Talk:Qnet

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.

Hello. My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my COI and my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, I will not be editing the page directly. Alternatively, I'd like to make some requests via the talk page:

History section

• Move the following paragraph to the top of the History section and replace it with the subsequent paragraph, behind 'Qnet was founded in 1998 in Hong Kong by Malaysian businessman Vijay Eswaran.':

Despite complaints, the company continues to operate in countries including India, and sells its products using a multi-level marketing model, whereby independent representatives refer the products to consumers and receive compensation based on the sales volume of their referrals and the sales volume of other independent representatives in their teams.[12]

The company sells its products using a multi-level marketing model, whereby independent representatives refer the products to consumers and receive compensation based on the sales volume of their referrals and the sales volume of other independent representatives in their teams.[12][37] (Move citation 37 here since it supports the claim)

• In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the timing is unclear in terms of when the company's name was changed from GoldQuest & QuestNet, and no citation is attached. I'd request that we amend the following sentence:

The company was first known as GoldQuest and then QuestNet.

to:

It was first known as GoldQuest and then QuestNet, before the name was shortened to QNet in 2010.^[1]

Thank you for the help. QNetLars (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The first suggestion is not clear; why should the first part of the paragraph be removed? I have implemented the second suggestion. Thanks for your request! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, the second suggestion has already been implemented. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• What I think should be changed: In the first sentence of the page, QI Limited is referenced, but isn't actually a former name of Qnet. This should be removed.
• Why it should be changed: The source attached doesn't mention the QI Limited name, and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

QNetLars (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@QNetLars: I made the change, and added a source for the other aliases. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

History

• "In 2000, Qnet was the official distributor of the Sydney Olympic Games commemorative coins and was also a distributor at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games."

• Update this with slightly different wording (in bold):

In 2000, Qnet was the official distributor of the Sydney Olympic Games commemorative coins and would later be named a distributor at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

QNetLars (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@QNetLars: I made the change since it seems to make more sense chronologically than what was there before, but I also noticed the source was a malicious browser hijacker, so I removed it. I marked the statement with a citation needed template - there are no reliable sources I could find that substantiated the company's history with the Olympic coins. That line could be removed at any time. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton Appreciate your attention to this - thank you. QNetLars (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

What I think should be changed: Many government entities An observer that worked for French24 described Qnet's business model as a pyramid scheme.: early entrants earn money, and as the number of Independent Representatives (IRs) increases, finding more IRs to join becomes difficult or impossible; IRs that join late do not earn enough to cover their first outlay and the model collapses.[50][51]

Why I think it should be changed: The French24 article from the archive is definitely a questionable source WP:QS. My requested edits are aligned with the sources. No need to include the definition of a pyramid scheme here when the link to the Wikipedia page is right there. The definition is WP:UNDUE. QNetLars (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

On first glance, I would be against this change. What exactly makes France 24 a questionable source? Also, I think explaining what part of the QNet model functions as a pyramid scheme is extremely relevant. Pichpich (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pichpich: While there may be disagreement on how questionable French24 is, this doesn't change the fact that the content being taken from the article is being spun out of context. The 'opinion' article is from an 'observer,' not 'many government entities' as the page currently suggests. QNetLars (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - France24 is not a questionable source, and the current text is a fair summary of that source. The 'observer' is not the source of most of that article, France24's editorial team is. - MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

What I think should be changed: It QuestNet was banned in sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka in 2009, but the ban was lifted once a mistake in paperwork was rectified.[5] for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. In 2017, Michael Ferreira and Malckolm Desai, Indian shareholders of a QNet franchise, were under investigation following allegations that QNet was a money circulation scheme; however, the Supreme Court stayed all proceedings and ruled against that, saying that QNet and its franchise are legitimate direct selling platforms[5][6].The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.[41] The Bombay High Court denied the anticipatory bail plea of the directors of Vihaan Direct Selling Pvt Ltd., a franchise of Qnet, which included world amateur billiards champion Michael Ferreira after it was earlier rejected by Sessions Court. They were facing charges of cheating and forgery[42] The court observed that "the deceit and fraud is camouflaged under the name of e-marketing and business".[43]

Why I think it should be changed: Per the citation, QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is below. Given the updated legal information, this section is currently WP:UNDUE and does not meet WP:NPOV standards. Requesting edits to reach WP:BALANCE.

Source: https://issuu.com/qnet/docs/qnet-fatwa-halal

QNetLars (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I’d be grateful to receive some feedback here from the community. Thank you. ~~~~ QNetLars (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you please clarify - what are references 5 and 6 in your proposed replacement text? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

QNetLars - As the edit request template states, the COIREQ backlog is extremely high, so please be patient; we're doing our best :)

Regarding the request, see the above reply. I am closing this request pending clarification. Please ping me when you decide to re-open it! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: I apologize for not responding sooner. Please re-open the request at your discretion. Citations #5 & #6 are based on the following articles, respectively:

• ^[1]
• ^[2]

QNetLars (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

What I think should be changed: Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[32](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops).^{[citation needed]} Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.^{[citation needed]}

Why I think it should be changed: I acquired a subscription to Scribd to read through the only source provided in this paragraph, and I noticed the document was uploaded by Moneylife. This organization has been discussed in length on Wikipedia and on this very talk page. The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable. A clear example of WP:DEPRECATE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#RfC_-_Moneylife

https://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldfrazier/2012/12/18/followup-on-the-news-internet-spat-breaks-out-over-qnet-and-multi-level-marketing-in-india/?sh=6d66e14b2347

QNetLars (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. I removed the whole paragraph based on it being original research using a primary source. I haven’t looked into the reliability of Moneylife. The bigger issue is that the primary source in question is just a random document uploaded to Scribd with no verifiable provenance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Barnards.tar.gz: QNetLars (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

Edit 1 - The Federation of Direct Selling Association rejected Vihaan's application, stating that Vihaan was in the recruitment business rather than retailing. It claimed that recruiting revenues were so large because recruiting rather than selling was the focus. However, in 2017, the Supreme Court in India ruled that Qnet and Vihaan were legitimate direct selling platforms. The court ordered a stay on all further proceedings against the company.

https://www.itechpost.com/articles/105112/20210324/a-misunderstood-mlm-company-but-is-qnet-a-scam.htm

https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/sc-order-gives-new-life-to-direct-selling-segment/article17725369.ece

Edit 2 - In Moldova, a once-closed fraud case was reopened based on numerous complaints; however, the source material behind the complaint does not name Qnet as the one who made certain promises but instead individuals who reportedly lied to others.

https://www.publika.md/au-muscat-din-mana-escrocilor-qnet-o-noua-piramida-financiara-care-fura-banii-moldovenilor_2589101.html

Why it should be added: The information about Vihaan is missing important context, specifically the Supreme Court ruling and subsequent stay placed on proceedings. Very clear WP:NPOV, as is the fraud case, which does not name Qnet as the one who made promises, but dishonest individuals.

I would also like to re-request a full review of the Controversies section to be aligned with Wikipedia’s criteria, as discussed in our numerous unanswered requests, including:

Request #1

Request #2 QNetLars (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your 'numerous requests' have been answered - rejecting a request is an answer, even if you do not like that answer. Ignoring those rejections to make the same request over and over is a waste of volunteer time. Kindly stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, MrOllie. However, you misrepresent the status of my requests. Edit 1 is similar to a request originating on 17 June 2022 that was declined, but never responded to - even after additional citations were provided, and we were given permission to re-open the request upon providing clarification (instead, I chose to make a new request). Edit 2 is not an edit that has been proposed previously.

All of our posts have explicitly followed Wikipedia policies and instruction from numerous volunteer editors, and are in regard to content that is factually inaccurate, providing verifiable information to support our edits. There is other inaccurate information on the page, so how else do you propose we interact with the Wikipedia community in the future, if not through the already-defined parameters? QNetLars (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer has asked the COI editor to provide references from reliable secondary sources.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page.

What I think should be added: A new 'Impersonations' section containing the following information:

In November 2022, Qnet announced support for the Attorney General in Ghana who was working to dissolve companies that were impersonating Qnet, conducting fraudulent business activities, and misrepresenting the company. The fraudulent companies operate under the name Quest Net or Q-NET Investment Limited.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/qnet-supports-attorney-generals-decision-to-dissolve-fraudulent-entities-impersonating-the-company/

Why it should be added: This information is accurate, important, and notable to Wikipedia readers, as it pertains to a major attempt to defraud people under false pretenses using Qnet's name illegally. QNetLars (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now We need a better reference for this information, preferably a reliable secondary source, especially considering a large portion of this reporting concerns a company issued statement of support. Regards,  Spintendo  01:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, @Spintendo. There is not a lot of neutral, secondary coverage about the issue, however we do have a signed memo from the Office of Attorney General in Ghana specifically denoting that QNet is not (and was never) affiliated with these two fake entities in any way. Are we able to provide this document for review?

To be specific, the names "Quest Net", "Q-NET Investment Limited", or "Questnet Limited" are not officially associated with QNet or QI Group in any way. They don't appear on the Wikipedia page either, because they are not names of any affiliated entity.

The only other publicly available information is this article, which also contains statements from the company.

https://www.ghbase.com/qnet-limited-and-quest-net-limited-are-fake-were-not-affiliated-qnet-says/

And this article is about Q-NET, which again, is not Qnet:

https://www.pulse.com.gh/news/filla/police-arrest-60-workers-of-qnet-networking-marketing-company/vmbpp8v

QNetLars (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:CITEVAR, WP:INTEGRITY.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

Why it should be added: This information is accurate, important, and notable to Wikipedia readers, and provides a more accurate, complete description of controversial events. QNetLars (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

1. Under the Controversies header: Qnet has faced controversies since soon after its founding but has never been convicted in a court of law. There have been various cases registered against independent representatives (IRs) who, acting on their own, have violated their contractual agreements with Qnet and have been held accountable.^[1] It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.
2. Rwanda banned QuestNet in 2009 for legal violations, but this ban was lifted in 2012 after The National Bank of Rwanda described the company as a pyramid scheme. The ban was triggered because of an issue with paperwork submitted to the government. The issue was cleared and Qnet resumed operations in the country,^[2] following these conditions as requested: registering the company in Rwanda, obtaining a physical address, registering as a taxpayer, making monetary transfers in line with the country’s laws, declaring members of the Questnet chain to tax authorities, and storing the items being sold in a warehouse in Rwanda.^[2] In 2013, Qnet launched its first African office in Rwanda.^{[3] [4]}Questnet appealed and was granted relief on condition that it follow the country's laws.

QNetLars (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose implementing this, it relies on several unreliable sources, and it fundamentally misrepresents the overall tone of the cited sources, particularly Gulf News. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but you are incorrect.Citation 1 directly notes dozens of IRs being fired for violating their contractual agreements. Citations 3 and 4 clearly note QNET opened an office in Rwanda, and citation 2 explains the mechanism for how the ban was lifted, what conditions were met, and what led to an office being opened, all of which are significant and discussed in these articles. At the very least "... but this ban was lifted in 2012, and in 2013, Qnet launched its first African office in Rwanda" should be added. QNetLars (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

Under Business Model section:

As per an official spokesperson, even though sign-up fees are not charged, a purchase might be required. This may be in the form of the sale of a qualifying product to a retail customer or by the new representative making a qualifying purchase. In 2022, Yeoh Soon Hin, a Malaysian state executive councilor for tourism and creative economy, thanked Qnet for bringing entrepreneurs to Malaysia and boosting tourism during the company’s bi-annual convention.^[1]The convention is held with support from the Penang Convention & Exhibition Bureau.^[2]

References:

QNetLars (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Declined, this is blatantly promotional. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:NPOV, WP:BALASP.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added under 2019:

The police have written to several investigating agencies including Reserve Bank of India, Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Department, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Registrar of Companies, India about how the firm was running Ponzi schemes and have created thousands of investors across the country. After some of the Cyberabad arrests, the Qnet Distributors Welfare Association filed a petition with the Telangana High Court stating that the police were indiscriminately registering criminal cases without following the state’s guidelines.^[1][2]

The Registrar of Companies in Karnataka had inspected the books of Vihaan Direct Selling Pvt Ltd, a franchise of QNet, and based upon the report, it had filed winding up petition before the National Company Law Tribunal. In 2022, the Karnataka high court passed an order directing authorities not to take any coercive measures against Vihaan Direct Selling.^[3]

References

QNetLars (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Declined The proposed text does not go far enough in explaining the Karnataka court's relief order, which also stated, along with the proposed text, that a division bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi has said that the investigation regarding the complaints filed against the petitioner company may go ahead and added that Vihaan Direct Selling should co-operate with the probe. Ideally, any mention of the relief order should mention all main points of said order. Regards,  Spintendo  03:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added under section 2013 - 2015:

In June, 2014, Tajikistan newspaper 'Jumhuriyat attacked Qnet as a dangerous financial pyramid. The company claimed the accusations were false. In September, Qnet sued private radio station and journalist Orzu Isoyev to protect its reputation after the station called the company the next pyramid. Religious leaders stated that the company's activities violated Sharia law by combining two transactions into one: allowing independent representatives to buy a sales kit and simultaneously a representative product. Qnet changed its business practices and continued to operate in the country. This was because the activity involved deceiving people and because the work combined two transactions into one, in that the member must make a purchase and at also agree to find new buyers. In addition, the member can make profits at someone else's expense.^[1]

QNetLars (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think itechpost.com is a reliable source, especially for articles with a footnote reading "* This is a contributed article and this content does not necessarily represent the views of itechpost.com". So basically as reliable as a blog which are generally considered unreliable unless the author is a well-known expert on the subject of the blog post. Pichpich (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Encoded  Talk 💬 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Qnet is a Direct Selling Company and not a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) Scheme. 2A02:8086:C88:EE80:202A:B19:A84D:5B60 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Irltoad (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/sc-order-gives-new-life-to-direct-selling-segment/article17725369.ece

https://www.businessforhome.org/2017/04/supreme-court-of-india-rules-in-favor-of-qnet/ 120.57.66.65 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Following this Teahouse conversation and @David notMD's suggestion, consensus was reached that any attempts to rectify the excess cite template should be done through the Talk page. I've been reviewing my previous citation removals reverted by @MrOllie, and have a few I would propose re-removing:

Citation #91 - This is a dead link to a QI Group website. I believe this is a promotional link left over from previous editors working on the page.

Citation #112 - From everything I can see when searching Google, QNET currently operates in Kazakhstan, so this is either inaccurate, or outdated and should probably be updated.

Citations #152 and #153 appear to be a duplicate, which is why I deleted one of them.

Citation #178 - This is associated with a sentence that already has three citations. This citation does not add any new information, and seems to fall under excess cite guidelines.

Given there are 300+ citations on this page, I will probably have other suggestions over time as I make my way through reviewing each one. If there are any concerns with these citations being removed, please share feedback as I am always looking to improve. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Additional suggestions 9/26:

Citation #90 - This news article just contains a bunch of promotional material. Does not seems useful.

Citation #70 - This is based on the opening of an investigation into potential Chit Act violations in 2012 regarding how the company is named. It is not relevant to the sentence "India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies." That is not supported by this citation, and thus is not relevant.

Citation #61 - This is just a home link to the Office of Consumer Affairs in South Australia, and a broken one at that. Does not seem to be relevant in any way.

Citation #97 - This article, in relation to a 2010 hearing, is not archived anywhere I can see. Given the sentence it is being used as citation for has four other citations, this seems unnecessary and fits under excess cite guidelines.

Since the first two editors involved in the Teahouse discussion have not responded, tagging @Mike Turnbull in case they would like to review. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in this topic, so I'm not going to get into this in detail. However, I have one bit of advice. The quality of some of the sources is very poor and there is a tool which I have activated for my account which helps identify sources for which there is a consensus of unreliablity. See WP:UPSD. A brief look at the current version of the article colour-codes some sources as bad: notably #4, 9, 10, 12, 16, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 57, 121, 134, 136, 138, 150, 163, 193, 194, 205, 276 and 291. Assuming that other sources support the text, I would immediately nuke these ones! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of those (for example MoneyLife.in) have been discussed before and found to be reliable for this article. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "An investigation was initiated against Eswaran. 30 thousand members lost money in a 50 million dollar fraud when the Turkey leg of the network collapsed.[94][95]" in page to "Blank (remove from wiki) " due to outdated article from 2011 which is low quality and irrelevant citations.

https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/30-bin-kisiyi-dolandiran-saadet-zinciri-sebekesi-cokertildi-17879955 CookieMatashiwasta (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is no indication that the cited articles are low quality or irrelevant - they appear to be reliable and on point. - MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

QNET works on 100% e-commerce platform and time and again QNET has won several cases in India against all people and govt authorities who spread misinformation. Seb688 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)