686:, some other synonyms of "combative" are "cantankerous", "contentious" and "energetic". My impression is that you picked the more aggressive synonyms to claim that your behavior wasn't "combative". I'd agree that your behavior wasn't aggressive, but I'm afraid I often found it cantankerous. Which doesn't mean you're a bad person, or anything like that! I can be quite cantankerous myself. :-) But I had to learn to dial it down to make my time on Knowledge (XXG) more productive and enjoyable for myself and others. —
1116:, numerous false assertions were made by others; having observed that others accused had been judged harshly for NOT responding to assertions/accusations (apparently the maxim "to fail to deny is to admit" was in force), I responded to these (quite the opposite of "disregard other editors' questions or requests for explanations")... and was further accused — and apparently judged — for having responded to them. The one and only time anyone objected to an actual article edit of mine was after I had been
1133:— I have not verbally attacked anyone. Above and at ANI, one person asserted I had posted something "offensive", but declined to specify what, despite repeated requests. I invite anyone to read that conversation and tell me what I said that was offensive — please. For that matter, to read all the conversations brought up, and find where I verbally attacked or intimidated or otherwise tried to limit anyone's ability to post their own opinions. I would think that
177:
333:
248:
354:. Specifically, acute bludgeoning of discussions in multiple venues since my partial block for bludgeoning was applied on June 21. Until you are able to commit to moderating your behaviour, there's simply no point in setting the block to expire, as this problem seems very likely to reoccur. There is a fundamental impasse here, which seems to follow your notion that
770:!votes for sanctions or actually imposing sanctions. Bad enough that an essay rather than policy is cited as the charge; worse that what the essay actually says is disregarded when I cite it in my own defense. Did this demonstrate good faith? And, my goodness, if to be "energetic" is an element of offense, you folks have a lot of blocking left to do. –
480:") was ignored in favor of insistence that I should not even respond to accusations against me, particularly those containing factual misstatements — thus excluding defense against those accusations and misstatements, and rigging the outcome. If what happened in my AN/I case has become "standard practice", it's the worse for Knowledge (XXG):
1120:
to make such an edit... and it was immediately reverted as not good enough, though the changes it made to its original (notably adding verifiable citations where CN tags had been) were exactly what had been demanded, and the reversion deleted sourced text. I did not edit-war even in that situation; a
769:
misquoted against me at AN/I... and when I correct the quote and ask the AN/I crew to tell me what in any comment of mine on that page was offensive, no-one there answers that question, either. It has become clear that accusations needn't be true in order to be brought up at AN/I and used to justify
512:
Raven, should you appeal this block, as you have every right to do, I would urge you to take some time in crafting your appeal and to adopt a less combative approach. Again, that has nothing to do with substance. Now is not the time for sharp elbows. That is, of course, if you wish to continue
977:
Indefinite doesn't mean forever. Blocks aren't always perfectly fair, and maybe another admin would have made a slightly different decision, but given the ANI thread, this block is a reasonable choice. I think Raven should just stay away from
Knowledge (XXG) for a while (a week? a month? I don't
1015:: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
567:
is a humor page that was created around the time I became an admin, but the term or concept itself isn't the point here. The point is that you've failed to adjust your behaviour in the face of complaints from a significant number of editors, coming from multiple venues, all expressing the same
978:
know), calm down, and then think about how to appeal the block. My impression is that Raven is an intelligent and enthusiastic editor, but sometimes a bit too enthusiastic. Maybe Raven sometimes focuses too much on very specific trees and loses sight of the forest. Or something like that... —
895:
However, that is not an excuse to make multiple repeated combative comments. When we say "quality over quantity", that means providing the "quality". Just merely looking over AN/I, it was becoming pretty obvious that you were heading towards an indefinite block. So I tried to provide you an
531:
Alas, even clicking "Thank" on that comment now has no effect.In standard
English, "combative" is a synonym of "antagonistic", "bellicose", and "belligerent" — which in turn are synonyms of "hostile", "threatening", and "aggressive". From my viewpoint, I tried to provide information
1148:
The hostility, and intent to "limit the ability to interject opinions", have come from the other direction. But again notably, even the ANI thread contained motions for no more than a temporary block. It has now been in place for a month and a half. Loki's comment above
532:(citing/linking/quoting sources), as well as inviting/welcoming others' participation — while people who disliked that information (and could not rebut it) responded by pushing to silence me. Which approach best fits "combative" and which its opposite? –
1121:
sandbox was created, I was invited to edit there, and was thanked when I recreated my article-edit version there. This does not meet the above description of "tendentious editing", let alone "disregarding" others' comments/requests.
459:.One can have a high edit-count AND bludgeon; or one can have a high edit-count and NOT bludgeon.Pinging to invite people, posting that (after another's suggestion) I had invited two topically-related groups; posting comments like
668:
I don't understand what the point of writing and quoting that is. Regardless, I suggest you focus your efforts on writing a convincing appeal. One which is actually responsive to the various complaints which prompted this block.
259:. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Knowledge (XXG) strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.
1130:
When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of
720:
To date, no-one has pointed to a comment of mine that actually contains "intimidation" or "verbal attack"; but what of the intimidation and verbal attacks directed at me in that AN/I thread itself, e.g. shut-up-or-be-blocked?
717:
When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of
576:
being an explanatory essay — searching for such technicalities as a way to reverse this block, or as a defense for your bludgeoning previously, is folly. Sorry if this is harsh, but it's best to be blunt and to the point.
255:. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge (XXG), it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to
362:
of so many of your fellow editors is something you need to recognize and come to terms with. Accordingly, detailed assurances of significant improvement will be required in order to see this block lifted (consult
477:
Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed. ... Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also
1107:
them (with the risk of ensuing reversions or edit wars); I did so giving either factual citations or policy/guideline links to support my reasoning — indeed, the complaints were precisely that I had done so
962:
oppose this block. Lots of editors making a bad argument for a temp block does not warrant an indefinite block. None of Raven's behavior so far has warranted an indefinite block or in fact any block.
929:— counting such things as typo fixes against me — which naturally works more against the people with vision problems who can't catch all their own errors in preview. That my responding to these was
1139:"You certainly can point out whatever you think any page 'really ought to only be about'. Your opinion, taken with others, goes into the mix from which consensus (or 'no consensus') is derived."
461:"You certainly can point out whatever you think any page 'really ought to only be about'. Your opinion, taken with others, goes into the mix from which consensus (or 'no consensus') is derived."
1151:("Lots of editors making a bad argument for a temp block does not warrant an indefinite block. None of Raven's behavior so far has warranted an indefinite block or in fact any block.")
892:
I see now that you have apparently been quoting my use of "editcountitis". My point there is that not all edits are equal. So trying to merely count edits would not be good.
1094:
that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.
441:(and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds.
513:
editing
Knowledge (XXG). If making a point is a larger concern (and no judgment if it is), then obviously, do as you will. Whatever happens, all the best.
1063:: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
902:
And of course, the opportunity above is still available to you should you so choose. though at this point, there's no guarantee what the result may be.
896:
opportunity above, but you made a different choice. And while you are free to make your own choice. Sometimes our choices come with repercussions.
1040:
tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
380:
358:
renders bludgeoning of any given discussion virtually impossible — I assure you that that is not so. The fact you fail to realize that you've
753:— which, if it were true, would justify saying I was combative and verbally attacking... but "contrariwise", any objective reader can see it
51:. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than
1083:
31:
1142:
1138:
822:
758:
746:
722:
464:
460:
431:
371:
145:
1079:
1011:
37:
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than
899:
At this point, should you decide to request an unblock, you might want to take on board some of the concerns laid out above.
48:
1024:; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
847:
was "Gladly! What specifically was offensive?"... and you have never answered that. Linking to your own original comment
473:
This page is not one of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
485:
346:
341:
711:
the willingness of some to block/ban a different opinion than their own might better fit that description (at least).
227:
1143:"And I'll certainly support and defend your right to your opinion, on this and any other matter. Agree to disagree?"
1052:
repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
465:"And I'll certainly support and defend your right to your opinion, on this and any other matter. Agree to disagree?"
196:
191:
1020:
599:
564:
806:
618:
are counted equally. Hence, it is not always a reliable way of telling how experienced or worthy a user truly is.
271:
1137:
prior RfC participants or related groups to join new RfCs is quite the reverse; likewise, posting comments like
995:
207:
134:
oppose this block. Lots of editors making a bad argument for a temp block does not warrant an indefinite block.
121:
1034:
921:
On AN/I I responded to "multiple repeated" misstatements of fact and moved goalposts, e.g. using the count of
419:
Neither I nor anyone else that I saw contends that a high edit-count renders bludgeoning virtually impossible.
262:
467:
are not attempts to silence or coerce other opinions, far from it. Once again, it is strange enough that an
1091:
729:
I actually say of my own personal opinion ("the term should probably be 'transgender/transsexual healthcare
611:
1045:
795:
To date, no-one has pointed to a comment of mine that actually contains "intimidation" or "verbal attack"
615:
569:
967:
141:
1125:
1075:
712:
625:
573:
456:
438:
817:
802:
267:
252:
475:") is grounds for sanctions (twice now); it is stranger still that what that essay actually says ("
765:— to which I reply, "Gladly! What specifically was offensive?" — and get no reply... only to have
437:
Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read
983:
738:
691:
212:
111:
for instruction against ignorance, counsel against strife, and truth against harmful falsehood."
261:
I notice you have been replying consistently to questions or comments not directed to you: see
518:
1087:
359:
963:
834:
256:
209:
176:
137:
1113:
734:
733:"): "... but we have no control over off-wiki terminology, and should not expect or try to
364:
136:
None of Raven's behavior so far has warranted an indefinite block or in fact any block. —
841:— which is non-specific, since I'd made more than one "addition" there. My reply to your
351:
118:"Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight."
851:
does not answer that. I cannot read your mind. Will you please specify your referent? –
97:"Every man has the right to an opinion but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.
102:
979:
687:
700:
572:, like with the would-be conundrum of the aforementioned exact count(itis), or with
1112:(in the opinion of those opposed to my suggested edits). When this was lawfared to
1099:
Notably, I have done none of these. My edits were to comment pages specifically to
514:
297:— Occasionally. I have even more often been replying to questions or comments that
705:
Given to or marked by an ill-tempered nature; ill-tempered, cranky, surly, crabby.
933:
counted against me speaks volumes about what
Knowledge (XXG) has become. Pity. –
1154:
934:
852:
771:
629:
533:
489:
302:
293:
you have been replying consistently to questions or comments not directed to you
919:
Above I've addressed the usage of "combative" regarding my talkpage comments.
683:
568:
concern: your persistent bludgeoning being an problem. Attempting to rely on
907:
670:
578:
426:
388:
737:
using
Knowledge (XXG) as a platform." My correspondent then accuses me of "
332:
379:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
84:
on all -en- projects from Feb.2007 to Apr.2015, then usurped and renamed
247:
481:
211:
886:(ec - note: I am keeping my admin hat off for these circumstances.)
1172:
1145:
are not attempts to silence or coerce other opinions, far from it.
987:
971:
952:
918:
911:
870:
810:
789:
708:
695:
673:
647:
581:
551:
522:
507:
391:
320:
275:
62:
1055:
repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
709:
Above I stated the nature of my motive and attitude on talkpages;
1124:
As for talkpage comments and the accusation of "bludgeoning"...
410:
renders bludgeoning of any given discussion virtually impossible
827:
on this page, already linked in the comment you're replying to.
383:, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:
213:
170:
15:
1005:
is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:
331:
301:
directed to me... so what do you mean by "consistently"? –
757:
true. (I'll skip quoting the rest of
Tweedledee's remark.)
109:"There are three reasons for speaking, come what may come:
416:
I did not come up with that term in that discussion, and
800:
844:"if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend."
763:"if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend."
285:
if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.
99:Nor, above all, to persist in errors as to facts."
1074:: act counter to policies and guidelines such as
707:" Perhaps if guessing is accepted as telepathy.
905:Whatever the future brings, I wish you well. -
289:— Gladly! What specifically was offensive?: -->
1072:Campaign to drive away productive contributors
221:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
432:was very clear about what that "notion" was:
759:Likewise the previous thread on this page,
684:https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/combative
745:attack), and when I ask whom I attacked,
610:of the edits, as insightful comments on
451:edits neglected to consider whether the
385:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
1103:article edits rather than unilaterally
624:That likewise is not the definition of
60:. The original talk page is located at
1150:
1129:
889:I'm sorry to see that this happened.
843:
832:
794:
716:
704:
605:
476:
472:
436:
409:
405:
401:
292:
284:
1084:Knowledge (XXG):Ownership of articles
7:
1028:Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"
751:of both RGW and "poisoning the well"
1080:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
1061:Rejects or ignores community input
1019:Is unwilling or unable to satisfy
14:
1067:In addition, such editors might:
747:they accuse me of having accused
606:... edit counts do not judge the
225:may be automatically archived by
122:Proverbs 18:17 (The Living Bible)
600:a "Seriously, though..." section
246:
175:
1:
1021:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
833:... such as your addition to
447:In other words, the focus on
1173:01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
1188:
988:19:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
972:16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
953:17:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
912:15:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
871:19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
811:14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
790:05:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
696:19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
674:22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
648:17:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
582:15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
552:14:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
523:13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
508:14:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
392:13:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
381:guide to appealing blocks
321:05:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
276:03:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
219:
173:
1076:Knowledge (XXG):Civility
1069:
598:It's a humor page with
1097:
1050:
369:For reference, latest
360:exhausted the patience
336:
228:Lowercase sigmabot III
1000:
471:(which says up top: "
335:
367:for best outcomes).
1044:Does not engage in
1030:; adds unjustified
1003:A disruptive editor
455:of those edits was
70:ki/User_talk:.Raven
1046:consensus building
739:poisoning the well
735:right great wrongs
352:disruptive editing
337:
47:you are viewing a
1171:
951:
869:
788:
701:wikt:cantankerous
646:
550:
506:
375:
350:from editing for
319:
235:
234:
165:
162:
124:
114:
105:
78:
77:
1179:
1162:
1039:
1033:
942:
860:
835:Talk:Transsexual
825:your own comment
823:That link is to
821:
779:
732:
637:
565:WP:EDITCOUNTITIS
541:
497:
430:
402:your notion that
386:
368:
327:Indefinite block
310:
257:Talk:Transsexual
250:
230:
214:
179:
171:
164:
129:
117:
108:
96:
74:
71:
68:
65:
59:
58:
55:
46:
44:
41:
30:
29:
26:
16:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1159:
1037:
1035:citation needed
1031:
996:WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
939:
857:
818:Kate the mochii
815:
803:Kate the mochii
776:
730:
634:
538:
494:
486:false consensus
424:
395:
394:
384:
377:
329:
307:
268:Kate the mochii
253:Kate the mochii
244:
226:
215:
210:
201:
167:
146:16:49, 13 July
113:— Bardic Triad
89:
69:
66:
64:https://en.wiki
63:
61:
56:
53:
52:
42:
39:
38:
27:
24:
23:
12:
11:
5:
1185:
1183:
1155:
1153:seems apt. –
1096:
1095:
1065:
1064:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1041:
1025:
1016:
992:
991:
990:
956:
955:
935:
917:Thanks, Jc37.
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
853:
797:
772:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
630:
622:
621:
620:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
557:
556:
555:
554:
534:
526:
525:
510:
490:
445:
444:
443:
422:
421:
420:
417:
378:
339:You have been
338:
330:
328:
325:
324:
323:
303:
263:WP:BLUDGEONING
243:
240:
238:
236:
233:
232:
220:
217:
216:
208:
206:
203:
202:
200:
199:
194:
188:
185:
184:
181:
135:
128:
119:
112:
110:
103:Bernard Baruch
100:
98:
87:
79:
76:
75:
36:
32:user talk page
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1184:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1167:
1161:
1158:
1152:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1127:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1062:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1047:
1042:
1036:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1004:
999:
997:
989:
985:
981:
976:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
961:
954:
950:
949:
947:
941:
938:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
909:
903:
900:
897:
893:
890:
887:
872:
868:
867:
865:
859:
856:
850:
846:
845:
840:
838:
836:
829:It refers to
828:
826:
819:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
801:
798:
796:
793:
792:
791:
787:
786:
784:
778:
775:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
750:
744:
741:" (a type of
740:
736:
728:
726:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
682:According to
681:
675:
672:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
649:
645:
644:
642:
636:
633:
627:
623:
619:
617:
613:
609:
604:
603:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
583:
580:
575:
571:
566:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
553:
549:
548:
546:
540:
537:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
520:
516:
511:
509:
505:
504:
502:
496:
493:
487:
483:
479:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
440:
435:
434:
433:
428:
423:
418:
415:
414:
413:
411:
407:
406:editcountitis
404:
403:
397:
396:
393:
390:
382:
374:
373:
372:ANI permalink
366:
361:
357:
356:editcountitis
353:
349:
348:
344:
343:
334:
326:
322:
318:
317:
315:
309:
306:
300:
296:
294:
288:
286:
280:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
266:
264:
258:
254:
249:
241:
239:
229:
224:
218:
205:
204:
198:
195:
193:
190:
189:
187:
186:
182:
180:
178:
172:
169:
166:
161:
159:
157:
154:
151:
148:
143:
139:
133:
127:
125:
123:
115:
106:
104:
94:
91:
83:
72:
50:
35:
33:
20:
18:
17:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1156:
1147:
1134:
1123:
1117:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1098:
1092:meatpuppetry
1088:sockpuppetry
1071:
1066:
1060:
1043:
1027:
1018:
1009:
1002:
1001:
993:
959:
957:
945:
944:
943:
936:
930:
926:
922:
906:
904:
901:
898:
894:
891:
888:
885:
863:
862:
861:
854:
848:
842:
830:
824:
782:
781:
780:
773:
766:
762:
754:
748:
742:
724:
640:
639:
638:
631:
614:and acts of
607:
570:WP:LAWYERING
544:
543:
542:
535:
500:
499:
498:
491:
468:
452:
448:
408:
399:
370:
355:
347:indefinitely
345:
340:
313:
312:
311:
304:
298:
290:
282:
260:
245:
237:
222:
174:
168:
163:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
131:
126:
116:
107:
95:
93:
85:
82:"User:Raven"
81:
67:pedia.org/wi
21:
1126:WP:BLUDGEON
1012:tendentious
713:WP:BLUDGEON
626:WP:BLUDGEON
602:that says:
574:WP:BLUDGEON
457:bludgeoning
439:WP:BLUDGEON
251:Hello, I'm
49:mirror site
743:ad hominem
612:talk pages
183:Archives:
22:This is a
925:not just
616:vandalism
242:July 2023
192:2007–2014
1135:inviting
1110:too much
980:Chrisahn
960:strongly
927:comments
688:Chrisahn
484:induces
449:counting
132:strongly
1118:invited
1101:discuss
958:FWIW I
761:asking
727:thread,
608:quality
515:Dumuzid
482:mobbing
478:fine...
453:content
342:blocked
223:30 days
130:FWIW I
1131:abuse.
1128:says:
1114:WP:ANI
799:Diff:
718:abuse.
715:says:
365:WP:GAB
90:Raven"
86:"User:
1160:Raven
1141:-or-
1082:, or
940:Raven
923:edits
858:Raven
849:still
777:Raven
755:isn't
635:Raven
539:Raven
495:Raven
469:essay
463:-or-
398:: -->
308:Raven
281:: -->
57:pedia
43:pedia
28:pedia
1168:talk
1105:make
1086:—or
994:Per
984:talk
968:talk
964:Loki
948:talk
931:also
908:jc37
866:talk
807:talk
785:talk
767:that
749:them
725:this
692:talk
671:El_C
643:talk
628:. –
579:El_C
547:talk
519:talk
503:talk
488:. –
427:Jc37
389:El_C
376:.
316:talk
299:were
272:talk
197:2023
149:2023
142:talk
138:Loki
54:Wiki
40:Wiki
25:Wiki
1010:Is
723:In
703:: "
387:.
155:UTC
1078:,
1038:}}
1032:{{
986:)
970:)
809:)
694:)
521:)
274:)
144:)
120:—
101:—
1166:.
1157:.
1090:/
1048::
998::
982:(
966:(
946:.
937:.
864:.
855:.
839:"
837:.
831:"
820::
816:@
805:(
783:.
774:.
731:'
690:(
641:.
632:.
545:.
536:.
517:(
501:.
492:.
429::
425:@
412:"
400:"
314:.
305:.
295:"
291:"
287:"
283:"
270:(
265:.
231:.
158:)
152:(
140:(
92:)
88:.
80:(
73:.
45:,
34:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
