931:
U.S.-oriented. I imagine there are other places of this name in Africa, India, elsewhere that will eventually be noted, and it seems mildly wrong to assert, implicitly, that this one, an obscure place, is the primary use for the rather common term. I actually don't mind the BLM campground name, and am indifferent to that or the (Arizona) or (Theba, Arizona) versions. The "Painted Rock (Theba, Arizona)" version is what i interpret as the properly expanded out official NRHP name for the place, using the NRHP database-reported location, and it is essentially what is shown in various private websites that mirror the public domain NRHP database (perhaps bringing some future readers looking for it here), so I do wish for at least a redirect from that name to be kept.
648:
title. In reality, I was attempting to use a point of reference that is more recognizable; Theba is obscure to the point of being virtually unknown and does nothing to provide a frame of geographical reference for the user. I frankly don't care if you want to leave something in here about "The nearest settlement is Theba" (it is actually Piedra if we want to be fussy about it). A better statement to use in the lede would be something readily recognizable, such as "About 90 miles southwest of
Phoenix". A point of contention I have with the infobox wording is that Theba is in no definition a city - but since that's just template boilerplate, I really don't care if that is left as-is.
578:
further discussion here, I think i would still be hard pressed to assess whether the nominator had actually withdrawn or sought to withdraw, because, communication-wise, the prominence of the nomination and of the first discussion of possible withdrawal is not really cancelled by the later comment. So I think you misjudged the quality of my reading, but I was mistaken also for not finding and interpreting your later comment as you apparently intended it. Note, I was reading the entire discussion all at once, later; I imagine that if i was participating in the AfD all along then I would have received and understood your later comment differently, more as you meant it.
617:, and I supposed you were still trying to win the AFD which you had opened. If you are not trying to win it, why do you remove Theba from the article? In the process of restoring that and other stuff, I gather that I lost some BLM information which you added and which would be appropriate to restore. I am sorry for having lost some info. However i do not think the article should emphasize a BLM campground in lieu of emphasizing the petroglyphs. And, I think in terms of edit warring that you are one and half steps ahead of me, in effect, and you did force your way successfully in preventing me from returning the article to the original name.
95:
200:
1017:. Bottom line is that Painted Rocks is ambiguous and we may well not have a primary use. Then we have two government agencies using different 'official' names. So for now, I'm going to take the opinion of the NRHP. I'll note that this problem is more widespread then this. So maybe there should be a discussion on how to deal with these. If someone one starts this, drop me a note. In most cases, this is handled by a redirect. However some of these articles have rather long and odd names.
173:
474:. I added a note to the AfD to keep the article about Theba, and linked in the Theba article to this new NRHP which I created. I think it shows poor style for Shereth to engage in edit warring and to fight in the content of other articles apparently towards "winning" an AfD. I would appreciate if other administrators would call Shereth on his/her minor abuse of the tools in edit warring with the moves, in deleting my work and not giving any notice. See
210:
303:
357:
315:
33:
457:
others are building articles about NRHP places, and it is generally accepted that these are wikipedia-notable, and they are usually listed at the NRHP name for the place. And, to convey that this is the article about the NRHP place of that name, it is necessary to include the NRHP name for the place in bold in the article, perhaps along with other alternative, bolded names.
488:
suggest a different name. I do often support use of non-NRHP names for places that have other common names, although the NRHP infobox name for a place should show the NRHP name, and the NRHP name should be included in bold in the article. However, Shereth's behavior is unpleasant and I do think is an instance of minor abuse of the tools. Thanks for considering this.
85:
64:
507:
one point, called the place "Painted Rocks" but they do not own and operate the location. To illustrate the problem of relying on the old NRHP data, it states that the site is governed by the state (and you have decided to revert my correction showing that the BLM now operates the site) because when the site was added to the register, it
369:
823:
By the way, the AfD had little to do with bringing people to improve this article (although it was indirectly responsible for its creation by bringing the whole Theba matter to
Doncram's attention). As soon as it was created I jumped in here with additional sources and information. I get irked when
572:
Actually i see now the statement to which you refer, but have to note it is pretty well hidden, far down in the discussion, in what is labelled merely as "Comment". I would think a nominator's intention to withdraw a nomination would be noted at least briefly upfront, with the nomination itself, and
762:
It's funny - not in a funny ha-ha sort of way - how one can get so firmly entrenched into the notion that a debate must be resolved with either X or Y that they fail to consider Z. This is just such a case - there really is no reason that this article can't take the unqualified version and the dab
647:
with my actions and make accusations as to what my motives are while being uninformed as to the situation. You 'supposed' that I modified the references to Theba because I wanted to win an argument; I have made no such assumptions as to your motives as far as why you are so vehement on the article
893:
Are BLM-administered campgrounds inherently notable? Is the campground itself really that significant? As far as I can see, the only thing of real significance (let alone notability) in this immediate area is the NRHP site. NRHP listings don't always have to go by the NRHP listing name (thus we
506:
I find it amusing that you accuse me of edit warring, when all I did was make a single revert of your move (you have reverted me twice). All said, that's not really the issue here. The issue is extremely simple - the BLM is the owner and operator of the site, not the NRHP. The NRHP may have, at
487:
I support moving the article back to "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)" which is how I opened the article, and is consistent with NRHP names and disambiguation nation-wide. Finally, I won't necessarily fully oppose a different name for the place if others removed from the Theba, Arizona AFD dispute
665:
I believe you are also misinterpreting the situation as far as the
Historical Site vs. BLM Campground is concerned. I am not trying to de-emphasize the status as a Historical Site. The rocks that are the historic site are located wholly within the campgrounds - the BLM maintains a walking trail
577:
what they meant to withdraw. And then early in the discussion is your conditional offer to withdraw, with no update there, so I interpreted that to be the withdrawal you referred to (and that you had not in fact withdrawn), without my absorbing your separated comment further below. Without your
456:
does not seem better to me. There are two official names for the place. I object to
Shereth's highhanded dismissal "Nonsense" in edit summary of Shereth's last move of the article. It is not nonsense that I created the article at the National Register name for the place. It happens that i and
442:
I object to moving to that name, honestly in part because of administrator
Shereth's minor abuse of administrative tools in edit warring and forcing his/her way. I opened the article at "Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)" which is a valid name using the National Register of Historic Places official
898:
instead of "First
Concrete Street in U.S."), but when the only thing that's really significant is what's listed, and when we don't appear to have a more common name for the listing itself, we should go with the NRHP listing name. Without any other "Painted Rocks" articles likely to appear, and
609:
discuss. Instead you moved it again, and as you know that prevents me from being able to move it back to the original name, it takes an administrator to do so. I mainly do object to your highhanded way. In your revisions of the article you took out stuff such as mention of its location near
608:
I find it not amusing that you are taking pleasure of bedeviling someone else who does not have the administrative tools. You made a bold move, i reverted it, conveying adequately that it was a contested to move it from the original name. It was your job as an administrator to stop there and
930:
At this point, honestly, i don't much care which is the article name, if the redirects are kept, but I sort of don't like to put this at "Painted Rocks" alone. There are other places named that, or named "Painted Rock", some covered in the current disambiguation page which is so far very
788:; I thought it was notable enough for an article. I just did not have the references at the time, but now thanks to other editors there is sufficient references. I want to thank you Shereth. The AfD tag was the best thing that could have happened to the Theba and Painted Rocks articles.
806:
point here is, except to come and try to get people riled up again? If you've been paying attention you'd see that tempers are coming down and we're starting to come to a common grounds on how to improve the situation overall. Zipping in with a snide remark is far from helpful.
666:
that goes around the rocks and includes historical markers and informative signs for visitors. This should not be an issue of NRHP vs. BLM, but the historic site is located within and is a part of the BLM establishment, therefore it makes more sense that the article be about the
452:, highlights the petroglyphs and the simple National Register name for the place. To use a Bureau of Land Management campground name instead of the natural name for the place, and to focus the article more on describing a campground rather than the ancient petroglyphs, as in
415:
is insistent upon using the name that shows in the
National Register of Historic Places of "Painted Rocks", to the point where s/he continues moving it to a name that requires a parenthetical disambiguator. Even setting aside that "Painted Rock Petroglyph Site" is the
555:
I stated that I was withdrawing under protest, but did not place any conditions on my withdrawal. The discussion is ongoing because other editors have opined that it should be deleted and the discussion will remain open in spite of the fact that I have withdrawn.
783:
Wow, I can't believe an administrator like
Shereth would go to great lengths in making a point like he/she is doing on this talk page. These articles really are getting lots of hot attencion. In case you didn't know, I was the one that started the article
832:
to do is improve the encyclopedia. When something is real and verifiable, I am only too happy to lend a hand and try to improve articles. When something lacks sources, I try to get it removed. When sources are found, I back down. It's pretty simple.
1121:
726:, as well as other places named "Painted Rock", singular. I hadn't noticed immediately, earlier, that Shereth had set up this disambiguation page. I had estimated it would be appropriate to have such a page eventually, though.
155:
515:. The information that you are stubbornly reverting into the article is out of date and it is honestly mind-boggling that you insist a 30 year old entry in the NHRP should trump current ownership information. As far as
1116:
145:
424:
dictates that "When there is another term or more complete name that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." If "Painted Rock
Petroglyph Site" is not a more complete name, I do not know what is.
1111:
121:
863:
Thanks
Shereth for your note (more or less of apology regarding our starting off on wrong foot) at my Talk page. I appreciate that, and that you indeed seem to be just focussing on building, positively.
1069:
I uploaded a couple of images I took from the site and added them to the article; I went ahead and took out the pushpin map as it was visually dominating the article. Hope that's ok with everyone else.
1136:
541:. It does include a conditional offer that you make to possibly remove your nomination, but it does not look to me like you withdrew the nomination. In fact, voting and discussion is continuing.
519:
is concerned, I conceded the point and withdrew my nomination this morning and am no longer interested in getting it deleted. If you had bothered to read the full discussion you would know this.
108:
69:
1034:. The current name is good enough to disambiguate from others. Some of the other Painted Rocks appear to be petroglyph sites as well so adding the state name appears to be the best option. --
240:
448:
Also, the name "Painted Rocks" which is the official name of the National Register program highlights the historic place well. The version of the article as I have just left it,
257:
516:
471:
293:
1131:
283:
247:
411:— The article is about a site administered and maintained by the Bureau of Land Management and is officially named, by them, "Painted Rock Petroglyph Site".
1156:
1126:
443:
name for the place, plus adding (City, State) disambiguating phrase to allow for the likelihood that there may be other places of the name "Painted Rocks".
100:
252:
748:. A dab page takes the unqualified title only if there are two or more articles that would otherwise use the same title and none are the primary topic.
718:
Hmm, well I believe Shereth and I both think that "Painted Rocks" should be a disambiguation page, covering this Arizona one and also wikipedia-notable
381:
1146:
333:
223:
178:
1151:
1141:
117:
235:
802:
It happens all the time - a poor article gets nominated and comes out the other side as highly improved. However, I wonder what
231:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
328:
183:
44:
912:
764:
741:
904:
408:
723:
986:
I have given this some thought and I am OK with leaving the name as-is, or dropping the parenthesis and going with
719:
950:: Since all, or almost all, painted rocks are either petroglyphic or pictographic sites, I really don't think
740:
Even if you need a dab page (questionable in my opinion, and redlinks certainly don't belong) it should be at
50:
32:
987:
908:
404:
466:
from the title and from the content of the article, apparently because he/she is battling to win an AfD on
899:
without articles yet on other notable sites with this as part of the name, I think it best to put this at
1022:
854:
793:
120:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1048:
As I am no longer supporting the move, I am removing the RM tag. Thanks to everyone for your input.
215:
700:. There is no need for a parenthetical qualifier of any kind. No other article is using the title.
614:
753:
705:
537:
Your assertion that you withdrew the nomination appears to be false, as far as I can tell in the
389:
360:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
421:
199:
172:
1092:
1076:
1054:
1039:
1004:
936:
920:
869:
839:
813:
773:
731:
676:
622:
583:
562:
546:
525:
493:
479:
475:
431:
1018:
975:
850:
789:
17:
644:
1096:
1081:
1059:
1042:
1026:
1009:
979:
940:
924:
873:
858:
844:
818:
797:
778:
757:
735:
709:
681:
626:
587:
567:
550:
530:
497:
436:
393:
828:
all I am trying to do is get something deleted/tear down someone's work, when all I am
785:
610:
467:
463:
320:
1105:
900:
749:
745:
701:
696:
385:
228:
113:
1088:
1071:
1049:
1035:
999:
932:
916:
895:
865:
834:
808:
768:
727:
671:
618:
579:
557:
542:
520:
489:
426:
412:
302:
971:
373:
356:
310:
205:
90:
994:
in the title; nearest town notwithstanding, Painted Rocks is most certainly
643:
I also find it less than amusing that you are making a continual refusal to
1122:
Start-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance
227:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
84:
63:
462:
Further, Shereth has intervened on this article to remove mention of
670:
establishment, not just the historic site which is a part of it.
1087:
Nice pics! Fine with me about dropping display of the map, too.
130:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
767:
and I would consider that solution to be perfectly acceptable.
26:
1117:
Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
511:
governed by the state. The state handed control to the BLM
301:
1112:
Start-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
420:
name used by the entity that owns and operates the site,
133:
Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
538:
453:
449:
970:; I don't care for parentheses in geographic names. --
351:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
1137:
Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
990:. I still would oppose any iteration that includes
744:
because no other article is using the precise title
517:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona
472:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Theba, Arizona
954:is all that great a title. I note that the plural
482:and see Shereth and my contributions about that.
109:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
136:National Register of Historic Places articles
8:
964:Painted Rocks Petroglyph Site and Campground
454:Shereth's apparently preferred last version
101:National Register of Historic Places portal
30:
167:
58:
382:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
268:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
380:Above undated message substituted from
169:
60:
962:would be better. The BLM seems to use
960:Painted Rocks Petroglyph Site, Arizona
1132:Low-importance United States articles
958:is more often used about this site.
539:current version of the AFD discussion
7:
221:This article is within the scope of
127:National Register of Historic Places
118:National Register of Historic Places
106:This article is within the scope of
70:National Register of Historic Places
948:Support Move, Oppose Choice of Name
49:It is of interest to the following
1157:WikiProject United States articles
1127:Start-Class United States articles
365:
361:
271:Template:WikiProject United States
25:
368:. Further details are available
355:
313:
208:
198:
171:
93:
83:
62:
31:
1147:Low-importance Arizona articles
288:This article has been rated as
150:This article has been rated as
913:Painted Rocks (Theba, Arizona)
1:
968:Painted Rocks, Theba, Arizona
765:Painted Rock (disambiguation)
742:Painted Rock (disambiguation)
326:This article is supported by
124:and see a list of open tasks.
1152:WikiProject Arizona articles
1142:Start-Class Arizona articles
952:Painted Rock Petroglyph Site
905:Painted Rock Petroglyph Site
573:perhaps the nominator would
409:Painted Rock Petroglyph Site
394:06:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
18:Talk:Painted Rocks (Arizona)
724:Yakima Indian Painted Rocks
1173:
694:This article should be at
294:project's importance scale
156:project's importance scale
1097:10:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
1082:00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
1060:20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
1043:19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
1027:19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
1010:23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
980:22:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
941:18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
925:17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
874:18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
859:15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
845:15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
819:15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
798:15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
779:07:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
758:06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
736:06:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
710:06:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
682:23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
627:23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
588:18:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
568:00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
551:00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
531:23:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
498:23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
437:22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
309:
287:
224:WikiProject United States
193:
149:
78:
57:
720:Painted Rocks State Park
229:United States of America
1032:Oppose move as proposed
909:Painted Rocks (Arizona)
613:which i consider to be
470:which he/she opened at
405:Painted Rocks (Arizona)
988:Painted Rocks, Arizona
306:
274:United States articles
39:This article is rated
372:. Student editor(s):
305:
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
216:United States portal
915:all as redirects.
329:WikiProject Arizona
242:Articles Requested!
370:on the course page
307:
45:content assessment
645:assume good faith
480:User talk:Doncram
476:User talk:Shereth
348:
347:
344:
343:
340:
339:
166:
165:
162:
161:
16:(Redirected from
1164:
396:
367:
363:
359:
323:
318:
317:
316:
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
218:
213:
212:
211:
202:
195:
194:
189:
186:
175:
168:
138:
137:
134:
131:
128:
103:
98:
97:
96:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1102:
1101:
1067:
966:. I also like
722:in Montana and
402:
379:
353:
319:
314:
312:
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
262:
248:Become a Member
214:
209:
207:
187:
181:
135:
132:
129:
126:
125:
99:
94:
92:
72:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1170:
1168:
1160:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1114:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1066:
1063:
1046:
1045:
1029:
1012:
983:
982:
944:
943:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
821:
786:Theba, Arizona
713:
712:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
611:Theba, Arizona
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
501:
500:
484:
483:
468:Theba, Arizona
464:Theba, Arizona
459:
458:
445:
444:
401:
400:Requested move
398:
362:7 January 2019
352:
349:
346:
345:
342:
341:
338:
337:
334:Low-importance
325:
324:
321:Arizona portal
308:
298:
297:
290:Low-importance
286:
280:
279:
277:
261:
260:
255:
250:
245:
238:
236:Template Usage
232:
220:
219:
203:
191:
190:
188:Low‑importance
176:
164:
163:
160:
159:
152:Low-importance
148:
142:
141:
139:
122:the discussion
116:listed on the
114:historic sites
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
73:Low‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1169:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1107:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1065:Images or map
1064:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
945:
942:
938:
934:
929:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:Painted Rocks
897:
875:
871:
867:
862:
861:
860:
856:
852:
849:I understand
848:
847:
846:
843:
842:
838:
837:
831:
827:
822:
820:
817:
816:
812:
811:
805:
801:
800:
799:
795:
791:
787:
782:
781:
780:
777:
776:
772:
771:
766:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:Painted Rocks
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
714:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:Painted Rocks
693:
692:
683:
680:
679:
675:
674:
669:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
646:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
589:
585:
581:
576:
571:
570:
569:
566:
565:
561:
560:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
529:
528:
524:
523:
518:
514:
510:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
491:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
455:
451:
447:
446:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
434:
430:
429:
423:
419:
414:
410:
406:
399:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
377:
375:
371:
358:
350:
335:
332:(assessed as
331:
330:
322:
311:
304:
300:
299:
295:
291:
285:
282:
281:
278:
265:United States
259:
256:
254:
251:
249:
246:
244:
243:
239:
237:
234:
233:
230:
226:
225:
217:
206:
204:
201:
197:
196:
192:
185:
180:
179:United States
177:
174:
170:
157:
153:
147:
144:
143:
140:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1031:
1014:
1005:
1000:
995:
991:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
896:Court Avenue
892:
840:
835:
829:
825:
814:
809:
803:
774:
769:
695:
677:
672:
667:
574:
563:
558:
526:
521:
513:20 years ago
512:
508:
432:
427:
417:
413:user:Doncram
403:
378:
354:
327:
289:
253:Project Talk
241:
222:
151:
107:
51:WikiProjects
1019:Vegaswikian
851:Burningview
790:Burningview
366:10 May 2019
41:Start-class
1106:Categories
998:in Theba.
575:strike out
615:wp:POINTY
750:Station1
702:Station1
422:WP:NCDAB
418:official
386:PrimeBOT
1089:doncram
1036:Polaron
933:doncram
917:Nyttend
903:, with
866:doncram
824:people
728:doncram
619:doncram
580:doncram
543:doncram
490:doncram
292:on the
184:Arizona
154:on the
972:Bejnar
911:, and
830:trying
826:assume
763:be at
374:Csc622
258:Alerts
47:scale.
992:Theba
956:rocks
894:have
668:whole
1093:talk
1073:Sher
1051:Sher
1040:Talk
1023:talk
1015:Keep
1001:Sher
976:talk
937:talk
921:talk
870:talk
855:talk
836:Sher
810:Sher
804:your
794:talk
770:Sher
754:talk
732:talk
706:talk
673:Sher
623:talk
584:talk
559:Sher
547:talk
522:Sher
494:talk
478:and
450:here
428:Sher
390:talk
364:and
1078:eth
1056:eth
1006:eth
996:not
841:eth
815:eth
775:eth
678:eth
564:eth
527:eth
509:was
433:eth
384:by
284:Low
146:Low
1108::
1095:)
1038:|
1025:)
978:)
939:)
923:)
907:,
872:)
857:)
796:)
756:)
734:)
708:)
625:)
586:)
549:)
496:)
407:→
392:)
376:.
336:).
182::
1091:(
1021:(
974:(
935:(
919:(
868:(
853:(
792:(
752:(
730:(
704:(
621:(
582:(
545:(
492:(
388:(
296:.
158:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
