User talk:As instructed

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Spencer T♦C 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Leonardo portrait
Yes, please add it to the list. If you have any problems with the formatting contact Papa November (talk). Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have left a message on both the List page and the biography page. Add it to the list definitely. The biography page is already very long. When Kemp's book has been published, which will give real credibilty to the discovery, then we'll add a few lines. Amandajm (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt account
Re. this edit. Would you confirm you are not an alternative account of Mattisse, one of her mentors or close associates? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with the edit? As instructed (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wondering how you came by the discussion as you'd apparently never had any interaction with anyone there before (as far as I could tell). --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that if you were just wondering how I came by the discussion you would have asked me how I came by the discussion, rather than effectively asked me if I am a sock puppet. What's the reason you think I'm a sock puppet? As instructed (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well for one, I'm assuming good faith. I did not say 'sockpuppet' I said alternative account - implicit within that phrase are the legitimate reasons for which one may have an alternative account. It is more likely to me that one of Mattisse's mentor's simply forgot to sign in, when reacting to hypocrite's post on the page, rather than a previously entirely uninvolved editor appearing from nowhere to offer opinions on his conduct. But I accept that is a possibility and so asked the question. However, you editing pattern strongly suggests either an alternative account of someone or someone who has had a previous account. If it's the latter, then fine I don't want to know who. If you are however one of Mattisse's mentor's or close associates, you really need to be more careful about that sort of thing. Now, are you going to give a candid yes or no, or shall I take it elsewhere? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please think it over and/or email me if there's some privacy concerns here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasoning you've given doesn't seem to me to add up, for a couple of reasons. 1) The likelihood that one of her mentors is using an alternative account that isn't declared seems extremely low to me; much much lower than the likelihood that an uninvolved editor left a comment on a page of another editor whose name is literally plastered across what amount to probably hundreds of arbitration, administrative and talk pages. 2) if they forgot to sign in the edit would be logged with an IP address. 3) it seems likely that if you believed I was one of her mentors, you wouldn't have asked me to confirm I was not Mattise herself.
 * So, I'm afraid I won't answer the question - primarily because
 * I don't feel you have been candid, for the reasons already given
 * If I'm not a sock puppet then I would tell you I'm not. If I am a sock puppet I would have to be very foolish to tell you I am, so I would have to lie and tell you I'm not. Either way there is no answer I could possibly give you that would reliably answer the question.
 * the last sentence in your previous-but-one comment has the appearance and form that threats commonly take and I cannot comply with a threat.
 * I'm sorry if that isn't what you were looking for. When you take it elsewhere, can you report back on your finding here please? Given the fairly obvious implication that I may be a sock puppet that most people would take from reading this thread, it would be useful to have whatever you find posted here. I'm still interested in knowing if there was something wrong with the edit you quoted though, if you have any opinions on it. As instructed (talk)
 * "If I'm not a sock puppet then I would tell you I'm not." erm, thanks. We'll let you know. --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have deliberately selectively quoted me in order to imply that I have said I am a sock puppet. Along with the previous evidence already mentioned, this confirms that you are accusing me of being a sock puppet and that you have been all along. The correct quote is below; it was deliberately phrased so that it used the same identical tense and proposition form for both scenarios, so that there was no way for you to to glean the answer to your accusation from it.
 * "If I'm not a sock puppet then I would tell you I'm not. If I am a sock puppet I would have to be very foolish to tell you I am, so I would have to lie and tell you I'm not. Either way there is no answer I could possibly give you that would reliably answer the question." As instructed (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have simply asked you to say you are not an alternative account. You have refused to answer - if you are not, one would imagine it's a pretty easy question to answer, instead you are evasive and obtuse. The conclusion is not derived from selective quotation, but observation of your behaviour. Wanna hear about my alternative accounts? Happy to give chapter and verse, whenever you like......--Joopercoopers (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your current reasoning is "If I accuse you of X and you do not deny or confirm X then you are guilty of X". Such reasoning is flawed and has been known to be flawed for centuries. I'm afraid I don't want to hear about your alternative accounts but I would be very interested in knowing why you use the forms of argumentation that you use. I've noticed that there's a very large group of people on Wikipedia (perhaps the majority) that don't tend to use straightforward reasoning to determine stuff. Instead they'll use innuendo to imply something untoward or negative. They'll then hide behind a pretense that they weren't implying anything at all, even while continuing to use innuendo to carry on implying the same thing. Then, once they've been rebutted, they'll simply shift their argument without regard for the contradictions it shows with their previous arguments and they'll then carry on doing that until they run out of possible arguments to use. In that respect, they're very much like politicians - they don't seem to be interested in the underlying reality of a a thing but more interested in whether they can prove some preconceived judgment they've made, and by any means necessary. I'd be interested in knowing why you do that. As instructed (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Risker also stated RE: User:As instructed, "Your editing pattern, As instructed, very strongly resembles that commonly seen in alternate accounts; however, I'm not going to bother speculating and, as indicated above, I'm not going to be running a checkuser." Ikip (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why have you left this fragmented message? Can you clarify what are you're trying to say? As instructed (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't bother to come back and explain what you meant with respect to the discussion you were referring to . I also see that your colleague above with the accusations has apologised for his behaviour . It's a shame his ego feels the need to continue making false accusations, even while accepting his error. For the record he was wrong before and he's still wrong now. Feel free to carry on with the accusations though; I haven't done anything wrong so I don't have an obligation to answer a question that accuses me of doing something wrong and accusing me of doing something wrong also won't have any effect on me. As instructed (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Nikolai Aldunin"
A page you created, Nikolai Aldunin, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. CalumH93 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you were mistaken. The article stated "Nikolai Aldunin is a Russian artist noted for his microscopic art" along with 5 references that support that statement which it's unlikely you could have have read as you nominated it for deletion in the same minute as it's creation. I've expanded it to make it clearer though. As instructed (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As instructed, thanks for starting this article and letting me know about it. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Preet Bharara.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Preet Bharara.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)