359:) 09:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC) One update with the note I am article's subject and have not been involved in past edits, I am all for openness and differences in opinion. If the decision is to keep can I ask that TNT or something be applied to start the article anew with one or more fresh editors perhaps using some consolidated version of the past? I watched edits or comments on edits in the history that got too into details, like such as my wife for example, who no doubt is she central and core to my personal life just not a topic for a public article and we both would prefer it to be actions and activities if possible? It has never been my goal to be the target of such debates and I prefer to focus on "getting stuff done" that matters. Thank you for your consideration.
473:- I hope that anyone voting to keep the article is not doing so despite the situation - being that there is a COI with the article, potential sockfarm, and now the subject of the article requesting deletion and maybe trying to keep the article to prove a point. Yes, I am assuming good faith, but I am also tackling the elephant in the room so sorry if anyone is offended. Saying that he is "clearly notable" and "in the public eye" is not good enough as there is no notability guideline that states someone is notable based on being in the "public eye." With that, I will say that he has coverage in many reliable sources. However, many of it is quotes, passing mentions, podcasts or webcasts. Nothing that I believe would qualify him under
1020:. His work, achievements and publications are of interest perhaps if you are a CIO or CTO of a large US organisation, but that does not merit an article here IMO. It's hardly as if the FCC is that large an organisation anyway - with only 1720 employees and a $ 388m budget it is much smaller than even the smallest Fortune 500 company, and Knowledge (XXG) doesn't even list the CEO of most of those organisations, never mind the CIO/CTO. Obviously the FCC is of some notability in itself, but individual senior officers within it are generally not.
801:) - that supports them being a notable figure. Being in a notable position in real life does not make them notable for Knowledge (XXG). If that was the case, we can create articles for all prior CIOs. The Washington Post article is an interview which should never be used for notability. If the subject requested to have his article "kept," I am sure you would use such rationale to delete it saying that the subject only has passing mentions and interviews. This whole thing looks like a classic case of
1078:
need to be listed as politician-related discussions; thank you. For those unfamiliar with U.S. non-political senior execs, we translate the political will of all parties to the career workforce while at the same time not picking a specific political side, which means we're often the punching bag of all sides to "get stuff done" which is why I'm happy to remain not-notable in my role. Hope this helps.
283:
article ended up being press releases/essential copies of press releases/fluff pieces/blogs etc that I through up my hands and decided I needed some more eyes on it. I'm not totally sure I am comfortable saying he is notable "simply" because of his position as CIO of the FCC but it's possible his work has touched enough of the wider field to be so notable.
883:. He is certainly not a person outside the public sphere, a child or some unfortunate individual known for one crime or one mistake,or for having some ailment, so "do no harm" hardly applies. Knowledge (XXG) is not a vanity publication or voluntary directory, so we do not base our decisions about having an article on whether the person wants an article.
52:. There's no clear consensus. "Keep" opinions consider the coverage he's received sufficient for notability, while delete opinions are of the view that the coverage isn't sufficient to justify an article, and that in marginal cases the subject's wishes should be taken into account. These are both valid positions.
826:
I concur that the argument for notability is on that margin edge of being notable and a courteous collapsing is reasonable. I would note (particularly in the direction of the subject of the article) that it would take a few controversial or very popular opinions to push over into definite notability
551:
is acceptable if it could address concerns that the current history of the existing main page contains details that are disconcerting from an identity theft or misuse standpoint and in my role I've tried to focus on the work getting done and not about me. This is why Clpo13's suggested TNT and delete
437:
Although I understand Mr. Bray's discomfort with the article, he is far too notable to delete. He is a man who is in the public eye, and who makes decisions on issues with national and international policy impact. Unfortunately, this makes his
Knowledge (XXG) page a target for people who disagree
350:
to clarify since there seems to be some debate, with the open caveat that I am the article's subject and have not been involved in past edits, though I have monitored them and they went to a level of detail I was not comfortable with personally. If the decision is to keep, Clpo13 suggested something
1077:
Comment only, many thanks Shawn for the note however I am *not* a politician. Happy to be deleted. I am neither politically elected nor appointed, I got my job by applying via the open competition approach available to all U.S. individuals via USAjobs. I am a career senior executive and thus do not
993:
seems to apply here. For it not to apply, there would have to be sources indicating enough notability that we can ignore that. I am not convinced by what has been posted so far that he has enough notability for that. The sources obviously do show some notability, but the criteria we are supposed
796:
Thanks for pointing out my misspelling which doesn't really have bearing on the discussion. But since you brought it up, it's "in the," not "inthe" as you stated above and "contrary" as opposed to "contra" but that is besides the point. As far as the "trade press," saying something does not make it
589:
I don't think his notability is being a social media celebrity. If anyone with 120K followers is notable, I would be close to qualifying for notability. The Forbes and
Huffington Post articles are both interviews or transcripts of interviews. How does that amount to notability? Despite being Forbes
539:
of a TNT and few short sentences is preferred. While it is not fun to have one's life debated at length I also realize this is about the community reaching its own conclusion. Focusing on "getting stuff done" is what matters to me which is why I initially requested a speedy deletion. Thank you for
59:
I can under such circumstances honor the subject's wish to delete the article. I do so here because I am of the view that the encyclopedia's educational usefulness is, in the grand scheme of things, only very marginally reduced by removing an article about the CIO of a relatively small government
282:
Yeah, i've asked him to verify identity with OTRS and tried to explain the procedures. I personally lean towards marginal notability but could be convinced otherwise. I originally didn't think so and just planned to blow it up so that I/others could start anew but too many of the sources on the
777:
of Bray's job performance highlighting his social media presence does establish notability. Also, CNMall41 refutes a user who cited media coverage of Bray in the trade press as "vast" (actually CNMall41 mis-cites (typo?) the assertion as "cast") In fact, the vast, or, at least, intense and
455:
as proposed by The
Bushranger. There are a lot of CIOs in the world, some of whom have done great work. It doesn't mean that they should be listed here. Some of those initiatives are maybe worth an entry in more relevant articles, perhaps with a reference to Mr Bray. But a whole article seems
778:
continuous coverage of Bray's work inthe trade press does confer notability. If the problem is Bray or an admirer using sockpuppets to promote Bray, rather than policy opponents using sockpuppets to attack him, that can be dealt with. Deletion of a notable figure is not the solution.
390:, it is, sometimes, something that is unavoidable. That said, the coverage at the target mentioned there appears to be appropriate for his role with the FCC, and it would seem to be a reasonable compromise between the desire not to be notable and the unavoidable fact of notability. -
535:
I've emailed per the instructions provided to verify my identity as the subject and will reiterate I prefer not to be notable and the TNT option with a redirect is welcomed. I have not been involved in past edits. If the community thinks I should be, then Varent's suggestion here
60:
agency who hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy and does not seem to be a person of interest to a general public. This can of course change, in which case this article can be recreated, and appropriate information about him may also be included in any related articles.
797:
true. I requested to be shown the guideline that allows us to determine notability based on such assertion but have yet to have anyone produce anything other than an opinion. A person is only a "notable figure" if there is coverage - in-depth, reliable, and independent (see
491:
Changed my vote to delete from a simple comment. I guess my statement fell on def ears as I continue to see keep votes without rationale. Speechless at this point. Have at keeping an article that no one can show meets notability guidelines. I'm out!
955:
He is not "relatively unknown", he is not a "non-public figure". The stub (as it stands right now) has more text in the 25 sources than in the actual article text. There is no valid reason for someone this prominent to have their article deleted.
223:
I have struck down the article a ton because the original was very fluffy and really couldn't be used as is and I was not sure it was worth while to try and weed through the existing text. You can see how it appeared beforehand in this
994:
to use are harsher than just "has some notability". Note that Edison's claim that "we do not base our decisions about having an article on whether the person wants an article" is not true; it contradicts BLPREQUESTDELETE.
831:
should not be used short of a exact copy of the text going forward. I'd rather have the debate full out every time as the standards could raise or lower and the BLP's own actions could raise or lower their notability.
177:
325:
926:
It is difficult to define this high government official whose decisions and administrative style are discussed in major publications as a "non-public figure," which is what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE specifies.
675:
fedscoop, "Inside the FCC's risky IT overhaul: FCC is in the midst of a total IT overhaul as its legacy systems have resulted in very public failures. Can David Bray lead the agency out of its antiquated
386:
that the requester is, in fact, the article's subject), I believe that given the position he holds/held and the amount of coverage that results from that means that, while we might not want
953:"Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."
242:
I am happy for any uninvolved admin or experienced editor to undo my actions on the article if they believe necessary (speedy delete if you believe eligible, undo the courtesy blank etc).
235:
and asked for the page to be deleted/blanked and speedy deleted. I was unwilling to speedy delete but because I do think the notability is borderline already (and so may well fall under
130:
666:
506:"clearly notable" is a perefectly good reason to keep an article; and neither an alleged CoI, nor an alleged sockfarm, are reasons to deletes an article that otherwise meets GNG
1038:
671:
1058:
268:) was very fluffy, but it does show notability. I emphasise that this is not a marginal case, so the subject's request (not made via OTRS, btw) doesn't come into play.
171:
303:
879:
A number of sources which are reliable and independent have significant coverage of him, and he is an influential and high-ranking government official. He satisfies
548:) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Update: I have emailed twice and stand-by to verify who I am; also the suggestion made by John Nagle on my talk page of this version
569:
The subject is clearly notable, and a U.S. Government official with a reasonably high profile, by his own choice and actions. He has substantial coverage in Forbes
627:
Again, a keep vote without rationale. Can you show me where the guideline is for someone being notable for having "a cast amount of trade press coverage" is? --
771:
691:
1to1Media,"David Bray, CIO, Federal
Communications Commission: Bray has modernized the customer journey and created transparency by moving to the cloud."
770:: Please read comments carefully, contra to CNMA1141, I see no one arguing that social media followers confer notability, although, certainly, this:
216:
to start over and we should probably at least discuss whether it needs a full article regardless (perhaps, if anything, an article about the role?) .
712:
687:
656:
137:
665:
WashingtonExec, "FCC CIO Dr. David Bray’s ‘Start-up
Mentality Culture’ Connects People, Pipes to Modernize Agency’s 207 Legacy IT Systems"
522:
425:
570:
17:
379:
103:
98:
707:
552:
or TNT and just the basics is preferable. I have emailed to verify my identity, let me more if I can do? Thank you for your help.
107:
682:
964:
90:
351:
called TNT? Could that be at least done out of respect for my own privacy to start a new? Thank you for your consideration.
192:
159:
990:
948:
905:
853:
722:
236:
56:
1105:
40:
1066:
1046:
702:
573:
849:
Close enough to the borderline that we should respect the
Subject's wishes, which have now been confirmed via OTRS
733:
614:
409:
Clearly notable; and "deletion is not clean-up". I'm also unclear as to why the nominator has blanked the article.
273:
208:
This article appears to have been started and written almost exclusively by socks over the past couple years (see
438:
with him on issues. This, obviously, is one of
Knowledge (XXG).s endemic problems. Deletion is not the answer.
395:
153:
750:
Redirect if that is the wishes of the article's subject. We should always "Do No Harm" is borderline cases. --
717:
518:
421:
239:) I was willing to request deletion and to courtesy blank the page for now while the discussion was ongoing.
1087:
1070:
1062:
1050:
1042:
1029:
1003:
999:
981:
935:
917:
892:
871:
841:
814:
787:
762:
737:
636:
618:
599:
584:
561:
526:
501:
486:
465:
447:
429:
401:
368:
339:
317:
292:
277:
251:
149:
72:
1101:
931:
783:
729:
610:
609:
he's received a vast amount of trade press coverage. This isn't even close to being a borderline case.--
443:
269:
36:
1083:
913:
757:
590:
and Huff Post - both of which are reliable - these are still interviews which are not independent. --
557:
545:
364:
356:
199:
670:
Washington Post, "Inside the collapse of the FCC’s digital infrastructure — and the rush to save it"
391:
288:
247:
185:
1025:
970:
862:
810:
632:
595:
509:
497:
482:
461:
412:
232:
94:
802:
697:
681:
ABC affiliate WJLA's show
Government Matters, "Bray: 'Right now I'm focusing solely on the FCC'"
55:
Normally, this "no consensus" outcome would lead to the article being kept by default, but per
995:
837:
651:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1100:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
661:
380:
Federal
Communications Commission#Modernization of the FCC.27s information technology systems
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
927:
888:
779:
711:
FierceGovernmentIT, "NASA, FCC, USDA lean on open source to propel IoT forward, DoD less so"
439:
334:
312:
901:
880:
642:
474:
383:
213:
165:
1079:
909:
774:
751:
580:
553:
541:
360:
352:
974:
828:
798:
686:
IT World Canada, "The FCC’s CIO uses a D.H. Lawrence poem to explain our digital future"
645:, it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
284:
243:
63:
387:
1021:
957:
857:
806:
628:
591:
493:
478:
477:, but I will abstain for the moment to see if anyone is able to show me otherwise. --
457:
86:
78:
641:
The rationale is "he's received a vast amount of trade press coverage." This meets
833:
706:
The
Enterprisers Project, "Why everyone must play a part in improving IoE privacy"
677:
264:-- clearly notable, not marginal at all. I agree that the previous version (e.g.
124:
692:
884:
329:
307:
576:
456:
excessive. In addition, earlier drafts looked suspiciously like puff piecees.
900:
Being a CIO doesn't make you notable, and it's marginal whether he passes
728:(This list doesn't include a large number of interview style articles.)--
852:. While arguably a public figure, I think we should still treat it as a
348:
TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors
212:) and I'm generally of the opinion that it at the very least needs some
696:
GovTransformer, "GovTransformer: FCC to Go “All In” with the Cloud"
829:"Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"
1094:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
716:
Carrt.ca, "CTS 2015: FCC CIO sees even bigger changes coming "
237:
our usual policies to lean towards an article subjects request
326:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
575:. He has 120K Twitter followers. That's a public figure.
850:
827:
and inclusion, and therefore wish to indicate that the
549:
537:
265:
225:
209:
120:
116:
112:
231:
A user claiming to be the article subject has come to
184:
382:. With all due respect to the article's subject (and
660:
Federal Computer Week, "Federal 100: David A. Bray"
655:
Federal Times, "FCC CIO leads an IT 'intervention'"
198:
701:Nextgov, "Need a Use Case for Cloud? Look to FCC"
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1108:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1039:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
650:Federal Computer Week, "FCC's CIO started young"
219:It is important to note a couple extra points:
1059:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
1012:I think what we have here is a person who is
8:
1057:Note: This debate has been included in the
1037:Note: This debate has been included in the
721:CIO, "Tips from a day in the life of 4 CIOs"
324:Note: This debate has been included in the
302:Note: This debate has been included in the
304:list of People-related deletion discussions
1056:
1036:
323:
301:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
982:06:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
936:01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
918:23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
893:21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
872:19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
842:13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
815:02:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
788:01:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
763:01:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
738:15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
637:00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
619:00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
600:23:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
585:23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
562:01:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
527:19:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
502:00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
487:22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
466:17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
448:14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
430:13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
402:10:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
369:15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
340:09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
318:09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
293:09:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
278:09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
252:09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
1088:06:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1071:04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1051:03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1030:09:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1004:03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
73:18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
1125:
572:, and the Huffington Post
1014:notable amongst his peers
1097:Please do not modify it.
908:, it should be deleted.
32:Please do not modify it.
947:. The relevant part of
540:your consideration.
991:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
949:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
906:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
854:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
847:Delete and Redirect
824:Delete and Redirect
453:Delete and redirect
384:assuming good faith
376:Delete and redirect
57:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
1018:notable in general
1073:
1063:Shawn in Montreal
1053:
1043:Shawn in Montreal
980:
869:
342:
320:
71:
1116:
1099:
977:
971:Talk to Nihonjoe
967:
963:
960:
867:
863:
860:
760:
754:
730:Samuel J. Howard
611:Samuel J. Howard
525:
516:
512:
428:
419:
415:
398:
270:Nomoskedasticity
203:
202:
188:
140:
128:
110:
70:
68:
61:
34:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1106:deletion review
1095:
975:
965:
958:
868:
865:
858:
775:Washington Post
758:
752:
514:
508:
507:
417:
411:
410:
400:
396:
338:
316:
145:
136:
101:
85:
82:
64:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1122:
1120:
1111:
1110:
1075:
1074:
1054:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1007:
1006:
984:
941:
940:
939:
938:
921:
920:
895:
874:
864:
844:
820:
819:
818:
817:
791:
790:
765:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
726:
725:
724:
719:
714:
709:
704:
699:
694:
689:
684:
679:
673:
668:
663:
658:
653:
622:
621:
604:
603:
602:
564:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
468:
450:
432:
404:
394:
392:The Bushranger
372:
371:
344:
343:
332:
321:
310:
298:
297:
296:
295:
257:
255:
254:
240:
229:
206:
205:
142:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1121:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
988:
985:
983:
978:
976:Join WP Japan
972:
968:
961:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
922:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
870:
861:
855:
851:
848:
845:
843:
839:
835:
830:
825:
822:
821:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
785:
781:
776:
772:
769:
766:
764:
761:
755:
749:
748:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
720:
718:
715:
713:
710:
708:
705:
703:
700:
698:
695:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
674:
672:
669:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
648:
647:
646:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
568:
565:
563:
559:
555:
550:
547:
543:
538:
534:
528:
524:
520:
515:Pigsonthewing
511:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
467:
463:
459:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
418:Pigsonthewing
414:
408:
405:
403:
399:
397:One ping only
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
349:
346:
345:
341:
336:
331:
327:
322:
319:
314:
309:
305:
300:
299:
294:
290:
286:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
233:the talk page
230:
227:
222:
221:
220:
217:
215:
211:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
135:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:David A. Bray
84:
83:
80:
79:David A. Bray
77:
75:
74:
69:
67:
58:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1096:
1093:
1076:
1017:
1013:
996:Ken Arromdee
986:
952:
944:
897:
876:
846:
823:
767:
606:
566:
523:Andy's edits
519:Talk to Andy
510:Andy Mabbett
470:
452:
434:
426:Andy's edits
422:Talk to Andy
413:Andy Mabbett
406:
375:
347:
261:
256:
226:old revision
218:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
133:
65:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
928:E.M.Gregory
856:situation.
780:E.M.Gregory
440:E.M.Gregory
285:James of UR
244:James of UR
172:free images
1080:Northernva
910:Joseph2302
904:. So, per
759:Parlez Moi
753:Guerillero
577:John Nagle
554:Northernva
542:Northernva
388:notability
361:Northernva
353:Northernva
66:Sandstein
1102:talk page
951:is this:
37:talk page
1104:or in a
1022:Shritwod
1016:but not
807:CNMall41
803:WP:POINT
629:CNMall41
592:CNMall41
494:CNMall41
479:CNMall41
458:Shritwod
131:View log
39:or in a
834:Hasteur
773:in the
768:Comment
210:history
178:WP refs
166:scholar
104:protect
99:history
987:Delete
902:WP:GNG
898:Delete
885:Edison
881:WP:BIO
676:past?"
643:WP:GNG
475:WP:GNG
471:Delete
330:clpo13
308:clpo13
150:Google
108:delete
50:delete
859:Monty
799:WP:42
193:JSTOR
154:books
138:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
1084:talk
1067:talk
1047:talk
1026:talk
1000:talk
945:Keep
932:talk
914:talk
889:talk
877:Keep
838:talk
811:talk
784:talk
734:talk
633:talk
615:talk
607:Keep
596:talk
581:talk
567:Keep
558:talk
546:talk
498:talk
483:talk
462:talk
444:talk
435:Keep
407:Keep
365:talk
357:talk
335:talk
313:talk
289:talk
274:talk
266:this
262:Keep
248:talk
186:FENS
160:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
989:.
959:日本穣
956:···
866:845
805:.--
517:);
420:);
378:to
214:TNT
200:TWL
129:– (
1086:)
1069:)
1061:.
1049:)
1041:.
1028:)
1002:)
973:·
969:·
966:投稿
962:·
934:)
916:)
891:)
840:)
813:)
786:)
756:|
736:)
635:)
617:)
598:)
583:)
560:)
521:;
500:)
492:--
485:)
464:)
446:)
424:;
367:)
328:.
306:.
291:)
276:)
250:)
180:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
1082:(
1065:(
1045:(
1024:(
998:(
979:!
930:(
912:(
887:(
836:(
809:(
782:(
732:(
631:(
613:(
594:(
579:(
556:(
544:(
513:(
496:(
481:(
460:(
442:(
416:(
363:(
355:(
337:)
333:(
315:)
311:(
287:(
272:(
246:(
228:.
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
134:·
127:)
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.