This user is a member of the Bot Approvals Group.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:The Earwig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

TfD closures[edit]

Hi, Earwig. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping out with closures of pending TfD discussions. In an ideal world, we would have a pool of 5 to 10 administrators who closed TfDs on a regular basis so that we could spread the burden around. If you have any admin buddies who might be interested in closing 5 to 10 TfDs per week, please let me know, and I will be glad to help recruit them to the cause. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, glad to help. Sadly, most of my admin friends are no longer active. I think a more useful version of User:Doug/closetfd.js would be very nice to have, since I find myself doing the same sort of work repeatedly in simpler cases (checking/removing navbox transclusions, deleting talkpages/redirects/subpages, etc) – and I was surprised when I started that Twinkle has no template-delinking function like it has for page links. Perhaps such a tool would encourage more admins to help out? I would work on it myself, but lack of time is an issue. — Earwig talk 04:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Earwig, I suggest you mention your issues to administrator User:Opabinia regalis (another recent recruit to TfD closings), and to template editor User:Alakzi. Alakzi is one of our star coders, and no doubt will have some insights into how the "Doug" TfD closing script might be improved. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Last I heard, Alakzi would "look into" it, which was about a week ago. Well, we'll see. I'm willing to give it a shot in a month or so if nothing happens in the meantime. — Earwig talk 04:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, his services are popular now. I liked it better when I had him mostly to myself, but I'm told that template editor envy is not flattering on me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha, I'll look into cloning ;)
Agreed, all Doug's script does is stop you from making a typo adding the templates. Automating the tedium would be useful. I've been vaguely thinking of adapting the closeafd.js script, but haven't had the right combination of time and motivation (and it'd have to be a rare combination to make me think 'yes, javascript sounds like fun today'), so I'd be quite pleased if someone else did it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I, too, happen to be quite averse to JavaScript, so if somebody else were to take the initiative... Alakzi (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oy, I guess I'll start working on that, then. @Alakzi and Opabinia regalis: can we come up with a concrete list of improvements? — Earwig talk 08:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Offer to choose between "keep", "delete", "merge", and "do not merge"; automatically mark as a NAC for non-admins; remove {{Tfd}} and Tfm from the template when kept or not merged, else replace with {{Being deleted}}, enclosed in <noinclude>...</noinclude>; and tag with {{Tfd end}} on the talk page. Alakzi (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Right. Would a mass-orphan or substitution function (invoked separately) be a good idea or too risky? It would only handle clear cases. Also, the option to move to the holding cell would be useful. Hmm, I have an idea how this could work. — Earwig talk 08:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, but what would make a clear case? The HC option is a good idea. Alakzi (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to strictly define it yet – will see when I get to that point, since the other stuff will come first. Also, a relisting option would be simple and useful. That should be enough to start working on it. — Earwig talk 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on, Earwig :) In addition to Alakzi's list, checking for redirects and subpages would be useful. Oh, when the page reloaded after my edit I saw you already said that above. Never mind me, I need more coffee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just an update – progress has been slow but steady due to various real-life things. The main interface and much of the functionality is complete. I hope to finish the first version before next week. — Earwig talk 07:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Another update: alas, I'm not able to get back to working on the script yet, given the start of classes and a few other RL things. Tentatively suggesting a workable version by the middle of next week. — Earwig talk 00:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Another bump. Some good progress, but a general lack of time to work on it. Will continue to keep people posted. — Earwig talk 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot Feature Request[edit]

Hi Mr. Wig! Would it be possible to add a checkbox to the EarwigBot's search page saying "Bypass Exclusion List"? Sometimes I know content is free or PD, but I still want to get the side-by-side between the article and that source. Typically for PD/CC attributions which weren't done when the content was imported here. Right now I just Google specific phrases, but your in-context comparison would be so much more useful. Thanks for all you do! CrowCaw 22:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahoy! I'm definitely aware of that issue, and I plan to fix it as part of, which will improve the exclusion system overall. It will allow direct comparisons regardless of whether a URL is excluded, and let you know which URLs were excluded from normal checks. Shouldn't be too far in the future, maybe a couple weeks. — Capt'n Earwig arr! / talk 00:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Woot, thanks! CrowCaw 00:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crow: Okay, this is done now. However, I'm a little confused because it seems that support for doing direct comparisons with excluded URLs was already implemented? — Earwig talk 09:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep direct compares always worked. It is the full on BOSS search that I was hoping to get the option to bypass the exclude list. So it would include all the various mirrors, PD sources, etc. CrowCaw 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Well, now you're able to view the URLs that were excluded in the "checked sources" list, along with the standard option of directly comparing any of them. I figure this should be good enough for most situations, since there shouldn't be a huge number of exclusions, and you should be able to tell which ones you want to check directly. Let me know if you'd rather have an explicit option to bypass the exclusion list for the full check. — Earwig talk 23:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll play with it for a bit and see if that does what I'm looking for! CrowCaw 22:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Update! That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks again! Crow Caw 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to know! — Earwig talk 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

* in User:EarwigBot/Copyvios/Exclusions[edit]

Hello The Earwing,

although * is in your exclusions list, we get reports about copyvios suspected from that page, as example: [1]. Could you check it? Thank you very much! --Filzstift (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! Fixed. Seems I forgot the dot. (It'll be up to 12 hours before the list is updated by the tool.) — Earwig talk 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Monkbot task 9[edit]

Just to finish the item left hanging. At the brfa you wrote: The reason I mention it is because the error category is lost in examples like Acasta-class destroyer. The category for that example is currently added by Module:WPSHIPS utilities/sandbox and not the live version. Acasta-class destroyer will be added to Category:WPSHIPS:Infobox list errors when I next update the module code.


Trappist the monk (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. — Earwig talk 00:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way . . . .[edit]

Highest compliment I could give would be to say that I had no idea: [2]. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm an adult now, of course, but most of my contributions here were indeed made as a minor. I can't help but get a little frustrated by age-based opposes. It's just adminship – an important thing, surely, but not so important that we should require otherwise-competent users to be adults. Oh well. — Earwig talk 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Coming here to say the same thing as Dirtlawyer1; I was equally unaware of your age when you passed your RfA and when I looked at your candidacy just now, I thought your performance there was impressive. Acalamari 09:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

Earwig's Copyvio Detector[edit]

Hi sir, I suddenly know about your Earwig's Copyvio Detector then i start checking articles of nepali wikipedia. I've found something wrong to Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I copy a sentence from one of the article of newiki i.e., पेस्ता to search in yahoo! BOSS search engine then it don't shows any result but with Google search engine it gives too many websites. So, I kindly inform you to please add Google search engine inspite of yahoo! BOSS search engine to your Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It will very helpful to all users of Earwig's Copyvio Detector. You have used yahoo! BOSS search engine to your Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Please, replace or add Google search engine to Detector. Regards, -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 07:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Have a look! While searching in Yahoo! BOSS search engine & in google search engine. -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 07:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. You seem to be a bit confused... I will try to clarify this. First off, you linked to the wrong search page for BOSS. is literally for searching within Yahoo's developer documentation, not for using BOSS itself. The actual search results generated by BOSS should be mostly the same as Yahoo's ordinary search results (here is the corresponding page for your example, which definitely has pages). Secondly, it's not as simple as just "adding" Google to the copyvio detector. We have a deal set up where the WMF pays Yahoo for BOSS (or maybe it's provided for free, I'm not really sure) so we are able to use its search results in the tool. Google has no API for its search engine, so we'd have to break its Terms of Service to use those results, or convince Google to let us use them, which we haven't been able to do so far. Finally, I'm not clear exactly what pages you were running the detector on—was there an actual violation you were expecting to find that wasn't caught or were you just testing it? — Earwig talk 08:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
पेस्ता is 100% copyvio article but why copyvio detector is not detecting that? just check out this link once! When i've check that article giving the link of website on copyvio detector then its give suitable copyvio results. Why it is so?-- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 11:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Super late response here, sorry. Got a bit distracted. I looked into it and the issue is actually language-related; that article doesn't use normal English punctuation so the tool has trouble breaking it up into sentences. Will work on it. — Earwig talk 11:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: I think I fixed it. — Earwig talk 07:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary!! Face-smile.svg[edit]

Thanks! — Earwig talk 04:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

Ruben Correa[edit]

I'm baffled: I see you reverted an edit supposedly made by me notifying a bot that I had slapped a speedy on this article. Which I didn't: I never slap speedies on kick-thed-ball playeres, since it appeard that anybody who has even piled up the jumpers to form goalposts for a kickabout in the park is notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha. It was another eponymous page I tagged...TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah; that page is currently a redirect, but when you tagged it someone had replaced it with an attack page (now deleted). — Earwig talk 13:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

About the BRFA...[edit]

Look, The Earwig, I have to type the password, in a plain string, in the source, for the library to work. Otherwise, nothing will happen when I run the code. Is that enough explanation for you? PhilrocMy contribs 23:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. You should be separating the bot's password from the source code, or at least redacting the password before uploading the code to a public website. — Earwig talk 23:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Silly me, just found out about a way in my library to separate passwords from source code. I will apply that way onto my source, and then refile the BRFA. Get to the BRFA when it's filed, OK? PhilrocMy contribs 23:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Umm, you haven't seemed to acknowledge the other two points I brought up when closing it. — Earwig talk 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
About the second point, I don't know how I "disregarded" your instructions. And about the third point, I didn't know there was a problem. PhilrocMy contribs 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

() I will try to explain this in different terms. When I noticed that your password was publicly viewable, I had three options:

  1. Do nothing.
  2. Consider the account compromised. Block it and hope you re-secure it before a malicious user can take advantage.
  3. Re-secure the account myself by changing the password before some else can. Send you the temporary password so you can change it and retain control.

The first one would have been irresponsible. The second would have been acceptable, but I figured it would be better to assume you had uploaded the password by mistake (it's happened before!) and ensure you could keep using the account. I said in both the email and the BRFA that you should change the password. (Why? Not doing so means I still have access to the account, which I shouldn't. It was only an emergency measure.) It's concerning that you didn't see a problem with this, even after I told you. — Earwig talk 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought I couldn't avoid putting the password onto MediaFire. I didn't know there was another way. (oh yeah, I refiled the BRFA: WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Redirectbot 2) PhilrocMy contribs 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean to add that to the main BRFA page? Anyway, I'd prefer if another BAG member takes a look at this before I comment further. — Earwig talk 00:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

About the new BRFA...[edit]

The Earwig, you need to comment on my new BRFA. You're the only BAG member that's really that active. PhilrocMy contribs 15:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a few around; pinging some of them: @Anomie, Slakr, and Magioladitis: please take a look when you get a chance. @Philroc: Alakzi's given you a number of things to look at, so please work on those in the mean time. — Earwig talk 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I doubt that anything has changed to alleviate the concerns that resulted in the rejection of the previous BRFA: the operator doesn't seem to really know what they're doing, programming-wise. Anomie 11:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

Copyvio detector - let's see the background photo[edit]

Thank you for creating & maintaining this most useful tool. I always think, while waiting for results after pressing Submit, wouldn't it be great if the submission form would now clear and let us admire the picture beneath?: Noyster (talk), 12:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'll think about it. — Earwig talk 23:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

need help with Judith Barsi[edit]

I need your help with Judith Barsi. My old enemy AldezD has deleted Fatal Vision from the article, claiming it's not mentioned on her imdb entry - when in fact it is and he also deleted the fact that she played a 3 year old toddler in the miniseries which was made when she was six, which is also true. Can you and others deal with him because i am at the end of my rope. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Unfortunately, I am a bit swamped with work right now and don't have a lot of time at the moment to take a careful look at this. I can probably do so in a few days, but I think it would be faster to try elsewhere. Is this what you're talking about? It seems he undid the edit. If you're talking about something else or there's a broader issue going on (and you are unable to work out a solution on the article talk page, or by talking to him directly), the dispute resolution noticeboard is an option. Thanks. — Earwig talk 01:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm just at my end with AldezD. He has a very bad WP:OWN attitude towards the Barsi article and he is still stalking my general Wikipedia edits. He should be banned, but i know WP will never allow it. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For "Earwig's Copyvio Detector". I use it all the time and it is wonderful! Thank you so much for one of the most valuable tools the community has. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Anna! — Earwig talk 09:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

species articles[edit]

I tagged it because it's factually just wrong. You can't author a plant species. A good chunk of his species articles are also just factually wrong in more significant ways - he obviously made them using an unauthorized bot and fucked up a db pull, because many of the details are just wrong. Which is more reasonable: nuke 80k pieces of crap and selectively restore useful articles as they come up, or manually sort through 80k pieces of crap including checking the sources on a bunch of articles to ensure his bot didn't fuck up a db pull? If someone wants to autocreate species articles, they can write a bot that works, get BAG approval, and create all the same articles that will actually be accurate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For centralization, I am going to respond on your talk page. — Earwig talk 03:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

General note: account security[edit]

Hi all,

Given recent events, I thought it pertinent to confirm the security of my account. My account password is strong, safe, recently updated, and completely unrelated to any password I use elsewhere. I just completed a self-audit of other major internet accounts, and all is well; some weaker passwords have been updated, but I don't think the important stuff (like the password reset email for this account) was ever in danger.

For those reading, now is as good of a time as ever to check over these things.


— Earwig talk 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello how are you. i'm having a personal attack with the User:Knowledgebattle, a user throwing personal opinion upon the articles, so i undo his edit's. as here and here. Many of other user's undo his edit's as here, since he is pushing the Category:Christianity-related beheadings in different places even it's not related or throwig his presonal opinions upon the articles as here which been also revert and here and here, so i'm not the only one who's undo his edit.

This not the first time that i handel his harrasment as stalking and undo my edit for several times and the user:Volunteer Marek ask him to stop this clear cut evidence of harassment. and when he called uneducated. It's interesting when he called me Christian-propaganda, when his articles been deleted for being full of propaganda and i will not talking also about his inappropriate comment's in different articles or talk pages. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why send this message to so many people? See admin shopping. I haven't looked into it, but this sort of thing usually belongs on ANI. — Earwig talk 22:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello thanks for responding, Becouse i didn't know admin here and who can help. And this not the first time which i face with him personal attack and harrasment, So I asked help maybe i can find admin that see what's going on. So i should write there ANI? Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That, or a different page depending on the exact nature of the dispute. See WP:DRR. — Earwig talk 00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

Chrome and your privacy[edit]

Hi there, I notice in your profile that you say you use Google Chrome. I think you might like to know that Google Chrome is often referred to in many communities as a "botnet" because of numerous security and privacy issues, both in its code and by Google. I recommend you take a look at the details here. Please take a look at other browsers that care about your privacy, particularly FOSS (free and open-source software). I personally recommend Firefox-based forks such as GNU IceCat and Pale Moon (latter for Windows users), although if you absolutely insist on Chrome-based browsers, please take a look at Iridium or Chromium (Chrome's non-proprietary brother) (WARNING: Currently, both Iridium and Chromium are confirmed to "phone home" to the devs' and Google's servers respectively, so Chrome-based browsers I unfortunately cannot recommend *much* at this time. I know, limited options, but the digital world is becoming less free every day. Check out the "Windows 10" article on InstallGentoo Wiki for example). This not an advertisement or endorsement of any sort, just a goodwill warning to spread the word about free software and privacy, a value treasured by the Wikimedia Foundation. Have a nice day!--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

While I do appreciate your concern, I am fairly well acquainted with the issues you mention and I have no intention of switching. Indeed, many of the points listed on the website are related to features you can disable. Calling Chrome a botnet is fear mongering at best. — Earwig talk 01:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what features exactly you disabled? For my own benefit. Also when you support FOSS you are supporting mutual community advancement and development of new and brighter technologies unrestrained by snooping and restrictions; also Chromium and FOSS browsers in my experience are actually faster than Chrome. Can you prove how Chrome is better in any way please? --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I mean, they're even linked directly from the page. The address bar autocompletion can be disabled. Resource prefetching too, and for me it was actually off to begin with. Likewise, the safe browsing stuff can be disabled (but I find it hard to argue that the benefit of Chrome detecting malicious websites for you is outweighed by potential privacy concerns of pinging Google's servers every so often). Using a Google account to sync browser data is an extremely useful feature for me, since I switch between three computers frequently, and it's probably the main reason I use Chrome over Chromium. I do support free software, but I don't usually force myself to use it when an alternative exists that I am comfortable with and that has certain features I want. At any rate, there are arguably far greater concerns in the world than Google: my ISP has even more awareness of my browsing activity; the phone company knows where I am and has access to my private conversations with other people; etc... — Earwig talk 02:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
So much FUD. Legoktm (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[edit]

I refer to my contribution where I inserted word "diseases" on Nov 11 2015 which you removed saying, "Possibly a mistake? word addition does not make sense."

To the layperson "symptom" is less used word, "diseases" is more understandable. There are for "symptom" on Google only "About 66,800,000 results" though for "disease" there are "About 501,000,000 results", 7.5 times more.

Please respond at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvcv (talkcontribs) 10:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied there. — Earwig talk 10:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

Help needed with a Wikipedia page[edit]

Hey Earwig,

Hope you remember me from the earlier conversation. You had helped me with creation the page It again got rejected:(

Can you please help me with this?

ThanksChints247 (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Chints247: I am sorry for not replying sooner, but I'm still too busy at the moment to give this a real look (ideally I'd make these changes myself): I still think the writing style needs a bit of tweaking. In particular, "is one of the largest players" could be quantified – they appear to be the fifth or sixth largest by market capitalization, so can we say that and add a source directly after? The beginning of the history section ("with the objective of...") needs rewording, since we are usually not concerned with a company's mission statement. More to come in the future if you remind me after the weekend is over (will be travelling). — Earwig talk 09:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@The Earwig: Thanks for this. I will have a look at the text based on your feedback :)Chints247 (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

On original research[edit]

Hello Earwig. This page had been being changed by anonymous users and others without real/well explained reason as noted noted all day. Thanks for your notes on logs not representing independent information on Wikipedia. I was not aware of that until you explained it. Can you confirm you have locked this page (which is probably a good idea) and how I get access? --  User:Npcomp talk 07:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Npcomp: Thanks for your understanding. I have not disabled your account. Another admin, Kelapstick, has locked ("protected") the page while disputes are being resolved. You are welcome to edit other pages without restriction. In particular: (I wrote that before you changed the message.) The protection expires automatically in a few days, but the hope is that the disputes will have been resolved by that point; we'll have to re-protect it if they're not. If you still believe the material should be included, you'll want to get consensus for that on the article talk page, but I strongly caution you that without some sources backing this up it's extremely unlikely anyone will agree to keep that section. As a more general note, be aware that edit warring can lead to blocks being placed on your account, although this is usually not done without warning (especially on less experienced users). Just keep in mind that discussion should come as soon as a dispute begins; many editors limit themselves to one revert per page per day to ensure that tensions are kept low. — Earwig talk 07:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Earwig, your explanation is amazingly helpful. -- User:Npcomp talk 07:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks Earwig for your detailed explanations for an inexperienced user. npcomp (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. — Earwig talk 07:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)