596:
473:
522:
504:
432:
370:
452:
1352:
the article, you stated celebs are sometimes untruthful about their age, and David suggested to teach the controversy in general). While those are somewhat helpful for that article itself, they wouldn't help in other instances like the example I mentioned to
Blueboar above. And they would more than likely not be usable for someone running into similar issues and looking at the board for a general course of action.
400:
532:
1151:
Per existing WP:DOB, both dates would have to stay in the article, although common sense would say that the People magazine article had an error and should be excluded. Most articles I've seen it come up in, common sense goes out the window because "it's policy". And the opposite would also apply in
891:
based on that RfC, but it is unclear if once a clear and consistent date is established, if it is necessary to include discrepancies any longer. The previous RfC was for instances where multiple sources existed for a persons date of birth without a clearly more reliable source for the statement being
1314:
A BLP's verified social media account should count as a primary source, so I see no reason why it can't be used to verify their birthday. There should be some secondary reporting as well before adding it to their page though, alongside making sure that the social media account is in fact the BLP's.
1351:
I remember the article from tbat discussion (MJW) but I forgot about posting that. Looking back over it, I had asked a similar question that ended with no consensus either way on the board (Dumuzid suggested to find better sources for that article, Daniel suggested to discuss it on the talkpage of
1621:
The better solution would be to find some way to get the interview reliably published and then suggest its use on the talk page rather than making a COI edit to add it yourself. But even then, ClaudineChionh's concerns that we should make only limited use of primary sources would apply.
867:; edited RfC text to be more concise by changing "Can a subjects verified social media account be used to confirm a consistently reported date of birth amongst multiple reliable sources, if there are conflicting dates of birth?" to what it is currently. 19:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1331:
1392:
There is no need to mention "a BLP" type article or "material", as the topic of this policy is the person, not the type of article or material, no matter where they are mentioned. Would we lose any important nuance with the shortened wording? What think ye? --
849:
1249:
Sources make mistakes, plain and simple, and no single source should be considered immune to typos or getting something wrong. We can't give an outlier the same weight as a widely reported date from multiple sources, since it would be
1152:
the above example; a celebrity tweets it's their 38th birthday, when all previous interviews and articles put them at being 42. Per existing policy it would have to go in, even though common sense would show the old date was accurate.
1283:
for sources giving differing dates themselves in interviews and causing age disputes). But the other side of the sword is that reported dates of birth can be wrong and fixed by a subject if there isn't reason to doubt them. Example:
948:, and I don't believe it's necessary for the RfC closer to reopen the previous discussion, as they offered, since it is has been several years. I do think it could do with an RfC though, for the reasons I listed on that discussion.
1147:
A People
Magazine issue from 2015 has a picure of them at a sporting event with an age that conflicts with the agreed upon dates above, but all other articles in People show them as having the agreed upon date from other
1125:
To unravel the mixed up wording of the question… I believe you are asking whether a (verified) social media account can be used as a sort of “tie breaker” when other sources give conflicting dates. Is this the question?
617:
1380:"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."
1143:
Example conflict - An autobiography lists that Celeb X is born on Jan 1, 1990. Multiple magazines interview them and they give the same date. They post celebrating their 30th birthday from a verified account on their
1603:
My question was a hypothetical (for future reference); but in my scenario, the information was published nowhere. It’s from a personal interview I (hypothetically) conducted with the subject, which I have not posted
873:
638:
1566:. It's better to rely on a published interview. If there's a shortage of published materials about a subject, that may indicate that the subject is insufficiently notable to have a Knowledge article.
1324:
1264:
I agree, assuming it is widely reported (see People
Magazine typo example to Blueboar above for what I would not consider 'widely reported'). You had similar advice a while back for the DOB for
863:
668:
893:
39:
647:
1016:
You've already got responses, there's no need for a closure. Discussion can continue; to convert it from a formal RfC to a normal discussion, all you need to do is remove the
1238:
I agree that caution should be taken when looking at using a specific date. I disagree that relying on a person for confirming information should be afforded any less weight
626:
1332:
Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 56#Conflicting birth dates with possible unreliable source - should the subjects WP:ABOUTSELF social media post be used?
361:
964:
You should really have linked those at the outset. We get too many people who start an entirely new discussion, unrelated to anything that has gone before, and stick a
125:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
1516:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
1612:
1512:
1388:"This policy applies to any living person mentioned, whether or not that person is the main subject, in any article or other page, including a talk page."
703:
458:
941:
1670:
1638:
1608:
1575:
1522:
1508:
1502:
997:
Understood. To clarify; would you suggest closing this as an rfc and changing the title to remove the rfc part to get a proper discussion going on?
414:
1474:
1684:
1412:
be even more succinct? Trimming the rest of the superfluous text, I don't see why we'd need to keep "whether or not that person is the subject".
1631:
1556:
1346:
803:
1663:
1570:
1180:
1616:
1595:
410:
1402:
1363:
1036:
1011:
992:
959:
928:
1441:
1427:
1204:
1170:
Should an article subject's social media account be considered more reliable than other sources for personal details such as birthdays?
1163:
1135:
1116:
1096:
1074:
74:
907:
1705:
1226:
1300:
881:
1507:
Am I allowed to use information from the interview on the subject’s wikipedia page, or is that considered a self-published source?
549:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
737:
720:
655:
634:
613:
550:
409:
on
Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review
24:
878:
Once a clear and consistent date of birth has been widely reported, the consensus is to update the information to reflect this.
854:
Can a subjects verified social media account be used to confirm a date of birth between multiple conflicting reliable sources?
818:
601:
This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
80:
1547:
1485:
1449:
1189:, if other reliable sources are reporting something different, the discrepancy should be addressed at least in a footnote.
945:
554:
369:
1529:
and would usually only be used for simple factual statements, and we'd still prefer reliable secondary sources for those.
1461:
which, it appears (best guess), did not get fully setup; that turned into a second AfD. This has unleashed tirades from
558:
1497:
406:
1465:. Maybe one or two of you would like to take a look; you probably have more experience with comparable situations.
1551:
1462:
774:
757:
545:
509:
1563:
823:
813:
747:
20:
1079:
Ouch. After proofreading it before submitting, I clearly did a bad job lol. Any suggestions on better wording
715:
438:
69:
850:
Using a subjects verified social media account to confirm a date of birth amongst multiple reliable sources
484:
1410:
This policy applies to any living person mentioned in any article and on other pages, including talk pages
1371:
828:
60:
1458:
1451:
120:
1680:
732:
1376:
There is a sentence in the lead that has always irritated me because it contains superfluous words:
1627:
1543:
1530:
659:
384:
1582:. You also probably shouldn't be adding any information involving yourself since you would have a
944:, and maybe I misunderstood his response. The closing of the previous RfC was recently discussed
833:
752:
1675:
Good of you to ask
Clairsby, thanks, but as you can see, this would not usually be appropriate.
1320:
1000:
My goal is to make the least amount of spread out discussions and work for someone else to fix.
418:
1176:
808:
762:
490:
105:
1578:, where was this information published? Self-published content cannot be used on a BLP, see
98:
1676:
1384:
Unless I'm missing some special nuance, I believe the following version still covers that:
8:
1659:
1623:
1533:
1342:
1242:
the information is widely reported prior to their confirmation which is a requirement of
1032:
988:
977:
924:
913:
50:
1591:
1420:
1197:
1131:
1109:
1067:
90:
65:
1526:
1470:
1437:
1398:
1359:
1316:
1296:
1272:
1214:
1159:
1092:
1007:
955:
903:
859:
46:
1579:
1213:
exists, so we should be cautious about relying solely on (or giving precedence to)
1172:
537:
1607:
The interview (notes, transcripts, recordings, etc.) is solely in my possession.
1493:
1276:
1268:
to use the subjects SPS statement and provide the disputed content in a footnote.
1251:
1222:
1210:
742:
457:
To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the
1271:
I am not saying a subject should always be trusted for their date of birth (see
1101:
I can't suggest anything because I'm not sure what you're trying to say, sorry!
889:
include all birth dates for which a reliable source exists, noting discrepancies
1652:
1567:
1335:
1025:
981:
935:
917:
896:
RfC for using a subjects verified social media account for their date of birth.
380:
1699:
1648:
1587:
1583:
1413:
1280:
1259:
1243:
1190:
1186:
1127:
1102:
1082:
1060:
1466:
1433:
1394:
1355:
1292:
1285:
1155:
1088:
1019:
1003:
967:
951:
899:
884:
when the rest of the closure text was added to the BLP policy page in 2021.
855:
1644:
1479:
385:
1489:
1265:
1233:
1218:
1053:
a consistently reported date of birth amongst multiple reliable sources
789:
413:
before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to
1185:
People have been known to lie about their age. Even with a verified
976:
discussions are conducted. So we do need some sort of evidence that
437:
This is not the place to post information about living people. See
557:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
521:
503:
382:
1168:
If I was to make this RFC from that description, I'd phrase it as
1488:
that could use the input of the community to sort out. Thanks!
405:
The project page associated with this talk page is an official
386:
399:
1643:
If an interview is unpublished, it's unacceptable per the
1330:
Hold on - didn't we discuss this seven months ago? See
972:
tag at the top because they think that's the way that
527:
15:
1525:: I'd say an interview that you conduct would be a
618:
Knowledge:Biographical information on living people
459:
Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
980:has at least been tried, preferably exhausted. --
1697:
1647:. If you conducted the interview, that's also a
602:
940:Is that not an optional step? I had asked SFR
441:for information on how to start a new article.
1503:What if I personally interviewed the subject?
1457:I recently repaired a broken AfD on the BLP
804:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Help
639:Knowledge:Information about living persons
1651:violation, as others have pointed out. --
704:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
483:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1246:already for birth dates being included.
738:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
656:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
635:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
614:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
1698:
819:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion
716:Notability guidelines for biographies
590:
472:
470:
466:
446:
426:
394:
733:Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy
489:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
916:that has made an RfC necessary? --
14:
1717:
1463:Knowledge:Single-purpose accounts
543:This page is within the scope of
1706:Project-Class biography articles
594:
530:
520:
502:
471:
450:
430:
398:
368:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1254:to put them on 'equal footing'.
876:RfC had a closure note stating
775:Knowledge:Mistagged BLP cleanup
727:Policies (Also see guidelines.)
710:Guidelines (Also see policies.)
567:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
1685:15:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1664:07:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1632:04:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1617:03:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1596:03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1571:03:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1564:Knowledge:No original research
1557:02:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1517:02:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
1498:19:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1475:19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1442:18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1428:16:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1403:16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
814:Category:All unreferenced BLPs
570:Template:WikiProject Biography
411:policy editing recommendations
1:
37:Put new text under old text.
25:Biographies of living persons
1432:You're right. I like it. --
914:deadlocked recent discussion
892:made. It was followed up by
555:contribute to the discussion
7:
1364:02:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
1347:23:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1325:22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1301:22:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1227:23:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1205:22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1181:22:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1164:22:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1136:21:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1117:19:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1097:19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1075:18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1037:21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
1012:21:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
993:20:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
960:18:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
929:17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
908:17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
864:17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
829:Knowledge:Proposed deletion
721:Style guide for biographies
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1722:
1459:Gordon Edwards (scientist)
1452:Gordon Edwards (scientist)
1057:conflicting dates of birth
88:
515:
497:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
1600:Thank you for your help.
1372:Shorten sentence in lead
660:Knowledge:Living persons
1645:policy on verifiability
834:Template:BLP unverified
1484:There's a RFC over at
415:keep cool when editing
70:avoid personal attacks
1140:Yes, that is correct.
809:Knowledge:BLP problem
758:What Knowledge is not
646:, 31 March 2010. See
625:, 19 March 2007. See
546:WikiProject Biography
362:Auto-archiving period
1584:conflict of interest
824:FAQ/Article subjects
748:No original research
667:, 25 July 2016. See
439:creating an article
690:BLP issues summary
573:biography articles
485:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1555:
1273:Elizabeth Berkley
1059:a contradiction?
841:
840:
683:
682:
679:
678:
589:
588:
585:
584:
581:
580:
465:
464:
445:
444:
425:
424:
393:
392:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1713:
1674:
1655:
1642:
1559:
1537:
1425:
1418:
1338:
1263:
1237:
1215:WP:SELFPUBlished
1202:
1195:
1114:
1107:
1086:
1072:
1065:
1028:
1023:
984:
971:
939:
920:
880:, which was not
686:
685:
603:
598:
597:
591:
575:
574:
571:
568:
565:
551:join the project
540:
538:Biography portal
535:
534:
533:
524:
517:
516:
506:
499:
498:
476:
475:
474:
467:
454:
453:
447:
434:
433:
427:
402:
395:
387:
373:
372:
363:
108:
101:
16:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1696:
1695:
1677:Alanscottwalker
1668:
1653:
1636:
1562:You'd run into
1505:
1482:
1455:
1421:
1414:
1374:
1336:
1277:Emily Hampshire
1257:
1231:
1211:age fabrication
1198:
1191:
1110:
1103:
1080:
1068:
1061:
1026:
1017:
982:
965:
933:
918:
868:
852:
842:
691:
595:
572:
569:
566:
563:
562:
536:
531:
529:
451:
431:
389:
388:
383:
360:
114:
113:
112:
111:
104:
97:
93:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1719:
1709:
1708:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1666:
1634:
1624:David Eppstein
1605:
1601:
1560:
1534:ClaudineChionh
1527:primary source
1504:
1501:
1481:
1478:
1454:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1390:
1389:
1382:
1381:
1373:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1353:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1290:
1288:
1269:
1255:
1247:
1183:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1001:
998:
949:
897:
885:
866:
851:
848:
846:
839:
838:
837:
836:
831:
826:
821:
816:
811:
806:
800:
799:
795:
794:
793:
792:
783:
782:
778:
777:
771:
770:
766:
765:
760:
755:
750:
745:
740:
735:
729:
728:
724:
723:
718:
712:
711:
707:
706:
700:
699:
693:
692:
689:
684:
681:
680:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
653:
652:
651:
632:
631:
630:
608:
607:
599:
587:
586:
583:
582:
579:
578:
576:
542:
541:
525:
513:
512:
507:
495:
494:
488:
477:
463:
462:
455:
443:
442:
435:
423:
422:
403:
391:
390:
381:
379:
378:
375:
374:
116:
115:
110:
109:
102:
94:
89:
87:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1718:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1701:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1672:
1667:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1650:
1646:
1640:
1635:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1536:
1535:
1528:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1453:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1419:
1417:
1411:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1287:
1282:
1281:Playboi Carti
1278:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1261:
1256:
1253:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1196:
1194:
1188:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1108:
1106:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1066:
1064:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1021:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
999:
996:
995:
994:
990:
986:
979:
975:
969:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
950:
947:
943:
937:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
915:
912:Where is the
911:
910:
909:
905:
901:
898:
895:
890:
887:We currently
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
847:
844:
835:
832:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
802:
801:
797:
796:
791:
788:
787:
785:
784:
780:
779:
776:
773:
772:
768:
767:
764:
761:
759:
756:
754:
753:Verifiability
751:
749:
746:
744:
741:
739:
736:
734:
731:
730:
726:
725:
722:
719:
717:
714:
713:
709:
708:
705:
702:
701:
697:
696:
695:
694:
688:
687:
670:
666:
663:
662:
661:
657:
654:
649:
645:
642:
641:
640:
636:
633:
628:
624:
621:
620:
619:
615:
612:
611:
610:
609:
605:
604:
600:
593:
592:
577:
560:
559:documentation
556:
552:
548:
547:
539:
528:
526:
523:
519:
518:
514:
511:
508:
505:
501:
500:
496:
492:
486:
482:
478:
469:
468:
460:
456:
449:
448:
440:
436:
429:
428:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
397:
396:
377:
376:
371:
367:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
122:
118:
117:
107:
103:
100:
96:
95:
92:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1539:
1532:
1506:
1483:
1456:
1440:) (PING me)
1422:
1415:
1409:
1401:) (PING me)
1391:
1383:
1375:
1317:Unnamed anon
1313:
1286:Dove Cameron
1239:
1199:
1192:
1169:
1111:
1104:
1069:
1062:
1056:
1052:
978:WP:RFCBEFORE
973:
888:
877:
853:
845:
843:
664:
643:
622:
606:Discussions:
544:
491:WikiProjects
481:project page
480:
365:
119:
19:This is the
763:Attack page
698:Discussions
419:don't panic
1266:Scott Baio
669:discussion
648:discussion
627:discussion
1671:Clairesby
1639:Clairesby
1609:Clairesby
1580:WP:BLPSPS
1576:Clairesby
1568:Jehochman
1523:Clairesby
1509:Clairesby
1408:Wouldn't
1148:examples.
1144:birthday.
936:Redrose64
665:Not moved
644:Not moved
623:Not moved
564:Biography
510:Biography
91:Shortcuts
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
1700:Category
1588:notwally
1548:contribs
1486:JD Vance
1480:JD Vance
1416:Schazjmd
1260:Schazjmd
1252:WP:UNDUE
1209:Agreed;
1193:Schazjmd
1128:Blueboar
1105:Schazjmd
1083:Schazjmd
1063:Schazjmd
942:recently
882:included
874:previous
790:Petscan:
786:Sorting
769:Projects
121:Archives
51:get help
1604:online.
1540:she/her
1467:Ldm1954
1450:AfD on
1434:Valjean
1395:Valjean
1356:Awshort
1293:Awshort
1156:Awshort
1089:Awshort
1024:tag. --
1004:Awshort
952:Awshort
900:Awshort
856:Awshort
366:30Â days
106:WT:LIVE
1656:rose64
1649:WP:NOR
1423:(talk)
1339:rose64
1244:WP:DOB
1217:DOBs.
1200:(talk)
1187:WP:SPS
1112:(talk)
1070:(talk)
1051:Isn't
1029:rose64
985:rose64
921:rose64
487:scale.
417:, and
407:policy
99:WT:BLP
1552:email
1490:Nemov
1234:Some1
1219:Some1
798:Other
781:Tools
743:Libel
479:This
126:Index
79:Seek
27:page.
1681:talk
1660:talk
1658:🌹 (
1628:talk
1613:talk
1592:talk
1586:. –
1544:talk
1513:talk
1494:talk
1471:talk
1438:talk
1399:talk
1360:talk
1343:talk
1341:🌹 (
1321:talk
1297:talk
1223:talk
1177:talk
1173:Loki
1160:talk
1132:talk
1093:talk
1055:and
1033:talk
1031:🌹 (
1008:talk
989:talk
987:🌹 (
956:talk
946:here
925:talk
923:🌹 (
904:talk
894:this
860:talk
553:and
68:and
1654:Red
1337:Red
1027:Red
1020:rfc
983:Red
974:all
968:rfc
919:Red
1702::
1683:)
1662:)
1630:)
1615:)
1594:)
1550:·
1546:·
1542:·
1531:—
1515:)
1496:)
1473:)
1362:)
1345:)
1334:--
1323:)
1299:)
1279:,
1275:,
1240:if
1225:)
1179:)
1162:)
1134:)
1095:)
1087:?
1035:)
1022:}}
1018:{{
1010:)
991:)
970:}}
966:{{
958:)
927:)
906:)
872:A
862:)
658:→
637:→
616:→
364::
358:58
356:,
354:57
352:,
350:56
348:,
346:55
344:,
342:54
340:,
338:53
336:,
334:52
332:,
330:51
328:,
326:50
324:,
322:49
320:,
318:48
316:,
314:47
312:,
310:46
308:,
306:45
304:,
302:44
300:,
298:43
296:,
294:42
292:,
290:41
288:,
286:40
284:,
282:39
280:,
278:38
276:,
274:37
272:,
270:36
268:,
266:35
264:,
262:34
260:,
258:33
256:,
254:32
252:,
250:31
248:,
246:30
244:,
242:29
240:,
238:28
236:,
234:27
232:,
230:26
228:,
226:25
224:,
222:24
220:,
218:23
216:,
214:22
212:,
210:21
208:,
206:20
204:,
202:19
200:,
198:18
196:,
194:17
192:,
190:16
188:,
186:15
184:,
182:14
180:,
178:13
176:,
174:12
172:,
170:11
168:,
166:10
164:,
160:,
156:,
152:,
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
49:;
1679:(
1673::
1669:@
1641::
1637:@
1626:(
1622:—
1611:(
1590:(
1554:)
1538:(
1511:(
1492:(
1469:(
1436:(
1397:(
1358:(
1319:(
1295:(
1262::
1258:@
1236::
1232:@
1221:(
1175:(
1158:(
1130:(
1091:(
1085::
1081:@
1006:(
954:(
938::
934:@
902:(
858:(
671:.
650:.
629:.
561:.
493::
461:.
421:.
162:9
158:8
154:7
150:6
146:5
142:4
138:3
134:2
130:1
123::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.