1013:
wikipedia or a
Japanese dictionary, similar to the Chinese terms that had been quoted earlier without sources. Is it truly necessary to provide sources in such cases, as it is only a matter of someone providing a stub? Otherwise, I can only conclude that you consider my 'declaration' as the act of temporarily removing your statement until such a time that it was adequately refined to not be misleading (which you no longer need to do, as I went and did it myself). I am new to wikipedia editing, and was thus unaware of the exact policy in regards to reversions and the exact appropriate action to take in a case such as this, so I apologise for removing the statement rather than replacing it with something more specific. I only did so under the belief that the statement as it was at that time was potentially more harmful than beneficial to users; the fact that you had failed to include the english sources you had claimed to have found a year before during the initial discussion was also a factor. I have only tried to make a positive, critical contribution to this discussion and have received an overtly defensive reply in kind. Considering that your original source is in Korean, please keep in mind that as a non-Korean speaker I cannot independently ascertain or verify through a neutral third party whether the statement provided is a summary or a translation from the source as there is no explicit translation of the relevant extract made available, which necessitates an inherently overly critical approach (whether you, another korean or japanese editor initially inserted this source is irrelevant).
1009:
source with full bibliographical information which was to demonstrate a point - namely that scholarship on the
Japanese/Chinese tributary relationship in english is highly contradictory and problematic due in part to the use of unquestioned secondary (translated) sources such as yours. My only assertion, which was demonstrated to be fully justified by the english source that you yourself provided, was that the statement you had presented was potentially misleading considering that "ancient times" refers to a 4,000 year period - anywhere between the bronze age to the early middle ages, and the tributary relationship ostensibly began closer to the first century, not millenia before. Specificity is also important because of the discrepancy between tributary system and relationship which is particularly relevant to Japan. Considering that the Book of Han is the original historical document that forms that basis of all further claims of a tributary relationship, allowing an exception for a non english source at this juncture is unavoidable - especially considering the lack of english scholarship or translation for the document.
1086:
accurate. You also contest the Korean source, and blanked the info of Japan having paid to China, but let the Korean info just as it is and then relocated the citation. That selective removals of yours can be called a double standard. If you feel that the citation is inaccurate, and not neutral, you should've blanked out the Korean info as well. However, you did not. The sockpuppeters thought that the source is neutral and accurate, so used it regardless of the language barrier. I provided a direct quote from the source which matched to the info that Japan paid tribute to China from ancient times. If anyone altered the sentence without source, that would be original research. Moreover, any unreferenced information have been deleted by editors here, but you inserted the terms without any source, so you can not falsely accuse me of being harmful because of the deletion of your unsourced information. The
Knowledge (XXG) policy clearly says "any unreferenced information can be immediately deleted". If you try to change the policy, then you need to talk with many people. Moreover please remind
934:
potentially misleading, inherently problematic and also grammatically incorrect. I was simply using McDougall's claim as an example of misleading oversimplification of the tributary relationship Japan shared with China. You should perhaps rephrase the sentence perhaps in reference to the Book of Han and the tributary relationship during 'ancient' times. I would make the change myself, only that I currently have japanese sources for the Book of Han, rather than
English. Also, by reverting my alteration, you have also deleted the additionally information I included. In the meantime, I shall revert your reversion.
1190:"The medieval Mongol rulers of Russia also expected nothing more than tribute from the Russian states, which continued to govern themselves" what is that? There was no "russia" or "russian" states in such ancient times, if you want to speak in modern terms than Ukrainian lands suffered and payed tribute the most so refer to them as Ruthenian or Ukrainian states/principalities, but definitely not "russian".
325:
304:
191:
335:
240:
222:
1085:
source is also faulty because
Knowledge (XXG) does not prohibit to use non-English source, but you insist that English sources are neutral and Korean sources are inherently biased on Japanese tributary relation with China. You should be aware that not every English sources are neutral or descriptive,
428:
other fees (nowadays known as "intellectual property") or, most historically and commonly, as land title deeds. Hence the State is absolutely necessary for the realization of the private form of tribute, rent. See for one reference "Le Tribut foncier urbain", Maspero, 1974 , by Alain
Lipietz.
1041:
You first appeared to accuse the source inserted by
Japanese editors without any presentation to verify your claim such as ISBN, ISSN, links, direct quotes. Then you complain that I'm not gentle to you even though your hostility is too evident from the beginning. Please remind that if you do not act
593:, because the dish is getting popular in South Korea, and the Korean naming is quite different from Japanese original name. Therefore it is worthy to implement the content with any reliable source, so I used the Korean source. If you can find a reliable English source, please add it to the article.--
427:
to a naturally occurring good, not a human production. Thus it is literally the giving of money, or any barter good, for nothing, to either a private person or the State; in the cases of a private person, the State necessarily mediates the form of access in the legal form of patents, copyrights and
1012:
However, you did not bother to engage with or acknowledge any of the inherent problems with your statement which I have repeatedly expressed to you. I am unsure as to what you are refering to as my 'declaration'. The only inclusion I made were linguistic terms that are available within the
Japanese
722:
When I write the Korean history, I quote a Korean history document. And I quote a
Japanese history document when I write the Japanese history. And, when the translation and the explanation of the source are requested, I do not reject it.　When I explain Mongolia and China, the Japanese history, I do
1008:
Using your source, I have now rewritten the statement to reflect the changing tributary relationship that occurred between Japan and China. To be honest, I am quite confused by your actions as you have accused me of not 'showing you anything' even though i provided you with a quote from a literary
888:
until Ryuku's annexation to Japan). According to Derek McDougall in Asia
Pacific in world politics (Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007), 'Japanese rulers never paid tribute to China' (pp 8) which demonstrates that English scholarship can be equally problematic - all the more reason to
804:
Just ancient time, not to "Kofun period" as I said before. Just saying "I", I'm not included in your definition of "we" since there is none except you and me. I already suggested you to look into the history, why wouldn't you do so but keep continuing this unnecessary discussion? As I said before,
1080:
It is true that the Korean citation was inserted by a "notorious sockpuppter" who was endlessly block evading, to make a point that Korea paid to China, but tried to erase the fact that Japan paid to China at the same time. At least three Japanese sockpuppeters appeared to disrupt the article and
933:
If that is the case - namely that adequate English sources exist justifying this statement, why aren't you quoting these English sources? McDougall's quote which you referred to as "my claim" is not the reason why i deleted the statement - but because, as I stated before, it is far too vague,
789:" to the source of information of "Japan had to pay tributes to China from ancient time". However, the Web site is written in the Hangul Alphabet. We do not understand the Hangul Alphabet. Therefore I ask you for translation. Is not the source written "from ancient time to Kofun Period"? --
1081:
later got indefinitely blocked. Not once did I accuse that you're same as the notorious sockpuppeter? Not that I'm aware. I fixed the incorrect information inserted by one of such the suckpuppeters, so I left the edit summary to clarify why I fix the existent sentence. Your claim of
422:
Rent, and not only taxes, is the modern form of tribute. It is tribute because it is not the equivalent exchange of one good against another, where both (money, and the goods being exchanged against money)are human products; rather, it is typically money exchanged against
907:
Korean source was inserted by Japanese editors. And plenty of English sources say that Japan paid tributes to China, so don't worry. If you try hard searching English sources in Google book, you can find a plenty of sources contradicting your claim with no link.
849:
Where did you get the "to the present age?" -_-;; Please do not add something unreferenced which can mislead the article have "original research". I think to end this silly dispute, I or you have to add "English sources". Are you okay with the
743:
Eyerolling* hmmm, please add citations if you have anything useful to make the article enhanced. So by your logic, Japanese sources should be completely moved from Korean history articles if Japan has nothing to do with the subject. Good to
588:
Sigh. On Korean articles which has absolutely unrelated to Japan have a lot of Japanese citations attached as sources. Do you think we have to remove all the Japanese sources from such articles? I don't think so. If you're referring to
682:
OK, As for your source, the period that Japan gave China is not being written. In the Korean Web site ”Empas”, knowledge of the Japanese history is insufficient. Therefore I will offer the reliable source of information.　Thank You
964:. You also distorted the referenced information with the Korean source and added the info without source. If you removed the properly referenced info, you will be likely accused of violating various content policies such as
555:
Look closely to the site again. Empas is one of the biggest web portal in South Korea and hosts the "encyclopedia" by contract just like MSN Encarta Japan. The encyclopedia also publishes the same contents in paper as
1051:. You declared "I shall revert your edit" until I provided English sources. That is against the spirit of constructive discussion and your intention to edit warring. You don't see what is harmful to the article.
153:
1237:
280:
286:
541:
had to pay tributes to China from ancient time". Does the evidence of this explanation exist only on the Web site in South Korea?(Does it exist in the history document of China and Japan?)--
992:. Since you seem to be very familiar with Knowledge (XXG) policy, I hope you do not make such mistakes. Moreover, book of Han is a primary source, so that is contradictory of your claim of
665:
Korean language. Hangul is a writing sytem of Korean language. None has inserted "Kofun period" to the article. You can freely check the history of the article by yourself and confirm it!--
868:
Have removed this as no-one has thus far provided a reliable English reference. The statement remained too vague as there is no mention of which historical period(s) during which
700:
Besides, you're the one who keeps asking about the Korean source that Japanese users inserted. Well, since you're not so satisfied with the source, I will implement from reliable
1242:
256:
1090:. Here is an encyclopedia to build quality articles as amicably as we can, if you can not abide by the rule and guideline, then Knowledge (XXG) is not a right place for you.--
805:
please DO edit with RELIABLE sources. And don't complain about the Korean sources that Japanese editors who can read Korean or know how to use a translation tool added.--
625:
Please check the history of the article first before complaining something to me as I repeatedly have said to you. The Korean information is already on an edit summary.--
1232:
508:
which deals with Korean and some of neighboring countries such as Japan and China. The source was initially added by Japanese users, not me, just for your information.--
247:
227:
147:
79:
391:
1145:
Can we add a tiny bit about the modern use of tribute in literature for interest, people reading about the Hunger Games may find their way to this page.
1252:
381:
85:
1257:
357:
574:. It made a mistake for that. By the way, when you write the article on Japan, could you teach the reason to use Encalta of South Korea?　--
435:
30:
1210:
1191:
1172:
1027:
Edited as I misread your statement of Japanese editors as those involved in creating the source document, not the wikipedia article.
99:
1247:
977:
104:
20:
647:. Therefore, I am asking you for the confirmation of the source. Is not the source written "from ancient time to Kofun Perido"? --
348:
309:
74:
44:
202:
531:
505:
961:
65:
168:
135:
611:
had to pay tributes to China from ancient time". Is not the source written "from ancient time to Kofun Perido"? --
109:
989:
485:
had to pay tributes to China from ancient time"? And, is there an authority in the Web site in South Korea?　--
439:
208:
1214:
1195:
1176:
1157:
252:
985:
431:
1091:
997:
922:
909:
855:
810:
749:
713:
670:
630:
598:
561:
513:
129:
55:
840:
794:
732:
688:
652:
616:
579:
546:
490:
356:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
255:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
70:
724:
414:
1082:
993:
190:
125:
1131:
463:
161:
1153:
1087:
175:
851:
806:
745:
709:
666:
626:
594:
557:
509:
51:
981:
1148:
1032:
1018:
939:
894:
884:
in regards to said tribute (as both countries maintained seperate diplomatic relations with
836:
790:
728:
684:
648:
612:
575:
542:
486:
1048:
973:
1127:
459:
340:
969:
965:
527:
479:
1226:
881:
413:
Is there any evidence for the modern tribute information? It really needs citations.
141:
1117:
1028:
1014:
935:
890:
330:
1047:
see this instead, how ancient times in Japan is defined in historiography.
912:
Caspian'http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Tribute&action=edit
324:
303:
590:
353:
24:
607:
Please teach the part being written that the article on the Empas is "
824:
820:
644:
571:
872:
paid tribute, nor any consideration for avoiding conflation between
352:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
885:
873:
869:
832:
828:
786:
640:
608:
538:
523:
482:
921:
I reverted your free excise of the alteration without source. --
239:
221:
1218:
1199:
1180:
1161:
1135:
1097:
1036:
1022:
1003:
943:
928:
916:
898:
859:
844:
814:
798:
753:
736:
717:
692:
674:
656:
634:
620:
602:
583:
565:
550:
522:
Thank you for the answer. However, Your source is quoted from
517:
494:
467:
443:
417:
184:
15:
984:. Your declaration is nothing but your blatant disregard to
877:
1171:
Explain using a right up on the importance of tribute
1124:
1042:
civil, none would treat you civilly. As for your claim
698:
456:
697:-_-;; Did you even look at the history of the article?
160:
679:"We" is people who do not understand Korean language.
251:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1238:
Unknown-importance International relations articles
528:
http://100.empas.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?i=257083
265:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject International relations
174:
708:. Regards (I already found a couple of sources).--
285:This article has not yet received a rating on the
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
819:OK, The goal has come into view. Then does the
835:from the ancient times to the present age?" --
1044:"ancient times" refers to a 4,000 year period
8:
1243:WikiProject International relations articles
960:. Your assertion without source constitutes
704:. I believe you will also do the same since
268:Template:WikiProject International relations
504:from a Korean reputable encyclopedia named
298:
216:
948:Then, present the links or quote to show
1233:C-Class International relations articles
889:necessitate a reliable English source!
300:
218:
188:
7:
723:not quote a document written in the
346:This article is within the scope of
245:This article is within the scope of
366:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject History
248:WikiProject International relations
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
639:We do not understand the Web site
14:
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
333:
323:
302:
271:International relations articles
238:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1253:Low-importance history articles
706:many people don't read Japanese
570:I'm sorry. I do not understand
530:empas 조공 tribute"　Empas is not
386:This article has been rated as
1136:02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
860:20:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
845:20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
815:17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
799:17:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
785:You showed a Korean Web site "
754:16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
737:16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
718:15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
693:15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
675:15:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
657:14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
635:12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
621:12:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
603:18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
584:18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
566:18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
551:18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
532:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture
518:17:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
506:Encyclopedia of Korean Culture
495:17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
1181:07:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
468:19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
360:and see a list of open tasks.
259:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1258:WikiProject History articles
1098:16:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1037:15:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1023:15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1004:03:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
944:03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
929:16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
917:15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
899:15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
661:Who are "we"? It is written
444:17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
369:Template:WikiProject History
952:because I can not check on
1274:
1219:18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
1200:20:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
1186:Mongol rulers of "russia"?
392:project's importance scale
287:project's importance scale
1162:17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
409:Tribute in the Modern Era
385:
318:
284:
233:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1248:C-Class history articles
1126:. What is the reason ?--
956:unless you show me with
823:Web site written in the
478:Does this Korean source
418:15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
978:WP:No original research
831:had to pay tributes to
262:International relations
253:International relations
228:International relations
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1049:Ancient_history#Japan
827:Alphabet write that "
455:Do not hide the fact.
201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
962:WP:Original research
105:No original research
349:WikiProject History
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1141:Modern literature
434:comment added by
406:
405:
402:
401:
398:
397:
297:
296:
293:
292:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1265:
1205:Is anyone alive?
1149:The Hunger Games
1123:you deleted　this
446:
374:
373:
372:history articles
370:
367:
364:
343:
338:
337:
336:
327:
320:
319:
314:
306:
299:
273:
272:
269:
266:
263:
242:
235:
234:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1223:
1222:
1207:
1188:
1169:
1143:
1121:
990:WP:Edit warring
988:by engaging in
725:Hangul Alphabet
702:English sources
481:being ritten, "
476:
452:
429:
415:Paladinwannabe2
411:
371:
368:
365:
362:
361:
339:
334:
332:
312:
270:
267:
264:
261:
260:
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1271:
1269:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1225:
1224:
1209:Maybe answer?
1206:
1203:
1187:
1184:
1168:
1165:
1142:
1139:
1120:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1010:
919:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
680:
535:
475:
472:
471:
470:
451:
448:
436:69.181.102.199
410:
407:
404:
403:
400:
399:
396:
395:
388:Low-importance
384:
378:
377:
375:
358:the discussion
345:
344:
341:History portal
328:
316:
315:
313:Low‑importance
307:
295:
294:
291:
290:
283:
277:
276:
274:
257:the discussion
243:
231:
230:
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1270:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:46.118.237.59
1204:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1192:46.118.237.59
1185:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:107.189.31.93
1166:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:Idyllic press
1151:
1150:
1146:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1119:
1115:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1050:
1045:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
1000:
995:
991:
987:
986:WP:Discussion
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
932:
931:
930:
927:
925:
920:
918:
915:
913:
906:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
887:
883:
882:Ryuku_Islands
879:
875:
871:
867:
861:
857:
853:
850:suggestion?--
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
788:
755:
751:
747:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
681:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
474:Korean Source
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
453:
449:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
426:
420:
419:
416:
408:
393:
389:
383:
380:
379:
376:
359:
355:
351:
350:
342:
331:
329:
326:
322:
321:
317:
311:
308:
305:
301:
288:
282:
279:
278:
275:
258:
254:
250:
249:
244:
241:
237:
236:
232:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1208:
1189:
1170:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1122:
1092:
1043:
998:
957:
953:
949:
923:
911:
904:
852:Caspian blue
807:Caspian blue
784:
746:Caspian blue
710:Caspian blue
705:
701:
667:Caspian blue
662:
627:Caspian blue
595:Caspian blue
558:Caspian blue
510:Caspian blue
501:
477:
430:— Preceding
424:
421:
412:
387:
347:
246:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1118:User:Kuebie
837:Eichikiyama
791:Eichikiyama
729:Eichikiyama
685:Eichikiyama
649:Eichikiyama
643:written by
613:Eichikiyama
576:Eichikiyama
543:Eichikiyama
487:Eichikiyama
148:free images
31:not a forum
1227:Categories
1083:WP:English
994:WP:English
954:your claim
500:Yes, that
450:Korean POV
1128:Propastop
950:his claim
460:Bentecbye
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1088:WP:CIVIL
958:anything
905:reliable
880:and the
432:unsigned
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1167:History
1093:Caspian
999:Caspian
982:WP:CITE
924:Caspian
744:know.--
591:onigiri
556:well.--
390:on the
363:History
354:History
310:History
199:C-class
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
25:Tribute
1046:-: -->
1029:Ehma j
1015:Ehma j
936:Ehma j
891:Ehma j
825:Hangul
821:Korean
645:Hangul
572:Hangul
425:access
205:scale.
126:Google
974:WP:RS
886:China
874:Japan
870:Japan
833:China
829:Japan
787:Empas
641:Empas
609:Japan
539:Japan
524:Empas
483:Japan
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1215:talk
1196:talk
1177:talk
1158:talk
1132:talk
1095:blue
1033:talk
1019:talk
1001:blue
996:. --
970:WP:N
966:WP:V
940:talk
926:blue
914:blue
903:The
895:talk
856:talk
841:talk
811:talk
795:talk
750:talk
733:talk
727:. --
714:talk
689:talk
671:talk
653:talk
631:talk
617:talk
599:talk
580:talk
562:talk
547:talk
514:talk
491:talk
464:talk
440:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1116:to
876:as
382:Low
281:???
176:TWL
1229::
1217:)
1198:)
1179:)
1160:)
1134:)
1035:)
1021:)
980:,
976:,
972:,
968:,
942:)
908:--
897:)
878:Wa
858:)
843:)
813:)
797:)
752:)
735:)
716:)
691:)
683:--
673:)
663:in
655:)
633:)
619:)
601:)
582:)
564:)
549:)
516:)
502:IS
493:)
466:)
458:--
442:)
156:)
54:;
1213:(
1194:(
1175:(
1156:(
1130:(
1031:(
1017:(
938:(
910:'
893:(
854:(
839:(
809:(
793:(
748:(
731:(
712:(
687:(
669:(
651:(
629:(
615:(
597:(
578:(
560:(
545:(
537:"
534:.
526:"
512:(
489:(
462:(
438:(
394:.
289:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
