Talk:Rob Ford/Archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Sub-section: Project Brazen 2
Considering Ford has moved from "Allegations of Substance Abuse" to being involved with a full-fledged police investigation, should we begin a new subsection titled "Project Brazen 2" or "2013 Police Investigation" starting historically at October 31st? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- We have to remember that this is an encyclopedic-type article, not one with too many details on specific events. Alaney2k (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, considering the amount of information in the substance abuse section, this new bombshell, the police investigation is HUGE. The news is on fire with it, that and a 500 page report that is half redacted, but for now I don't see any harm in keeping it in the allegations section. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Update: After consideration, I believe the current section with the name change is appropriate. I have been adding important, short details to the section, and more lengthy descriptions have been kept in the timeline article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should separate the substance abuse allegations and the video scandal. I do not think it should be called Brazen II because that is only part of it and not what it is generally called. While related to substance abuse, the video scandal is much wider. TFD (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is not just a video scandal because Ford is also embroiled in substance abuse issues with Alcohol as well. I agree, it should stay as the current title. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should separate the substance abuse allegations and the video scandal. I do not think it should be called Brazen II because that is only part of it and not what it is generally called. While related to substance abuse, the video scandal is much wider. TFD (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- We can stop calling it allegations. He admitted as much yesterday. I would only note that we have to make consideration for undue weight and speculation when it comes to the video. I suggest you make it as a section of the substance abuse section and edit the amount of detail you think is appropriate. I basically agree that it is wider, but it's ongoing, and covered in the separate article. Alaney2k (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the relevant information on the origin of the video and Rob's quote on the video from his talk show should stand (also that he initially denied it), and when/if details of the video are made public and/or if it is released to the public, we will replace said 'speculation' with the actuality of the situation. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional substance abuse incident
The Toronto Star reported that Mayor Ford was asked to leave Toronto's Garrison Ball on February 23rd 2013 due to his apparent impaired demeanor, stumbling and slurring his speech. High ranking government and military officials attended the gala event to celebrate Canada's armed forces. Members of both the mayors executive committee and the gala's organizing committee confirmed that he was indeed asked to leave the event.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/03/26/rob_ford_intoxicated_toronto_mayor_asked_to_leave_military_ball.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.29.18 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Misquote
Ford is currently misquoted in the lead section. As it says in the cited source, what he said was "probably in one of my drunken stupors". --69.156.38.175 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've changed it – as quoted in The Globe and Mail source: "probably in one of my drunken stupors". Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. (Same guy, different IP.) --98.158.139.69 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hoax?
Enough of the speculations, etc. Now he's admitted he BOUGHT illegal drugs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24933947 --112.210.37.182 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Gawker's update today says this: "First order of business: The last time we established contact with the people who are in possession of the video was this past Sunday, and we have not been able to reach them since."
Also, have a look at the graphic they use for this "story". Is this really a reliable source? Not in my book. Since they have now raised $160,000 I am wondering why the video vendor has become incommunicado; also, I always wondered why they set the goal so high; the news reports only said that $100,000 was being asked. I suggest we hedge our bets on this aspect of the BLP by not mentioning it at all at least until after Monday when the crowdsourcing campaign is over. May122013 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Losing contact with the video holder does not transform the reporters having viewed the video as having never happened. The Gawker graphic used for entertainment purposes has nothing to do with the editing of this article. Gawker has become a very respected news source over the years with countless notable stories coming from their websites. --Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- We should not use Gawker as a source in this article (it is used in support of the statement that they first reported the story.) However the story is mostly supported by news media, which are rs, and we are not claiming the video is genuine. If and when a final determination is made, then we can report it. Also, WP:BLP does not apply. We are merely reporting what has appeared in the press. TFD (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that a previous central discussion conclded Gawker should not generally be seen as a reliable source? If this is what you are suggesting please provide a link here to the discussion or discussions you think established this.
- Even if, for the sake of argument, there was a central discussion that concluded that Gawker wasn't generally a reliable source, I suggest that Gawker would still be a reliable source for the original reporting from the Gawker reporters. That is, something like: "On May 14, 2013, reporters from Gawker reported that they were shown a recording that appeared to show Rob Ford smoking crack.<ref name=Gawker2013-05-14/>" Geo Swan (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Toronto Police Services has gone on record that they are "monitoring" this controversy. I suggest that, instead of it being an indication that this is a hoax, Gawker not being able to reach the drug dealer with the video could mean the video owner is concerned that extra police monitoring puts him at greater risk of arrest. A sensible precaution would have been to throw out the cell phone that reporters had phoned them on, because, if the police got its number they could get a warrant, and use that phone to arrest them. If the police had the cooperation of the cell phone provider, even turning the phone on would allow the cell phone provider to locate the cell area the phone was in. Geo Swan (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- As this is a Canadian jurisdiction it would be a benefit to contributors to review defamation as it pertains to a criminal activity, with emphasis on media participation/authorship. Review CCC section 297 and forward. When there exists casting call online ads for a Rob Ford look alike at least twice in 2012 that I am aware of, the TPS should really be investigating this fact that the MSM has with effort prevented its reporting and attempts at suppressing this information on their respective comment sections.HochMeister (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Who is MSM? Alaney2k (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone who makes a buck off media provision who isn't in lockstep with the righteous underdog. You know, the Star, the Globe, the CBC, CTV, Global, Sun News Network, Toronto Sun, etc.. You get the picture. :) Natty10000 | Natter 19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- And the acronym? Alaney2k (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- If I had to guess, "Main Stream Media". The suggestion being ... oh, I have no idea what the suggestion here is. But that's what I suspect is meant by "MSM". Echoedmyron (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- MSM=Main Stream Media, a shortcut/epithet most often used by conspiracy theorists. Natty10000 | Natter 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- If I had to guess, "Main Stream Media". The suggestion being ... oh, I have no idea what the suggestion here is. But that's what I suspect is meant by "MSM". Echoedmyron (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- And the acronym? Alaney2k (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Everyone who makes a buck off media provision who isn't in lockstep with the righteous underdog. You know, the Star, the Globe, the CBC, CTV, Global, Sun News Network, Toronto Sun, etc.. You get the picture. :) Natty10000 | Natter 19:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Who is MSM? Alaney2k (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- As this is a Canadian jurisdiction it would be a benefit to contributors to review defamation as it pertains to a criminal activity, with emphasis on media participation/authorship. Review CCC section 297 and forward. When there exists casting call online ads for a Rob Ford look alike at least twice in 2012 that I am aware of, the TPS should really be investigating this fact that the MSM has with effort prevented its reporting and attempts at suppressing this information on their respective comment sections.HochMeister (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sellers of video "vanish" : Globe and Mail
Looking exactly like a hoax now. Canada's premier reliable source, the globe and mail's headline today :"Gawker’s ‘Crackstarter’ campaign hits bump: Sellers of alleged Ford video vanish" If anyone reinserts this garbage, please be sure to include this aspect. May122013 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Um, no. Just because you think it is a hoax doesn't make it one. That is you own POV coming into play. And the Globe article does not itself say that it is a hoax. The allegations should stand, as reported allegations; when the mayor makes a meaningful reply to the allegations, add that in. For crying out loud, the Toronto Sun is reporting that chief of staff Mark Towhey was fired for urging Ford to seek help: . Echoedmyron (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- We are following BLP by including the item. WP:WELLKNOWN. May, don't keep reverting or you will be reported and asked to be blocked. Alaney2k (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seconding Echoedmyron's "hoax" point. You might have a leg to stand on had reporters from Gawker and the Star not seen the video. But unfortunately, the elephant in the 'hoax' room is that they have. The other point is that the story has moved on from the video to Rob Ford's responses (or lack thereof) over the last week, responses which combined with the sudden lack of accessibility even to Ford-friendly media outlets and yesterday's peremptory firing of his Chief of Staff speak more of a wounded-and-cornered animal than of an innocent man wronged. Natty10000 | Natter 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- We are following BLP by including the item. WP:WELLKNOWN. May, don't keep reverting or you will be reported and asked to be blocked. Alaney2k (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- May122013, you're actually breaking WP:BLP and WP:NOR by making such a claim with zero sources making such a stipulation. That Globe and Mail piece is simply reporting the content of the Gawker one that states the video holders are currently incommunicado. That doesn't make the video that the reporters viewed a hoax and is only your original research speculation. --Oakshade (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see that May has been warned about his disruptive editing and has even taken his complaint to the Village Pump. I think we should probably ask for an administrator to look into this editor. If this person claims to be so knowledgeable about BLP, then the ed. must have previous experience with Wiki, but May122013 only signed on, on May 20 this year. Was this editor previously blocked? Alaney2k (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, May122013 claims to have been User:Mr.grantevans2 and prior to that User:Mr.grantevans but both times 'forgot' his/her password. It may be that an admin should look into that further. Something doesn't seem quite on to me Natty10000 | Natter 15:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- By his/her own admission May122013 (talk) used to edit under Mr.grantevans2. This user has old history dating back to fall 2010 when he edited this article and others during the 2010 election. In both incarnations he likes to remove content from his talk page that he doesn't like. See and here . It's as if he doesn't understand the nature of page history in Wikipedia. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Under the previous account, his Ford article contributions include promoting a paragraph of the article up to section status, based on the fact it was "widely reported" (see edit summary.) -- Zanimum (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, it was User:Martin Hogbin who opened that section at the village pump. For what it is worth, he called this an "attack article". Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- By his/her own admission May122013 (talk) used to edit under Mr.grantevans2. This user has old history dating back to fall 2010 when he edited this article and others during the 2010 election. In both incarnations he likes to remove content from his talk page that he doesn't like. See and here . It's as if he doesn't understand the nature of page history in Wikipedia. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, May122013 claims to have been User:Mr.grantevans2 and prior to that User:Mr.grantevans but both times 'forgot' his/her password. It may be that an admin should look into that further. Something doesn't seem quite on to me Natty10000 | Natter 15:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have created a report on WP:3RRNB about May122013 (talk · contribs)'s behavior on this article. Four reverts equals a violation of 3RR, whether the user wants to admit to it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Guys, I don't mean to be disruptive and hope I am not. The 3RR complaint was determined "no violation" so perhaps there is a stronger argument against inclusion than some think. I will likely stop editing again if I can not be of any constructive use here. May122013 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You certainly are. The article stays to the letter of WP:WELLKNOWN. Allegations have been made. We are not purporting that the video exists or not, only that it has been reported. You are edit warring. Maybe you have not violated the 3RR rule, but you are certainly edit warring. Alaney2k (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Guys, I don't mean to be disruptive and hope I am not. The 3RR complaint was determined "no violation" so perhaps there is a stronger argument against inclusion than some think. I will likely stop editing again if I can not be of any constructive use here. May122013 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Toronto Police Services acknowledge they learned of the video months ago
Canadian newspapers are reporting that Toronto Police learned of the video months ago. I think this means that the existence of the video does not rely solely on the Gawker and TorStar reports.
I think these reports justify the frustration many of us felt with the policy objections to including balanced, neutral coverage of the crack video allegations in the article back when it was first reported. Geo Swan (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Greg McArthur, Ann Hui, Patrick White, Shannon Kari (2013-06-13). "Police learned of alleged Rob Ford crack video during year-long gang probe" (in English). Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2013-06-14.
Toronto police learned of an alleged video that appears to show Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack-cocaine as part of a year-long investigation into drugs and gangs, The Globe and Mail has learned.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|trans_title=(help); Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) - Lauren Strapagiel (2013-06-13). "Toronto Police knew of alleged Rob Ford crack video: Report". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2013-06-14.
Toronto Police have known about an alleged video of Ford using a crack pipe since weeks before the story broke on Gawker and in the Toronto Star, reports CTV News.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - David Rider, Paul Moloney (2013-06-13). "Mayor Rob Ford says he knows little of police raids". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2013-06-14.
Shortly after Blair's news conference, CTV reported that Toronto police using surveillance techniques were aware of a video allegedly showing Ford smoking crack cocaine weeks before the Star and Gawker.com publicly revealed its existence in mid-May. CTV said a "highly placed source" confirmed that "persons of interest discussed that video in detail, and referred to the mayor's alleged presence in the video."
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Greg McArthur, Ann Hui, Patrick White, Shannon Kari (2013-06-13). "Toronto police aware of alleged Rob Ford crack video prior to media reports" (in English). Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2013-06-14.
Toronto police became aware of an alleged video that appeared to capture Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack cocaine during the force's sweeping investigation into a network of accused drug dealers and gun runners – before the alleged video was revealed in the media, The Globe and Mail has learned.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
- Not the best way to ask for an edit, but yes, that is done ;)
new scandal
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mayor-rob-ford-apologizes-for-lewd-language-says-he-s-getting-support-1.1542963 Not sure if you want to add this - Mayor Ford is saying that he is getting help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.224.248 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
500+ page report. Comment
I keep hearing about a 500 plus page police report in the news media. Was this a report into Ford's activities??? Does it have to do with another criminal investigation Ford blundered into??? I am not finding it in this article, nor am I finding it in the dense and confusing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Rob_Ford_video_scandal article. If someone wants to know quickly and concisely about the report, they can't find it. This is what the Toronto City Council uses to drive the issues on Ford.User:JCHeverly 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's been referenced from several news media sites. It's actually the document submitted to get search warrants on Sandro Lisi. Try this link: here If that doesn't work, try googling for "Project Brazen ITO"Alaney2k (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's referenced in the article, in the last section, and in reference #5. siafu (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I added it as an external link to the Timeline article. Alaney2k (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- With due respect, I can see a lot of time and effort were put into both articles, but, unfortunately the present scandal is why a majority of people are consulting Wikipedia about him. A sentence or two in the introduction about the police investigation and report would be a big help. Just saying.User:JCHeverly 16:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC) . . . K, K. It would appear that Ford blundered ---who would have thunk it???--- his way into an ongoing criminal investigation/drug bust by local police. He has been compounding the issue by channeling Chris Farley, the fat, stupid brother that gets into politics because no one trusts him w/ the family business. Unfortunately, as this thing goes on, you may be required to add a criminal section near the top and move the 1999 Florida DUI/unprosecuted marihuana possession up as well. On a personal note, as an American, it's sad his family is ennabling this situation. Toronto is a lovely city and this thing is getting worse daily. Once again, just sayingUser:JCHeverly 16:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Please correct factual errors regarding the 2010 Election
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please correct the factual errors in the first paragraph by replacing them with the correct information provided in the second paragraph
Ford was elected mayor with 383,501 votes (47%) over George Smitherman's 289,832 (35.6%) and Joe Pantalone with 95,482 (11.7%). The voter turnout was around 52% of registered voters, the highest in Toronto's post-amalgamation history. Ford's 11% margin of victory was the largest for any incoming mayor in post-amalgamation history, roughly double that of Mel Lastman in 1997 and David Miller in 2003.[[1]55] Ward-by-ward electoral results showed that Ford had won all of the former pre-amalgamation suburbs, while Smitherman topped districts in the pre-amalgamation Toronto districts. Ford also received 80,000 votes from the "Downtown 13" wards, or 20% of his total votes.[56]
Ford was elected mayor with 383,501 votes (47%) over George Smitherman's 289,832 (35.6%) and Joe Pantalone with 95,482 (11.7%). This number of votes stands as the second highest number of votes to the 483,277 votes received by Mel Lastman in 2000. The voter turnout was around 52% of registered voters, the highest in Toronto's post-amalgamation history. Although Ford's 11% margin of victory was the largest for any incoming mayor in post-amalgamation history, roughly double that of Mel Lastman in 1997 and David Miller in 2003 it was not the largest margin of victory in a the post amalgamation of Toronto.[55] Mel last man won 79.96 % of the vote in his second term with 79.96% of the vote and a margin of 71.5% over runner up Tooker Gomberg who received 8.46 % of the vote .Ward-by-ward electoral results showed that Ford had won all of the former pre-amalgamation suburbs, while Smitherman topped districts in the pre-amalgamation Toronto districts. Ford also received 80,000 votes from the "Downtown 13" wards, or 20% of his total votes.[56]
Here is the link which provides the correct information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_municipal_election,_2000 Edukator99 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think the correct approach is to remove the dubious highest margin for any incoming mayor. I've removed that. As for Lastman's total in 2000 being larger, I'm not sure of the validity of the comparison? Alaney2k (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- The point is that Ford did not receive "the highest [margin] in Toronto's post-amalgamation history." Of course many of Toronto's pre-amalgamation elections had been relatively uncontested. See for example Toronto municipal election, 1974#Mayoral race, when Crombie won 100,000 votes and Don Andrews came second with 5,000. TFD (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
new picture
You need a picture that show his character, that is more honestly representational of his, er, personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.69.51 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- In this photo he's confident (even cocky), and he's showing major bling. Is this unrepresentative? Can you nominate a superior replacement that meets Wikipedia's stringent requirements? -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would call the chain of office 'major bling'. Mayors in Canada wear them at official functions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should indeed have said that he's showing mayoral bling. (Or baronial bling, if you prefer.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I like how we're affectionately humouring this idea. CaffeinAddict (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad I came in for a chuckle too, Addict. Perhaps we can create a whole section dedicated to Ford's buffoonery! 31jetjet (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 31jetjet
- His "substance abuse" section kind of already is that, except it follows WP:NPOV. ;) CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is true,would still love to add a picture to that section, something more recent. Cheers. 31jetjet (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)31jetjet
- His "substance abuse" section kind of already is that, except it follows WP:NPOV. ;) CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am glad I came in for a chuckle too, Addict. Perhaps we can create a whole section dedicated to Ford's buffoonery! 31jetjet (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 31jetjet
- I like how we're affectionately humouring this idea. CaffeinAddict (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should indeed have said that he's showing mayoral bling. (Or baronial bling, if you prefer.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if I would call the chain of office 'major bling'. Mayors in Canada wear them at official functions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Orange Order Parade 2012 and Mayor's Refusal to Participate
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Mayor's religion keeps being dropped from his info box profile with no discussion as to why his or any other politician's call to God should or shouldn't be listed.
This might have something to do with his substance abuse and family troubles, however we are unaware that the Mayor has reformed his ways.
Neither the Mayor or any city councillor was in attendance in the parade or cenotaph; The Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday's office called to outright refuse.
W T Moore Toronto
From: Jennifer Dwyer <jdwyer@toronto.ca> To: wtmoore@rogers.com Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 4:34:27 PM Subject: Re: Toronto County Orange Order Parade
Hello William,
I have been notified that, unfortunately, Mayor Ford will not be able to attend this year. I have extended the invitation to Councillors involved in the 1812 Bicentennial events and will follow up with you with any confirmation.
Thanks again for the invitation.
Jennifer Dwyer | Events Coordinator Office of Mayor Rob Ford City Hall | 100 Queen St W, 2nd Floor Toronto, ON | M5H 2N2 t: 416.338.6474 e: jdwyer@toronto.ca
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.88.63 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 January 2014
- At least once, I have removed it. There was no citation, when it was added. As Ford has been filmed at various churches, and does not make a point of visiting any one church regularly, it's speculation as to whatever church he belongs to, if he belongs to one. So a religion in the infobox can't be specified. I have not been able to find a reliable source. Sometimes, this type of info is specified in campaign materials, but I've not seen it mentioned. My personal guess is that he does not go regularly. Alaney2k (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
