950:
long time to regain. I actually have no interest in communicating with you beyond the bare minimum that is required to improve the encyclopedia, or at least prevent you from making it worse. Do not expect me to reply to your talk messages (friendly or otherwise) unless I think it is necessary for those reasons. I'm sure you will find some other
Wikipedians more able to provide you with interesting and helpful talk page discussion than I am. If despite my cold shoulder you care for a final bit of advice, I suggest that you focus on making article space edits that actually improve articles for a while, whether in chess or any other subject. Heavy involvement at AFD or other project space pages without demonstrating experience actually editing articles is viewed with suspicion by many editors, including me. I should also warn you that simply tagging articles for notability or lacking references is not always seen as helpful, so better areas to focus on are wikifying and fixing spelling, broken wiki syntax, citation formatting, and
884:. This isn't a threat or a promise, but rather a prospect that makes me sad. I have been editing Knowledge (XXG) for over five years and I have very rarely had any involvement with ANI or the arbitration process. My main reasons for editing wikipedia to have fun and learn, and I find ANI a depressing place. At ANI I would likely ask that you be sanctioned, either completely banning you from nominating chess bios for deletion or setting a throttle limiting the number of simultaneous nominations you could have open. You already have been blocked once, and comments like
844:
you have made aside from AFD nomintations, the high volume of nominations for deletion and the fact that your judgment of what is notable doesn't seem to be in line with that of the
Knowledge (XXG) community as a whole (hence your poor success rate). I think your language can be wild, aggressive, provocative, and condescending or insulting, and the fact that you take this tone in AFD nominations makes me wonder if you goal is really to get the articles deleted or simply to try to provoke other editors. I find nominations such as
1033:
344:
407:
310:, OGBranniff has established a clear pattern of demanding immediate deletion of anything he likes to challenge re sourcing. " challenged or likely to be challenged", but the notability of Andrew Solits was not "likely to be challenged", except, apparently, by User:OGBranniff, so that is perhaps why that article lacked sourcing for the time it did. Ditto with Chess.com's membership in
496:
164:
getting old). My rating wasn't anything special back then, as I topped out south of USCF 1900. I enjoy reading about chess a lot, and I used to write about it here a fair amount but I have mostly observed for the last several years. If you are interested in chess you should consider joining the chess wikiproject at
290:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation
163:
That's OK, as
Ihardlythinkso can tell you Knowledge (XXG) is in some ways a very strange and bureaucratic place. You can be here for years and not encounter all the "rules". I can't really call myself a chess player as I haven't played competitively for about 30 years (which also tells you that I'm
924:
Understood! Got it. One thing that I did learn from the first lot was: 1) UK constituent country champions are inherently notable (like
Scotland, Wales, etc), 2) Female champions are also inherently notable, 3) Grandmasters are notable, and 4) participants in Chess Olympiads are probably notable.
250:
To make sure you see it in the midst of all the other talk there, my response to you was: Yes, I'm a member at chess.com. I'm also a member at gameknot, and schemingmind, and I've had an account at most or all of those sites at one time or another. That said, would you mind showing me where gameknot
949:
I am very pleased to hear that you are taking a break of a week or longer from making chess bio deletion nominations. However I'm afraid I'm not your friend, since I don't think you and I are here for the same reason. I'm quick to extend a welcome to someone new, but once trust is lost it takes a
717:
Also, If you personally really cared about your rules as much as you claim to, why do other sites with less notability than chess.com have pages on this site? I know your answer when I last asked you something like that was basically "well, I only have so much time to edit", but, if that were true,
559:
you will see the reasonable position about chess servers is that there are hundreds of them, and attempting to create a list of them all would be pointless. So this list only includes notable servers that have articles. If you think any of the servers you are adding are notable then please create
1165:
1897 Page 1531 "LOWE, Edward, b. Prague, Bohemia 1794 J emigrated to
England about 1830; played a match with H. Staunton 1848; one of the first class chess players of his time; kept a lodging house at 14 Surrey st. Strand 1851-8, kept a private hotel there ..." and so on. ... I tentatively suggest
843:
nominations of chess biographies. If my count is accurate, you have at least fourteen open AFD discussions on chess biographies currently. Your track record in getting these bios deleted is rather poor. I have many concerns over your activities, including the small number of article space edits
468:
Not really interested in creating an account, no, but thanks. I was pointed to the discussion on chess.com from that site, and I was just looking around, and noticed that you seem to dislike that site for some reason. I mean, I get that, I can't stand
Gameknot myself, but, that doesn't seem like a
453:
Why do you seem to have a bias against this one site. Every time it appears on wikipedia, you go out of your way to delete a mention of it, and you always have reasoning behind it, but, if you really believed your reason for it, you would delete all the other sites that apply as well, but you only
629:
This right here is why I won't make a wikipedia account. So, the additions are against consensus, but, consensus is against common sense, and everyone seems to be ok with this. In this particular case, it's obvious that there are a few folks 'round here who don't like chess.com. They say it's not
906:
I forgot to add that if you really want to get a lot of chess bios deleted from
Knowledge (XXG) you might be best served to see how the current batch of nominations turn out. That will give you a better gauge for how the community judges notability and would help you be more efficient in future
129:
You should revert your recent moves of article to "Parham
Opening" name, you can't make those changes without new info, new discussion, new consensus, since the name was discussed at length on the article Talk (didn't you see it?) and your unilateral moves completely cross that consensus.
149:) you should discuss it and reach a new consensus before performing a rename. If you read the talk page I think you'll see that no perfect name was found, but this was thought to be the best compromise by those participating in the discussion.
630:
notable. Common sense says that it being the largest chess server on the internet alone would make it notable, but, since the consensus says it's not, any reference to it gets removed from the site. Y'all have your fun, I'm done with this site.
220:
Seriously, why did I get a warning? I thought I was being helpful. I added an
Internet Chess Server to the list of them. Why was that wrong? I'm not trying to troll you or anything, I really don't know why what I did deserves a warning.
538:. Your revisions are against consensus. The predominant view, per policy, is to only include notable chess sites (the ones with articles here). Please also do not accuse people of "vandalism" without just cause. Have a nice day.
291:
needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.
879:
Anyway, I'm not really interested in trying to decipher your motivations. I'm really only concerned about behavior. If you continue to make spurious nominations at this rate I (or someone else) is likely to take up the matter at
656:
Hello, thank you for your input. Consensus is based on
Knowledge (XXG) policy. While you might have the opinion that a certain site is the "largest chess server on the internet," unless that information is published in multiple
695:
And my point, which you seemed to miss was that Knowledge (XXG) policy is the most important thing in the world to many Wikipedians. Where as I tend to value logic and common sense, which the policies do not allow
1137:. Only one of them is recent, and let that be a salvation of sorts. Please consider this a final warning: such commentary is deeply offensive to a wide variety of editors, and they have no place here. Thank you.
314:. The appropriate thing to do was to tag with "citation needed", instead of throwning delete bombs and accusing editors of being "vandals" and "idiots", in addition to all the other numerous insults and slurs at
229:) 01:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I keep looking for what I did wrong, but, I can find no difference between chess.com and say... gameknot.com. So, why is one allowed on the list, and not the other?
954:
compliance. Actually adding references and expanding articles is even better. I agree that Knowledge (XXG) does need some pruning, but generally I find building more rewarding than destroying.
661:
independent of its subject, your opinion remains unproven. Furthermore, even if your opinion was true, that still doesn't make the site notable per Knowledge (XXG) policy. I suggest you read
172:
has been quiet for several weeks around the holidays, but it's a good place to bring up any topic that you think should have the attention of Knowledge (XXG) chess editors. You can also use
603:
has said. I attempted to say the same, but he did a much more eloquent job. Please read the article talk page and please discuss your ideas on the talk page first. Your reversions are
925:
In any case, like I said on your talk page, I'm done with AFD's for at least a week; we'll see how today's lot turn out. I was a bit more discriminating in this group. Thank you.
1111:
513:
1158:
509:
168:. It isn't anything formal, but you'll get to know a bunch of Wikipedians who enjoy chess and edit chess articles. Many of them are much stronger players than I am.
865:
849:
180:
as a kind of shared watch list. There's a lot to do to improve the chess articles we have on Knowledge (XXG) if you're interested. You can also start by browsing
1050:
857:
265:
Nevermind. I was given an appropriate link. That said, if the rules are to be applied fairly, there are probably other sites on that list that don't belong.
469:
good reason to try to delete it from the face of wikipedia like some kind of crusader, which is exactly the impression you are leaving by your actions.
48:
82:
92:
388:
287:
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
266:
252:
236:
222:
868:) especially troubling. There is essentially no chance that any of these articles will be deleted, which suggests that this is either a
719:
631:
556:
535:
470:
455:
1129:
OGBraniff, I like a bit of fun as much as the next admin, maybe more, but there is nothing funny about the offensive remarks you made
968:
No, I agree. Even today when I was looking at chess articles, I considered doing an AFD but instead added this source to an article
102:! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the
1166:
you may wish to stand back from making any further AfD nominations until you are more familiar with how to check for notability.
43:
415:
578:
Thirdly, I can see you have repeatedly put these entries and links into this article, and repeatedly they have been removed.
87:
67:
39:
1069:
972:. And I agree article space edits are the most rewarding. Furthermore, I'm not much into doing those "tags" and what not.
311:
372:
77:
424:
351:
1089:
Since you are a member of the chess project, when you AdD (or PROD) and article, would be so kind as to list it here:
145:
I already moved it back. A bold move is OK if the name hasn't been discussed, but once a consensus has been reached (
58:
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
505:
484:
146:
111:
368:
107:
62:
824:
809:
419:
364:
327:
319:
315:
270:
256:
240:
226:
135:
99:
1171:
723:
635:
474:
459:
177:
869:
766:
759:
360:
232:
169:
46:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
571:. Placing external links within the body of an article is not guide style, especially in list articles.
819:
If I close my eyes and throw a fist-full of darts at a dartboard, one of them might even get a bullseye.
1090:
572:
72:
977:
930:
789:
670:
612:
543:
17:
174:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&target=Index_of_chess_articles
820:
805:
747:
323:
131:
307:
281:
1167:
1072:
1039:
1032:
438:
1104:
873:
165:
600:
586:
568:
176:
if you want to follow recent edits to Knowledge (XXG) chess articles. This is a neat use of
103:
1142:
378:
951:
881:
840:
662:
579:
1119:
973:
959:
926:
912:
897:
804:
Slightly comical, this new gunslinger in town routine. But hey, whatever keeps you happy.
785:
774:
666:
608:
539:
203:
189:
154:
658:
564:
743:
522:
181:
52:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type
1057:
861:
845:
430:
396:
1175:
1146:
1123:
1097:
1079:
1046:
1010:
981:
963:
934:
916:
901:
828:
813:
793:
778:
751:
727:
674:
639:
616:
591:
547:
524:
478:
463:
443:
400:
331:
274:
260:
244:
207:
193:
158:
139:
119:
1094:
1007:
1138:
853:
495:
299:
769:. I found your attempt at humor rather offensive, and I'm probably not alone.
1115:
955:
908:
893:
770:
251:
is "verified"? Certainly chess.com is more notable than schemeingmind, right?
199:
185:
150:
718:
then your deletions would be targeted at multiple random sites, not just one.
1006:
That's good. Do your homework on these before automatically doing an AfD.
517:
371:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
582:. Please try to establish consensus for them before adding them again.
392:
280:
The warning was bluster and inappropriate. User:OGBranniff should review
1114:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
665:
for a general overview of what is considered notable and what is not.
147:
Talk:Wayward Queen Attack#Naming; Why is it called the "Parham Attack"?
1161:. Since this popped up from Google Books immediately: Frederic Boase
892:
make me believe that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia.
26:
This is an archive of user talk from December 2012 to 15 March 2013:
767:
WT:CHESS#Notability (International Masters and chess in England)
512:
for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
1053:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
1031:
342:
839:
I would appreciate it if you would slow down a bit on your
429:. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
580:
And you haven't attempted to discuss this on the talk page
560:
an article for them first, before adding to the list.
1134:
1130:
969:
889:
885:
303:
173:
1112:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
510:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff
306:
over vociferous protests about others not following
1091:
WikiProject_Chess#... to delete/listed for deletion
573:Knowledge (XXG) is not an internet links directory
504:Your name has been mentioned in connection with a
367:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
1159:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Edward Löwe
534:Dear sir, I suggest you read the discussion here
765:You might want to refactor your ugly comment at
110:or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --
1038:Hello, OGBranniff. You have new messages at
8:
98:We hope you enjoy editing here and being a
1110:Hello. There is currently a discussion at
198:Hi, I hope you enjoy the holiday season.
320:User talk:166.82.205.115#Editing policies
784:Huh, what are you talking about, sir?
418:on other people again, as you did at
375:by adding below this notice the text
7:
536:Talk:List_of_Internet_chess_servers
63:The Five Pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
516:before editing the evidence page.
316:User talk:166.82.205.115#Chess.com
42:to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you for
24:
800:Good. We can all sleep safe then
514:the guide to responding to cases
494:
405:
1103:ANI Notice about your edits to
599:Yes, I second everything that
312:List of Internet chess servers
1:
1163:Modern English Biography: I-Q
752:23:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
728:19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
675:11:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
640:00:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
617:00:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
592:00:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
552:Hi. Three things to note.
548:00:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
525:21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
490:
355:from editing for a period of
208:01:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
194:07:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
159:06:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
140:06:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
479:23:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
464:19:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
454:delete the one. Why is this?
444:03:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
401:00:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
332:02:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
275:18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
261:09:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
245:02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
120:11:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
83:How to write a great article
363:other users, as you did at
49:New contributors' help page
1191:
1176:08:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
1147:04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
1124:00:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
557:read the article talk page
387:, but you should read the
93:Simplified Manual of Style
1098:19:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1080:16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1047:16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1011:15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
982:07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
964:07:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
935:07:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
917:07:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
902:06:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
872:problem or an example of
835:Chess bio AFD nominations
829:01:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
814:01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
794:02:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
779:02:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
389:guide to appealing blocks
369:make useful contributions
420:User talk:166.82.205.115
365:User_talk:166.82.205.115
106:, add a question to the
298:With his failed AfD re
178:Index of chess articles
115:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1036:
530:Chess internet servers
508:case. Please refer to
427:without further notice
347:
293:
1035:
860:), and most recently
383:Your reason here ~~~~
346:
285:
1040:Basalisk's talk page
425:blocked from editing
125:Wayward Queen Attack
18:User talk:OGBranniff
567:to articles is not
216:Completely confused
1051:remove this notice
1037:
359:for attempting to
348:
88:Naming conventions
68:How to edit a page
44:your contributions
605:against consensus
601:User:Escape_Orbit
563:Secondly, adding
502:
501:
373:appeal this block
235:comment added by
116:
1182:
1085:Please list AfDs
1076:
1067:
1062:
1054:
758:Ugly comment at
659:Reliable Sources
589:
555:Firstly, if you
520:
498:
491:
441:
436:
433:
416:personal attacks
409:
408:
386:
345:
247:
117:
114:
78:Picture tutorial
73:Editing tutorial
56:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1155:
1153:Chessmaster AfD
1108:
1087:
1077:
1074:
1063:
1058:
1055:
1044:
1029:
837:
802:
763:
587:
532:
518:
489:
451:
439:
434:
431:
406:
403:
376:
343:
340:
230:
218:
127:
112:
54:
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1188:
1186:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1107:
1101:
1086:
1083:
1073:
1045:Message added
1043:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
940:
939:
938:
937:
866:AfD discussion
858:AfD discussion
850:AfD discussion
836:
833:
832:
831:
821:Ihardlythinkso
806:Brittle heaven
801:
798:
797:
796:
762:
756:
755:
754:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
622:
621:
620:
619:
607:. Thank you.
565:external links
531:
528:
500:
499:
488:
482:
450:
447:
414:; if you make
349:You have been
341:
339:
336:
335:
334:
324:Ihardlythinkso
295:
294:
267:166.82.205.115
253:166.82.205.115
237:166.82.205.115
223:166.82.205.115
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
196:
182:Category:Chess
132:Ihardlythinkso
126:
123:
96:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
70:
65:
31:
28:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1187:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:In ictu oculi
1164:
1160:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1102:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1084:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1070:
1068:
1066:
1061:
1052:
1048:
1041:
1034:
1026:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
936:
932:
928:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
907:nominations.
904:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
877:
875:
871:
870:WP:COMPETENCE
867:
863:
862:John Roycroft
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:Andrew Soltis
842:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
729:
725:
721:
720:166.82.205.67
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
641:
637:
633:
632:166.82.205.67
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
590:
583:
581:
576:
574:
570:
566:
561:
558:
553:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
529:
527:
526:
523:
521:
515:
511:
507:
497:
493:
492:
486:
483:
481:
480:
476:
472:
471:166.82.205.67
466:
465:
461:
457:
456:166.82.205.67
448:
446:
445:
442:
437:
428:
426:
422:, you may be
421:
417:
413:
410:This is your
402:
398:
394:
390:
384:
380:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
338:February 2013
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
292:
288:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:
258:
254:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
228:
224:
215:
209:
205:
201:
197:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
124:
122:
121:
118:
109:
105:
101:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
60:
59:
57:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
29:
27:
19:
1162:
1156:
1109:
1088:
1064:
1059:
1056:
905:
878:
838:
803:
764:
604:
588:Escape Orbit
584:
577:
562:
554:
551:
533:
506:sockpuppetry
503:
485:Sockpuppetry
467:
452:
423:
412:only warning
411:
404:
382:
356:
350:
289:
286:
264:
249:
231:â Preceding
219:
128:
108:village pump
97:
53:
47:
35:
33:
25:
854:Jana Bellin
304:SNOW-closed
300:Andy Soltis
1049:. You can
974:OGBranniff
927:OGBranniff
786:OGBranniff
667:OGBranniff
609:OGBranniff
585:Thanks. --
540:OGBranniff
104:help pages
100:Wikipedian
55:{{helpme}}
36:OGBranniff
744:JunoBeach
742:did u ??
449:Chess.com
308:WP:VERIFY
282:WP:VERIFY
1105:WP:CHESS
1027:Talkback
874:WP:POINT
760:WT:CHESS
391:first.
381:|reason=
357:24 hours
302:, which
233:unsigned
170:WT:CHESS
166:WP:CHESS
1095:Bubba73
1008:Bubba73
379:unblock
352:blocked
40:welcome
34:Hello,
30:Welcome
1139:Drmies
1075:berate
952:WP:MOS
882:WP:ANI
841:WP:AFD
663:WP:GNG
569:citing
361:harass
113:TRPoD
38:, and
1116:Quale
956:Quale
909:Quale
894:Quale
771:Quale
435:herry
200:Quale
186:Quale
151:Quale
16:<
1172:talk
1143:talk
1135:here
1133:and
1131:here
1120:talk
1065:lisk
1060:Basa
978:talk
970:here
960:talk
931:talk
913:talk
898:talk
890:this
888:and
886:this
825:talk
810:talk
790:talk
775:talk
748:talk
724:talk
696:for.
671:talk
636:talk
613:talk
544:talk
519:Mkdw
487:case
475:talk
460:talk
440:talk
397:talk
328:talk
318:and
271:talk
257:talk
241:talk
227:talk
204:talk
190:talk
155:talk
136:talk
1157:Re
852:),
575:.
432:Bob
393:KTC
184:.
1174:)
1145:)
1122:)
1093:.
980:)
962:)
933:)
915:)
900:)
876:.
827:)
812:)
792:)
777:)
750:)
726:)
673:)
638:)
615:)
546:)
477:)
462:)
399:)
385:}}
377:{{
330:)
322:.
284::
273:)
259:)
243:)
206:)
192:)
157:)
138:)
1170:(
1141:(
1118:(
1071:â
1042:.
976:(
958:(
929:(
911:(
896:(
864:(
856:(
848:(
823:(
808:(
788:(
773:(
746:(
722:(
669:(
634:(
611:(
542:(
473:(
458:(
395:(
326:(
269:(
255:(
239:(
225:(
202:(
188:(
153:(
134:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.