someone vandalizes a page, they can be automatically warned and blocked if necessary. If someone violates the 3RR, a bot can also block them. If an edit war is detected, or foul language appears in an edit summary or on a talk page, a bot can step in, warn both users and then automatically protect the page, etc. You really don't need a single administrator on this site. The reason we have them has nothing to do with janitorial maintenance and everything to do with enforcing an artificial social structure based on power. And if you don't believe me, go and visit the cemetery full of inactive admins and examine their contributions. They got tired of playing the "admin" game and left. It was never about building an encyclopedia for them. Now, think about all the wasted time and energy that has gone into administration that could have been better spent teaching users how to research, write, reference, and compose articles—and in the process—administer the encylclopedia from the bottom up, not the top down. If you are administrating from the article level on up, you will have less issues and problems to deal with because they will be solved at the first tier, which should have been the original purpose of using WikiProjects in the first place. Decentralize the administration process, and the problems solve themselves. Administrating from the top down, as we see now, doesn't work and never will work, and amounts to little more than passing the buck around and working with people who don't understand the issues in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I like your thinking. The project does feel somewhat like a hierarchy. Now, all the Indians want to be chiefs (pardon the non-PC expression). Power structures bite. The less like the real world Wikipedia is, the better. But I wonder what new issues would emerge under the system you suggest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

just say hi regarding the food of wuhan

hi, Anna, saw your post on my talk, hope i am not too rude on the discussion page. Let me know if you have any questions regarding China, I will do my best to see if i can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azload (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You are very kind. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of something. I started Wuhan duck. Could you help improve it? As you live in Wuhan, could you take a photo of some necks or other parts? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most of people i know only refer it as duck neck or Jing Wu duck nect, Jing Wu is the brand that make the duck deck. This food is begin make it name only since end of 20th century. I just checked my friend in Wuhan, she told me it is about 10 years. More or less.....I will let you know when i double checked with other friends. (Smiling Demon Lord (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azload (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You spill tea; I spit feathers. ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Feathers? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

See here. I am on the borderline between the two groups mentioned. If this instance, I use the latter meaning (thirsty), which is what spicy duck makes me. Never heard of this one, though. We have a bot called Woohookitty and perhaps should have one called Wuhanducky. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd never heard of that before. Woohookitty is a bot? I thought Woohookitty is a person. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, WHK is a person. I've just learned something! Seems to follow me around, fixing things in a most pedantic (but entirely correct!) way. One day I will make contact and thank her for doing all the stuff I keep forgetting to do. Not bothered before because a bot is hardly going to appreciate it. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think WHK is in the top 3 in edit count. Huge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is what made me think she was a bot. Although I know that, eg, Blofeld is real enough, if only because bots do not talk in discussions on AN/ANI etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Improvement

Anna, I would like to invite you to discuss on any improvements that you like to suggest to me (I have archived my talk page discussions, but I am getting ready for a major revamp). Please do read the instructions carefully at my talk page. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 03:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth discussing at any length. Besides, I'm a little busy working on the encyclopedia, and I'm sure you'd rather spend your time doing that too, right?

Here's what I suggest. Snazzy, huh? I think it looks marvelous!!! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You violet sandbox seems nice, but I want to be a bit more specific. I was not aware of your sandboxes. The first sandbox that I created was an article related to a television station. I do plan to rename some of my linked pages and remove linked pages that may be odd, as other users may be concerned. I will see what you and others decide when discussing as such on my talk page. Note that I will not edit as normally as I typically would in a day due to a varied schedule in my personal agenda this week. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 04:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt editors are very interested in your talk page. They perfer to build the encyclopedia. Why not just spend 2 minutes on it and then build the encyclopedia. Then after that, you could try to build the encyclopedia.

With respect, you seem to spend all your time warning and advising etc., but advice given to you doesn't seem to sink in. You are sapping my strength.

What I'm trying to say is: you should build the encyclopedia instead. Either that or try to build the encyclopedia. Let me CTRL-V that a few more times: build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia build the encyclopedia.

Do you copy? Ha ha ha. Get it? Because I copied it over and over...er...hmmmm? Please, just forget about everything else and build the encyclopedia. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will only be in limited function this week (I may not respond as swiftly as I normally would), as I can only watch pages, revert a few edits, and either build or modify articles that interest me. As I will continue to do as you say, I hope to get some improvement suggestions before the August revamp. For now, I will change the channel to "limited function" (already said that). CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 05:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tag

Hi Anna Frodesiak! :)

This is a bit random, but I was wondering, what Speedy Deletion tag would I put onto an article, that is based on a youtube account? The Youtube account, is not an official account, someone (children) have just made it, the article itself would fail WP:V (no sources), WP:OR (original thought), And I think would be classified as a hoax (?)...would you happen to know which tag? Thank You :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Those are a lot of reasons. You could try {{db-multiple}} or pick another from Wikipedia:Speedy. Without actually seeing the article, I can't be sure. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The {{db-multiple}} is perfect. Thank You very much! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Anytime. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)