User talk:Biologos - Knowledge (XXG)

1019:

the Wiki. At the time, the paper 'Powerhouse of the Cell' didn't really make a splash, it was just another piece of snow in the growing avalanche that was the saying's prevalence. Even looking at ngrams you can see there was already growing momentum with the phrase. I did a bunch of ngram comparisons to try and isolate the source of the growth, but I couldn't, as it seemed to just be bubbling out of the entire Rockerfeller Institute community all at once.

691:

levels of evidence that link the adverse effect with the drug, and where possible provide numerical estimates of risk. They also say that greater reliance should be placed on randomised rather than observational data, except where adverse events are serious or rare. This apparently uncontroversial suggestion will, I have no doubt, raise hackles among those who question the ability of randomised trials to properly report adverse events.

148: 23: 1027:. So, he should be given the honour of introducing it to academia and to the students of the world, and for being a damn good cytologist. He knew he didn't create the saying, after all the full quote is "they have been called the power-houses of the cell". The rest though, that's history (or in this case, 8th grade bio) 947: 430:

serious/important side effects! One indication for the most serious side effects is what side effects are listed first in the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL). At least the European regulations require the most serious side effects to be „listed prominently first“ in the PIL, e.g. here for Thalidomide:

738:

I've tried to communicate with this person, and then reversed their changes, an effort that has now itself been reversed. I don't have the wiki experience (or the time) to deal with this anymore. So I'm writing to you and several other contributors in case others feel like preserving the page. Thanks

320:

Try to avoid cloning drug formularies such as the BNF and online resources like RxList and Drugs.com. Extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list. For example, a long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious.

979:

Siekevitz was nowhere near the first person to say this. Even in his 1957 quote he references that other people have said this too. It is very interesting that because of a few edits of a humble Knowledge (XXG) page a decade ago, a benign statement managed to mutate into a false origin story with no

926:

This shows that I was not the first to mention Siekevitz. I did correct the spelling from 'Seikevitz' to 'Siekevitz' and added his 1957 paper. In my editing comment I mentioned an article on ask.com that the previous article lede was based on apparently, but I cannot find this article now. Maybe the

429:

This list is not written by someone at the NIH, but actually also a Product Information from Celgene. The side effects listed at the start of the passage are the ones mentioned also elsewhere in the Product Information, mostly in the Warnings section. This is not necessarily identical with the most

388:

WP:MEDMOS says: 'Try to avoid cloning drug formularies such as the BNF and online resources like RxList and Drugs.com. Extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list. For example, a long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are

325:

My reading of that is that Knowledge (XXG) should only list significant side effects that are pertinent because they are common or serious. For example, with doxorubicin the dose-limiting adverse effect is cardiomypathy. That's pertinent, because it shapes the appropriate use and limitations of the

1018:

Haha its funny you mention 'popularise' as he didn't really do that either...For example, if you look at the citations he received on that paper, of which there are 170, less than half a dozen of them were within 5 years of publication. Over 150 of them (90%) were made after 2010 once his name hit

405:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an instruction manual for the practice of medicine or anything else, but - importantly - Knowledge (XXG) is also not giving medical advice. It serves information purposes, so it should be our aim to give as much information as possible that might be useful for any particular

342:

Knowledge (XXG) is written for the average person, not the expert, and Knowledge (XXG) is not an instruction manual for the practice of medicine. There's no purpose to listing rare and very rare non-serious side effects. It obscures the significant adverse effects. You have a long list of rare and

690:

The authors fear that so many possible harms will deter patients from starting or continuing treatments, or might raise negative expectations and increase rates of reporting of adverse events (the nocebo effect). At the very least, they say, organisations providing information should document the

734:

Hello. It may interest you that someone called tenofalltrades seems determined to completely delete the "cell disruption" page, to which you previously contributed (you asked me for better refs). Over a 11 minute period in March they deleted ~22,500 words (virtually the entire page), and made no

686:

they list 20 symptoms most commonly reported in the previous seven days, such as back pain, fatigue, and headache. Nine of these are listed in more than half of the drug information documents they reviewed, and eight are listed as an adverse reaction to more than 90% of the drugs they looked at.

440:

Nobody should be using Knowledge (XXG) to find out whether they or their patients are getting rare side effects from thalidomide. That's the practice of medicine which Knowledge (XXG) doesn't do. They should go to the package insert and to medical professionals. We're educating people. We filter

354:

906:

Hi, thank you for your message. I do not contribute regularly any more, sorry for my late reply. This was a long time ago. I am pretty sure that I would not have added this if I hadn't found it in some secondary source. But unfortunately I seem to have backed this statement only with Siekevitz'

890:

I believe you were the first person to attribute the saying "powerhouse of the cell" to Phillip Siekevitz on the Mitochondrion page. I've been looking into the origins of the phrase, and it far predates this. Did you have a source for this somewhere else online or did you realise this yourself?

512:

Please remember that I did not add any adverse effects; I reverted your deletion of adverse effects, because your explanation was not convincing. The "Adverse Effects" section is sourced with four references, currently # 7-10. "Confusion" is mentioned as a very rare side effect in reference #10

639:

We should copy this to the Discussion page of the article and continue there and/or see what others think. This might also give a better idea of whether there is a consensus. Do you agree? Regarding the use of regulatory drug labels as reliable sources in general - we cannot be the first ones

521:

etc.). Frequency information of adverse effects is always estimated using the best data sources available, it is not required and/or customary to state confidence intervals and p values. A totally unrelated reason for not using p values and such here is that this is not the place for Original

346:

I can't even verify where you got the "Rare" and "Very rare" adverse effects. In the sources you linked to, they just give the number of cases in the treatment and control group -- but they don't give the statistical significance. As I recall from similar calculations, they would need several

941:

Wow thank you so much for your response! I'm sorry to have bothered you now that you're not active anymore, so it means a lot that you took the time to get back to me. Yes, I left that original comment before I had dug through all the history correctly, and now I can see that it had been on

393:

That’s not how I understand that passage. To me this says that when listing lots of information (like side effects) it makes sense to give an indication of which of those pieces of information are particularly important. It does not say that we should keep certain information from the

326:

drug. For example, with thalidomide, painful neuropathy is pertinent because it's a dose-limiting adverse effect. Dry skin isn't a dose-limiting adverse effect. Stevens-Johnson syndrome is pertinent, even if it's rare, because it's life threatening. Pruritis isn't life-threatening.

576:, you will see, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources." Product Information texts are primary sources. The rare adverse events you restored are tallies of adverse event reports, with no analysis or assessments. They're not even tested for statistical significance. 1022:

This isn't to discredit Siekevitz or anything, he's a remarkably influential cytologist with other very popular works (some published in that same year amassing 1000's of legitimate citations) and he even wrote the first textbook that contained the phrase in 1963 called

984:

I don't have enough Knowledge (XXG) credit or whatever to edit the page, so if you'd like to try, go for it. Or, I can give you some more info if you think that is necessary (I looked into this for an ungodly amount of time so I would like something to come from

667:

I had to leave this interesting conversation because of the demands of work. But you are right, this should be discussed in the MEDMOS talk pages, I think. Meanwhile, here's an editorial from The BMJ that authoritatively makes the point I was trying to make:

350:

I would limit the adverse effects to the nih.gov list above. That was written by a scientist who understands the significance of adverse effects. Those long lists of adverse effects in the treatment group are just copied mindlessly from the clinical reports.

389:

common or serious. It can be illuminating to compare the drug with others in its class, or with older and newer drugs.' My reading of that is that Knowledge (XXG) should only list significant side effects that are pertinent because they are common or serious.

400:

445:

I don’t agree. Let’s try to judge what’s important and organize/write the content according to this. Let’s not try to do the jobs of medical professionals who decide what information the patients need and what information they do not need/should not

424:

417:

First, I did not link the sources, I just reverted your deletion because I was not convinced by your explanation. Second, the source for the Rare and Very rare effects seems to be reference no. 10, a Product Information from Celgene,

965: 969: 406:

audience. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, it is directed at readers seeking information, not specifically at patients. Of course, the better this information is organized, the better the readability for the individual reader.

980:

acknowledgement of what actually happened. There are scientific papers, hospitals and medical bodies that reference this whole Siekevitz fun-fact as gospel. It's sadly evident none of them have even read the paper they all cite.

713:

Nbauman, thank you for this. I also have not done anything in Knowledge (XXG) in the last few months because of work and just different priorities. I will try to keep an eye on this, though, and will not forget what you wrote.

828:

I might not be clear from the diff, but the citation wasn't deleted, it appears twice, so it's been consolidated to only appear one in the reference section. Before the chunk of text that was removed, you can see that

412:

1003:

I love it! I used to get lost in research like this, too. I will try to add a quick fix now by changing "coined" to "popularized", adding Claude's lecture as a reference for the edit. And will get back here later.

787:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 694:

More controversially still, they suggest that clinicians should “contextualise” the information they provide to patients, toning down discussion of common non-specific symptoms to reduce the nocebo effect.

449:

So in conclusion I suggest to leave the adverse effects listing as it is now, but a section could be added listing the most serious side effects, for instance as mentioned in the PIL I linked to. Cheers,

204:

in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks,

36:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

370:

Hi Nbauman, thank you for your message. I will write more later. Maybe we can work something out that doesn't delete all content and gives even more value than the present version.--

601:

Primary sources like regulatory drug labels may be used for some purposes, if we have a consensus. But we don't have a consensus to use the detailed lists of adverse effects. --

550:

Are you saying that Product Information texts (which have to be reviewed and approved by the regulatory authorities of the respective country) are not reliable sources as per

278: 347:

thousand randomized subjects to identify an adverse effect with an incidence of 1/1,000 at p≤.05. Those adverse effects aren't statistically significant.

735:

attempt to rebuild the page. Of course, the page was imperfect but I think it was still a useful compendium of information. Now it's pretty much gone.

158:

rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of

973: 431: 174: 536:

Is that Thalomid product information text a secondary source? From what published primary sources did it get its information on confusion? --

907:

original article from 1957. But finding only one earlier source for this would of course falsify the statement and necessitate its removal.

812: 337: 954: 514: 755: 808: 851: 166: 76: 178: 245:

Hi, thanks for the note. I will try with what we have right now. By the way, there's even more to delete: Have you seen

953:

In terms of earlier examples, there are many. The saying itself is a derivative of something Albert Claude said on the

799:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

804: 1024: 226:

Hi Biologos, do you plan on making the article notable now? If not, you should make your opinion known at at

989:

ps I also looked for that ask.com website and I couldn't find it either, hopefully it is archived somewhere.

517:). Product Information texts are secondary sources using information from primary sources (clinical trials, 432:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000823/WC500037050.pdf

743: 286: 209: 94: 90: 1035: 994: 896: 800: 161: 246: 86: 170: 73: 33: 822: 751: 338:

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=2eda833b-1357-4ed4-a093-194524fcb061#nlm34084-4

186: 1031: 990: 892: 776: 767: 321:

It can be illuminating to compare the drug with others in its class, or with older and newer drugs.

235: 958: 859: 796: 780: 573: 569: 551: 478: 310: 847: 515:

https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/ebs/picmi/picmirepository.nsf/pdf?OpenAgent&id=CP-2010-PI-03581-3

961:. However, he simply called them the "power plants of the cell", which isn't a verbatim match. 703: 606: 541: 518: 495: 360: 282: 250: 220: 205: 133: 855: 792: 784: 274: 201: 181:. If you do not want rollback, just let me know and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. — 102: 60: 29: 795:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 788: 227: 747: 182: 48: 44: 231: 40: 481:

reliable source for that addition? Are you using secondary sources or primary sources?

1005: 928: 908: 871: 843: 715: 641: 555: 523: 451: 371: 254: 106: 147: 699: 602: 537: 491: 356: 329:

Copying a big list side effects from the FDA labeling is dumping low-level facts.

129: 572:. They are primary sources and not secondary sources. If you read further down on 77:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer/WikiProject_Beer_collaboration

474: 98: 125: 59:

to Knowledge (XXG)! If you have any questions feel free to ask me or an admin!

671: 343:

minor side effects, with Stevens-Johnson syndrome buried towards the end.

477:

as a very rare side effect that may affect ≤1/10,000 people. What is your

318:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Drugs.2C_medications_and_devices

490:

What is the confidence interval and P value of that ≤1/10,000 number? --

946:

a little before you had been involved with it, and was on some strange

783:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

677: 1039: 1013: 998: 936: 916: 900: 879: 864: 816: 759: 723: 707: 649: 610: 563: 545: 531: 499: 459: 379: 364: 355:

what's important. Common and serious adverse effects are important. --

290: 262: 239: 213: 190: 137: 114: 63: 513:(Australian Product Information (PI), I already mentioned it above: 317: 74:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Science_collaboration_of_the_week

22: 200:

Hey Biologos; I'm dropping you this note because you've used

891:

Thanks, (sorry for bad formatting this is my first post) --

146: 21: 1030:

Thanks for the quick edit, and have a lovely day Biologos!

568:

Yes. I am saying that they are not reliable sources as per

964:

To get it verbatim, you can jump forward a few months to

640:

discussing this. How has this been dealt with before? --

943: 922: 304: 155: 927:

paper was referenced in this ask.com article in 2011.

384:

Here we go, with quotes from your message in italics:

948:Indian university entrance exam tutoring websites 775:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 554:and should not be used for articles on drugs?-- 165:, and that you will not abuse it by reverting 51:}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 8: 957:in a lecture, which is corroborated by his 105:) 06:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC) True. Sorry.-- 175:Knowledge (XXG):New admin school/Rollback 841:(note the / at the end of the ref tag). 672:http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5153 277:has now been re-enabled. Let us know on 944:Knowledge (XXG) dating back to 10/11/11 683:Fiona Godlee, editor in chief, The BMJ 93:. Hence, the article should not be in 7: 974:encyclopedia entry earlier from 1957 275:the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 678:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5153 173:. For information on rollback, see 273:Hey Biologos :). Just a note that 32:has smiled at you! Smiles promote 14: 801:review the candidates' statements 886:"Powerhouse of the Cell" Origins 179:Knowledge (XXG):Rollback feature 807:. For the Election committee, 777:Arbitration Committee election 768:ArbCom elections are now open! 760:14:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 281:if you spot any bugs. Thanks! 138:13:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 1025:'Cell Structure and Function' 817:16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 724:16:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 191:14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 901:02:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC) 464:Let me approach it this way. 303:With regard to your edit to 64:19:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 39:Smile at others by adding {{ 921:I found my edit from 2011: 803:and submit your choices on 708:05:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 196:Article Feedback deployment 1062: 809:MediaWiki message delivery 650:08:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC) 611:17:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 564:16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 546:19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 532:09:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC) 500:23:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC) 460:09:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC) 380:16:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 365:20:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 291:00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 263:16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 240:11:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC) 214:23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 473:You added "Confusion" to 336:list of adverse effects: 202:the article feedback tool 120:Human papillomavirus edit 115:16:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC) 1040:11:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1014:09:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 1009: 999:08:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 937:08:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 932: 917:08:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 912: 880:13:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 875: 865:13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 719: 681:Published 13 August 2014 645: 559: 527: 455: 375: 258: 110: 972:, or even this literal 831:<ref name=":0": --> 332:For example, here's a 151: 124:Please have a look at 95:Category:pH indicators 91:Category:pH indicators 26: 781:Arbitration Committee 247:Roche Applied Science 150: 89:is a sub-category to 87:Category:Anthocyanins 25: 966:this example in 1948 955:15th of January 1948 823:Mitochondrial fusion 674:Too much information 870:Thanks and sorry.-- 785:arbitration process 676:BMJ 2014; 349 doi: 522:Research. Cheers,-- 959:Nobel Prize speech 797:arbitration policy 152: 27: 835:<ref name=":0" 763: 746:comment added by 441:what's important. 251:Roche Diagnostics 221:454 Life Sciences 219:Your interest in 52: 1053: 970:this one in 1955 863: 840: 832: 762: 740: 38: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1052: 1051: 1050: 888: 842: 834: 830: 826: 805:the voting page 771: 741: 732: 730:cell disruption 298: 271: 269:AFT5 re-enabled 224: 198: 145: 122: 84: 71: 54: 19: 12: 11: 5: 1059: 1057: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1028: 1020: 987: 981: 977: 962: 951: 924: 919: 887: 884: 883: 882: 825: 820: 774: 770: 765: 731: 728: 727: 726: 682: 680: 675: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 505: 504: 503: 502: 485: 484: 483: 482: 468: 467: 466: 465: 447: 443: 436: 435: 427: 420: 419: 415: 408: 407: 403: 396: 395: 391: 385: 382: 323: 322: 297: 294: 270: 267: 266: 265: 223: 217: 197: 194: 144: 141: 121: 118: 83: 80: 70: 67: 37: 20: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1058: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1026: 1021: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1002: 1001: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 986: 982: 978: 975: 971: 967: 963: 960: 956: 952: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 934: 930: 925: 923: 920: 918: 914: 910: 905: 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 868: 867: 866: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 838: 824: 821: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 769: 766: 764: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 736: 729: 725: 721: 717: 712: 711: 710: 709: 705: 701: 696: 692: 688: 684: 679: 673: 669: 651: 647: 643: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 612: 608: 604: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 575: 571: 567: 566: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 548: 547: 543: 539: 535: 534: 533: 529: 525: 520: 516: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 501: 497: 493: 489: 488: 487: 486: 480: 476: 472: 471: 470: 469: 463: 462: 461: 457: 453: 448: 444: 442: 438: 437: 433: 428: 426: 422: 421: 416: 414: 413:significance. 410: 409: 404: 402: 398: 397: 392: 390: 386: 383: 381: 377: 373: 369: 368: 367: 366: 362: 358: 352: 348: 344: 340: 339: 335: 330: 327: 319: 316: 315: 314: 312: 308: 306: 301: 295: 293: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 268: 264: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 229: 222: 218: 216: 215: 211: 207: 203: 195: 193: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 163: 157: 149: 142: 140: 139: 135: 131: 127: 119: 117: 116: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 81: 79: 78: 75: 68: 66: 65: 62: 58: 53: 50: 46: 42: 35: 31: 24: 16: 983: 950:before then. 889: 836: 827: 772: 742:— Preceding 737: 733: 697: 693: 689: 685: 670: 666: 439: 423: 411: 399: 387: 353: 349: 345: 341: 333: 331: 328: 324: 309: 302: 299: 283:Okeyes (WMF) 279:the talkpage 272: 225: 206:Okeyes (WMF) 199: 169:edits or to 159: 153: 123: 85: 72: 56: 55: 49:subst:smile3 45:subst:smile2 28: 475:Thalidomide 305:Thalidomide 300:Biologos, 296:Thalidomide 82:Anthocyanin 61:SupaSoldier 41:subst:smile 30:SupaSoldier 17:Welcome ;^) 793:topic bans 748:Liamloftus 418:Australia. 183:Tom Morris 171:revert-war 167:good-faith 160:reverting 1032:Wooly Cow 991:Wooly Cow 893:Wooly Cow 789:site bans 714:Cheers,-- 574:WP:SOURCE 570:WP:SOURCE 552:WP:SOURCE 479:WP:MEDMOS 334:selective 311:WP:MEDMOS 232:GrapedApe 162:vandalism 1006:Biologos 929:Biologos 909:Biologos 872:Biologos 852:contribs 844:Headbomb 756:contribs 744:unsigned 716:Biologos 642:Biologos 556:Biologos 524:Biologos 452:Biologos 446:receive. 425:reports. 401:effects. 372:Biologos 255:Biologos 253:? ;o) -- 230:, IMO.-- 143:Rollback 107:Biologos 47:}} or {{ 34:WikiLove 856:physics 833:is now 739:a lot 700:Nbauman 603:Nbauman 538:Nbauman 492:Nbauman 394:reader. 357:Nbauman 313:says: 156:granted 154:I have 130:Richiez 57:Welcome 779:. The 434:p. 34. 228:WP:Afd 99:Nirmos 43:}}, {{ 968:, or 860:books 839:: --> 519:PSURs 69:Links 1036:talk 1010:talk 995:talk 985:it). 933:talk 913:talk 897:talk 876:talk 848:talk 813:talk 752:talk 720:talk 704:talk 646:talk 607:talk 560:talk 542:talk 528:talk 496:talk 456:talk 376:talk 361:talk 307:, 287:talk 259:talk 249:and 236:talk 210:talk 187:talk 177:and 134:talk 126:this 111:talk 103:talk 773:Hi, 1038:) 1012:) 997:) 935:) 915:) 899:) 878:) 858:/ 854:/ 850:/ 815:) 791:, 758:) 754:• 722:) 706:) 698:-- 648:) 609:) 562:) 544:) 530:) 498:) 458:) 450:-- 378:) 363:) 289:) 261:) 238:) 212:) 189:) 136:) 113:) 97:. 1034:( 1008:( 993:( 976:. 931:( 911:( 895:( 874:( 862:} 846:{ 837:/ 811:( 750:( 718:( 702:( 644:( 605:( 558:( 540:( 526:( 494:( 454:( 374:( 359:( 285:( 257:( 234:( 208:( 185:( 132:( 128:. 109:( 101:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index