543:
the village of Vigia, more exactly in the Vila Santo
Antonio do Imbituba about 7 kilometers from highway PA-140, with the appearance of an object which focus a white light over people, immobilizing them for around an hour, and sucks the breasts of the women leaving them bleeding. The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation. One of the victims, among many in the area, was Mrs. Rosita Ferreira, married, 46 years old, resident of Ramal do Triunfo, who a few days ago was sucked by the light on the left breast, and passed out. Increasingly it looked like she was dealing with a nightmare, feeling as if there were some claws trying to hold her. She was attacked around 3:30 in the morning. Another victim was the lady known as "Chiquita," who was also sucked by the strange object with her breast becoming bloody, but without leaving any marks."
766:
on mentioning the film until additional reviews, positive or negative, from unquestionably reliable sources become available. Not helping matters is the fact that the film's non-notable director/producer specializes almost exclusively in credulous, sensational, The-Extraterrestrials-Are-Here! material. There's certainly nothing wrong with that as a career choice, but the combination of pro-fringe and non-notable is a poor recipe for mentioning their output in
Knowledge articles.
178:
387:
293:
199:
102:
81:
50:
307:
279:
317:
21:
872:
is not a reliable source for, well, pretty much anything: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." The
542:
This is corroborated by this report: Months later, on
October 8, the newspaper O LIBERAL launched the first in a series of reports, about the Chupa-Chupa (suck-suck) phenomenon. "Sucking animal attacks men and women in the village of Vigia: A strange phenomenon has been occurring for several weeks in
1069:
Clearly this documentary is relevant to the topic and should be added in the media section. The article should state that it is a pro-aliens take on the incident and not an unbiased one. This is just yet another occasion of wikipedia editors refusing to let anything other than scepticism be included
958:
Here you have it. Directly from the link about notability you sent. You're not making an article about Moment of
Contact youre just adding a piece of Media that talks about this incident. Notability doesn't determine the content of articles. As i said you're literally playing around with the concept
765:
reads more like a breathless press release than an objective review from a capable film critic (example prose: "a thought-provoking work examining a taboo topic with staggering implications"). Such a small number of reviews defines the film as both obscure and non-notable. I suggest that we hold off
888:
The New York Post did a article on it. I even Cited it. James Fox was also one Joe Rogan yesterday and promoted it. Also Moment of
Contact has great reviews on IMDB and RottenTomatoes which are two independent websited. You're now literally playing around with what "Notability" is. In my opinion it
1017:
This has literally become a subject of opinion at this point. "Moment ot
Contact" is a piece of MEDIA. A long, high budget and well done documentary by a notable director. The fact that a couple people here get to decide what is a "reliable source" is ridiculous, although i put 3 sources there and
454:
In fairness, I do not speak or read
Portuguese, the language of origin for several hundred of the links. Another few hundred were in Spanish, which I read poorly. Someone fluent in one or both of these languages might be able to find a link to a news story or objective source that was lacking from
1136:
He had no involvement in the
Brazilian Government’s inquiry. He is not an expert on the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Furthermore, the provided opinion does not add new factual information or additional context relevant to the Brazilian Government’s inquiry. Make a separate section for “Media
538:
The article says "Moffett writes that there have been over half a dozen sightings of the creatures, though "it is unclear how all of these beings could have fit into the minivan-sized spacecraft that was spotted here in
January." It's more than possible that these bizarre creatures simply fly
446:
I was able to find about 2,000 references to this incident, but not a single objective source for any of the statements made on this page. These references cross-link between themselves, using each other as "sources". They prop up the ever-expanding story by claiming that all true sources of
1216:
At this point I am willing to bet that "skeptic Brian
Dunning" will weigh in on every single UFO incident covered in Knowledge. Someone, perhaps "Material Scientist" can enlighten me on whether this fact, in itself, constitutes a kind of hijacking of the UFO articles to serve the purpose of
920:). Thirdly, I suggest that you read the comments posted earlier in this section, which also address reasons for considering Moment of Contact and its director/producer as currently non-notable; my concept of notability is based not upon me
907:
my comment to which you were apparently responding - I have moved it to the proper location without removing/changing anything you wrote. Secondly, I suggest that you read my comment again, wherein I explained why IMDb and the
889:
doesn't even have to achieve notability because James Fox is know to reliable and trustworthy and he puts a lot of effort into his documentaries. JoJoAnthrax i would really appreciate it if you stopped removing it.
873:
film's director/producer is also not notable. For those editors who really, really feel compelled to add mention of this non-notable film to this article, I suggest you first gain consensus here at the Talk page.
429:
I'm going to reapply the npov tag; if someone has some information to make this a balanced article, as well as sources, please add. I'm sure somewhere some government has blamed it all on weather balloons ;)
936:
Joe Rogan does not convey notability upon either the material or the promoter. Lastly, I will note again that if you can achieve consensus in favor of your desired content here, on this Talk page (please see
539:
themselves by having hidden wings and a new way of flying. A vapor released could make them look at lot bigger than they really are for example. They may just look metallic and craft-like when in the air.
711:
Is there any evidence that the film is notable? Have there been any reviews of the film by notable media (not UFO websites or blogs)? If not, perhaps it is best to wait until such notability is achieved.
1152:
Or include the information under “Notoriety”. But the opinion of a podcaster, with no real credentials and no relevance to the inquiry into this event, should not be included in the “Inquiry” section
1071:
512:
There were many more witnesses and they offered far more details. Why are tese not shown? Where is the detailed timeline with maps? This is poor and biased. As said, full rewrite is needed.
519:
455:
every English page. Barring that, the only salvation I see for this article is the placement of "supposedly", "rumored" and "unsubstantiated" in innumerable places throughout the piece. -
463:
I'm Brazilian, and haven't found any big difference between the common brazilian version and this one. In fact, it looks like a merely translated page instead of a new article. --
31:
647:
I looked at the article. Although I might try to edit it a bit, I fear I don't have the time to parse all those Portuguese sources. Is there a Brazilian editor in the house?
1294:
1279:
261:
251:
160:
150:
1314:
1084:
This ain't the place to rant about skeptics. We have a couple of reasonable sources to confirm the film exists, and that's about all that's needed here.
999:
If you feel like i am right, maybe even a little bit, i will leave it to you to add Moment of Contact as a piece of media. I hope you have a great day.
1299:
1289:
1284:
1274:
1309:
1018:
literally explained that IMDb alone is generally accepted by Knowledge as a reliable source for some information like this one. Have a great day.
377:
367:
571:
maybe it's too minor, but should the article mention a Brazilian video game by the name of The Varginha Incident, based off the UFO sightings?
122:
227:
1044:
789:
1319:
1304:
761:, etc. Two of the reviews seem written by actual film critics (others might disagree with that assessment, however), but the "review" from
552:
509:
Obviously the military had big stakes in this, why would they even tell any truth. How about renaming this section to "offical reaction".
1153:
1138:
1117:
395:
1075:
578:
665:
The Films and Documentaries section also seems to require pruning. I'll get back to it (and perhaps that Ademar guy) later today....
600:, this organization/magazine seems to promote lunatic fringe views of the topic. Probably not a good source to base article text on.
497:
This article reads as if it supports the UFO claim. And I'm pretty sure it has weasel words in the form of "some critics argue" etc.
1170:
As a brand new IP user you wouldn't be expected to know the encyclopedia's byzantine editorial policies -- but you should look over
523:
343:
206:
183:
126:
118:
109:
86:
814:
955:"The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article."
598:
330:
284:
61:
1250:
Also, this page is for improving this article, not for expressing your feelings about general overuse of sources. --
478:
As a Brazilian, I'm surprised that the majority of the people involved doesn't have Brazilian names. Strange thing.
810:
432:
I guess I should read more carefully... it's all blamed on a lack of growth hormone??? Anyway, still needs sources
226:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
500:
The External Links are dead but they too only supported the UFO theory. Needs a complete re-write in my opinion.
27:
482:
Those are real names, as far as I know. They were frequently mentioned when the case was still high on media. --
826:
800:
736:
702:
556:
49:
1121:
1048:
793:
1157:
1142:
582:
988:
946:
878:
771:
717:
670:
652:
630:
620:
417:
This may be worthy of an encyclopedia article, but there are some rather gross deficiencies as it stands:
1255:
1222:
975:
Sure 'nuff! Although I do not believe the film or director are notable, I should have simply stuck with
917:
858:
67:
1218:
861:, IMDb is simply not a reliable source for the content some editors wish to add to this article. Also
1241:
1233:
1199:
1113:
1089:
1056:
684:
638:
605:
574:
515:
440:
20:
938:
822:
796:
732:
698:
433:
342:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
547:
483:
464:
1178:. Actual scientists don't bother refuting claims of UFO enthusiasts, so we look to independent
501:
1023:
1004:
984:
964:
942:
894:
874:
767:
713:
666:
648:
616:
448:
121:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with
1251:
1183:
1175:
1171:
726:
There are several reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, none of which are from UFO websites or blogs;
198:
177:
386:
1237:
1195:
1179:
1085:
1052:
680:
634:
601:
339:
913:
865:
854:
1268:
1187:
980:
729:
727:
322:
219:
215:
1190:
policies, particularly in light of your inflammatory edit summaries and your edits
1019:
1000:
976:
960:
890:
456:
1259:
1245:
1226:
1203:
1161:
1146:
1125:
1093:
1079:
1060:
1027:
1008:
992:
968:
950:
929:
898:
882:
830:
804:
775:
740:
721:
706:
688:
674:
656:
642:
624:
609:
586:
560:
527:
504:
486:
467:
451:: "The lack of proof for the conspiracy proves the depth of the conspiracy."
312:
223:
114:
101:
80:
903:
Firstly, your response was misplaced on this page. It was originally placed
813:
is considered notable enough for its own article, and is even listed in the
306:
278:
959:
of notability because even the link you send doesn't support what you say.
292:
1217:
advertising. It seems LuckyLouie may have been ahead of me on this issue
1137:
Commentary” if you want to include his personal opinion on this event.
211:
335:
679:
Pruned. I'm hoping you'll get the ball rolling on the Ademar guy.
697:
by film maker James Fox should be included in the Media section.
447:
information were covered up by "the government." It is a perfect
113:, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the
548:
http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm
43:
15:
615:
But it's an Explosive Report with one exclamation point. :)
385:
1110:
It was real I was of the many people that saw the monster
983:. Let's see if consensus favors your desired content...
745:
Those entries are not derived from notable sources like
1191:
912:
are not considered reliable sources (again, please see
817:
page. I don't understand why we can't link to his film
597:
Based on a translation of a reprint from "Revista UFO"
1212:
Providing free advertising for a monetized podcaster
334:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
210:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1051:. No need to include the release date in the text.
730:https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moment_of_contact
850:has not (yet) achieved notability. Additionally,
629:Related: our article on one of Revista's editors
129:, where you can join the project and discussions.
633:. Really heavy with fringe and undue flavoring.
534:UFOs Might Not Need Craft and Fly By Themselves
8:
941:), then your desired content will be added!
1036:It could probably have a sentence cited to
394:This article has been marked as needing an
47:
1111:
572:
513:
421:No source(s) provided for an unusual claim
273:
172:
75:
932:. That a person promoted their material
928:on notability, which I suggest you read
780:Here are reviews from reputable sources
1072:2A00:23C6:3081:4501:25A5:BC48:F73E:E27D
424:Not NPOV (i.e., it's presented as fact)
275:
174:
77:
921:
107:This article falls under the scope of
7:
520:2A02:A46D:7430:1:E91F:6B9D:3D46:15F0
439:Edited some spelling and grammar. --
328:This article is within the scope of
204:This article is within the scope of
30:on 14 September 2020. The result of
1232:Please stick with one account (see
66:It is of interest to the following
1295:Low-importance Skepticism articles
1280:Low-importance paranormal articles
1070:in their so called encyclopaedia.
14:
1315:Brazil articles without infoboxes
924:, but on the explicit Knowledge
315:
305:
291:
277:
236:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism
197:
176:
135:Knowledge:WikiProject Paranormal
100:
79:
48:
19:
1300:WikiProject Skepticism articles
1290:Start-Class Skepticism articles
1285:WikiProject Paranormal articles
1275:Start-Class paranormal articles
1186:. Also, you need to review our
593:Revista UFO / Moment of Contact
372:This article has been rated as
256:This article has been rated as
239:Template:WikiProject Skepticism
155:This article has been rated as
138:Template:WikiProject Paranormal
26:This article was nominated for
1310:Low-importance Brazil articles
815:UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence)
1:
1126:15:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
805:06:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
776:22:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
741:20:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
722:13:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
707:21:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
587:16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
346:and see a list of open tasks.
230:and see a list of open tasks.
689:17:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
675:16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
657:21:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
643:16:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
625:16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
610:16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
487:11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
468:11:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
352:Knowledge:WikiProject Brazil
1320:WikiProject Brazil articles
1305:Start-Class Brazil articles
561:04:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
505:16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
355:Template:WikiProject Brazil
1336:
1246:20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1227:20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1204:19:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1162:17:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1147:17:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
1094:13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
1080:22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
1061:15:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
1028:15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
1009:15:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
993:15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
969:15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
951:15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
899:14:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
883:13:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
811:The Phenomenon (2020 film)
436:01:02, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
378:project's importance scale
262:project's importance scale
161:project's importance scale
831:02:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
443:01:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
393:
371:
300:
255:
192:
154:
95:
74:
922:literally playing around
809:James Fox's documentary
528:18:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
459:15:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
1260:05:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
1106:Varginha UFO sightings
390:
207:WikiProject Skepticism
110:WikiProject Paranormal
56:This article is rated
747:The Los Angeles Times
389:
1182:critique to satisfy
631:Ademar José Gevaerd
242:Skepticism articles
141:paranormal articles
391:
331:WikiProject Brazil
62:content assessment
1128:
1116:comment added by
848:Moment of Contact
819:Moment of Contact
695:Moment of Contact
589:
577:comment added by
530:
518:comment added by
410:
409:
406:
405:
402:
401:
272:
271:
268:
267:
171:
170:
167:
166:
42:
41:
1327:
360:
359:
356:
353:
350:
325:
320:
319:
318:
309:
302:
301:
296:
295:
294:
289:
281:
274:
244:
243:
240:
237:
234:
201:
194:
193:
188:
180:
173:
143:
142:
139:
136:
133:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1265:
1264:
1214:
1134:
1108:
693:I think 2022's
595:
569:
536:
495:
476:
474:Brazilian names
415:
358:Brazil articles
357:
354:
351:
348:
347:
321:
316:
314:
290:
287:
241:
238:
235:
232:
231:
186:
140:
137:
134:
131:
130:
125:, or visit the
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
1333:
1331:
1323:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1248:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1165:
1164:
1133:
1130:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
997:
996:
995:
979:, and perhaps
956:
918:WP:Citing IMDb
859:WP:Citing IMDb
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
823:ArdentMaverick
807:
797:ArdentMaverick
755:The New Yorker
733:ArdentMaverick
699:ArdentMaverick
691:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
594:
591:
568:
565:
553:176.24.226.120
535:
532:
494:
493:Awful article.
491:
490:
489:
475:
472:
471:
470:
426:
425:
422:
414:
411:
408:
407:
404:
403:
400:
399:
392:
382:
381:
374:Low-importance
370:
364:
363:
361:
344:the discussion
340:related topics
327:
326:
310:
298:
297:
288:Low‑importance
282:
270:
269:
266:
265:
258:Low-importance
254:
248:
247:
245:
228:the discussion
202:
190:
189:
187:Low‑importance
181:
169:
168:
165:
164:
157:Low-importance
153:
147:
146:
144:
119:related topics
105:
93:
92:
90:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1332:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:WP:SOCKPUPPET
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1211:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:73.88.147.250
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:73.88.147.250
1132:Brian Dunning
1131:
1129:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:98.162.204.65
1115:
1105:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
957:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
910:New York Post
906:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
887:
886:
885:
884:
880:
876:
871:
870:New York Post
867:
864:
860:
856:
853:
849:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
806:
802:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
773:
769:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
731:
728:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
690:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
664:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
592:
590:
588:
584:
580:
576:
566:
564:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:
544:
540:
533:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
510:
507:
506:
503:
498:
492:
488:
485:
481:
480:
479:
473:
469:
466:
462:
461:
460:
458:
452:
450:
444:
442:
437:
435:
431:
423:
420:
419:
418:
412:
397:
388:
384:
383:
379:
375:
369:
366:
365:
362:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
324:
323:Brazil portal
313:
311:
308:
304:
303:
299:
286:
283:
280:
276:
263:
259:
253:
250:
249:
246:
229:
225:
221:
220:pseudohistory
217:
216:pseudoscience
213:
209:
208:
203:
200:
196:
195:
191:
185:
182:
179:
175:
162:
158:
152:
149:
148:
145:
128:
124:
123:current tasks
120:
116:
112:
111:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1238:- LuckyLouie
1215:
1196:- LuckyLouie
1192:such as this
1135:
1112:— Preceding
1109:
1086:- LuckyLouie
1053:- LuckyLouie
1041:
1037:
985:JoJo Anthrax
943:JoJo Anthrax
939:WP:CONSENSUS
933:
925:
909:
904:
875:JoJo Anthrax
869:
862:
851:
847:
845:
818:
785:
781:
768:JoJo Anthrax
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
714:JoJo Anthrax
694:
681:- LuckyLouie
667:JoJo Anthrax
649:JoJo Anthrax
635:- LuckyLouie
617:JoJo Anthrax
602:- LuckyLouie
596:
579:24.119.64.66
573:— Preceding
570:
551:
545:
541:
537:
514:— Preceding
511:
508:
499:
496:
477:
453:
445:
438:
428:
427:
416:
373:
329:
257:
205:
156:
127:project page
108:
68:WikiProjects
35:
1252:Hob Gadling
1219:Werkentagen
563:Alan Lowey
457:Kevin Wells
58:Start-class
1269:Categories
1049:ScreenRant
1042:ScreenRant
846:As above,
794:ScreenRant
786:ScreenRant
763:That Shelf
567:video game
233:Skepticism
224:skepticism
184:Skepticism
132:Paranormal
115:paranormal
87:Paranormal
1184:WP:FRINGE
1176:WP:PARITY
1172:WP:FRINGE
449:tautology
441:Poorpaddy
1180:WP:FRIND
1114:unsigned
759:AllMovie
575:unsigned
546:Source:
516:unsigned
413:Untitled
28:deletion
1045:Gizmodo
1038:Gizmodo
1020:BBB2021
1001:BBB2021
961:BBB2021
914:WP:RSPS
891:BBB2021
866:WP:RSPS
855:WP:RSPS
790:Gizmodo
782:Gizmodo
751:Variety
434:Gwimpey
396:infobox
376:on the
260:on the
212:science
159:on the
1188:WP:BLP
981:WP:DUE
926:policy
868:, the
821:here.
484:Omega2
465:Omega2
349:Brazil
336:Brazil
285:Brazil
64:scale.
977:WP:RS
905:above
1256:talk
1242:talk
1223:talk
1200:talk
1174:and
1158:talk
1143:talk
1122:talk
1090:talk
1076:talk
1057:talk
1040:and
1024:talk
1005:talk
989:talk
965:talk
947:talk
930:here
916:and
895:talk
879:talk
857:and
827:talk
801:talk
784:and
772:talk
737:talk
718:talk
703:talk
685:talk
671:talk
653:talk
639:talk
621:talk
606:talk
583:talk
557:talk
524:talk
502:Eica
338:and
222:and
117:and
36:keep
34:was
1236:).
934:via
863:per
852:per
368:Low
252:Low
151:Low
1271::
1258:)
1244:)
1225:)
1202:)
1160:)
1145:)
1124:)
1092:)
1078:)
1059:)
1047:,
1026:)
1007:)
991:)
967:)
949:)
897:)
881:)
829:)
803:)
792:,
788::
774:)
757:,
753:,
749:,
739:)
720:)
705:)
687:)
673:)
655:)
641:)
623:)
608:)
585:)
559:)
526:)
218:,
214:,
1254:(
1240:(
1221:(
1198:(
1194:.
1156:(
1141:(
1120:(
1088:(
1074:(
1055:(
1022:(
1003:(
987:(
963:(
945:(
893:(
877:(
825:(
799:(
770:(
735:(
716:(
701:(
683:(
669:(
651:(
637:(
619:(
604:(
581:(
555:(
522:(
398:.
380:.
264:.
163:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
