User talk:Andrewa/Archive 20

Closing a requested move
Hi. Would you please summarize and close Talk:Kennadi Brink? I don't know how to use Closure requests (e.g. submitting my request there). Mann Mann (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Requested moves/Closing instructions say "If you wish to solicit a closure, go to the administrator's noticeboard and ask for an impartial administrator to assess consensus...Do not ask for a specific person under any circumstance". The noticeboard its referring to is WP:CR.VR talk 04:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So I can go to WP:AN and submit my request there? Mann Mann (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at WP:AN but at WP:CR.VR talk 04:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said in my first comment, I know Closure requests is for it. But I don't know how to do it. It's confusing for me and I don't see any instruction/help. Mann Mann (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you'd post it in this section. There are instructions at the top of the textbox when you're in editing mode.VR talk 04:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I see that the discussion you're referring to is not contentious at all and probably doesn't need an admin to close it. Anyway, I think I'll let (who is an admin, and knows more than me) answer your questions. Sorry if I caused confusion, maybe I'm not a very good WP:Talk page stalker.VR talk 04:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not about being "contentious", it's about the time and consensus. I posted that RM (13 October) and only one editor participated and that was not enough in my opinion. So I relisted it (21 October) and three more users joined the discussion. Now 14 days has passed and I think it's time to close it. The reason why I asked for Andrewa's help is because I saw him closing another RM opened by me. So I came here. Yeah, I know any uninvolved editor can close it but I prefer admins. That's all. Cheers! Mann Mann (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look at your RM. I'm an RM closer myself. One thing I'd suggest is giving evidence of what the common name is. You can do this with google links, or links to news articles etc. As a closer I like seeing arguments grounded in policy and supported by evidence.VR talk 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

,, thanks for your patience and wanting to do the right thing. My confidence in Wikipedia sometimes takes a beating (enough said) but you two make it all worth while. While agreeing with VR that more evidence would be good, I think wp:snow applies here and have closed the discussion as moved. And hopefully, we can move on. Have a look at wp:creed for more of my take on this!

I am confident that Wikipedia has been improved by your efforts here, so thanks again. Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys for the help and providing useful points. I appreciate your work. Cheers! Mann Mann (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Brand new logo for Warner Music Group
I work for Warner Music Group. I see you’re a member of the Wikiproject Music. There’s a brand new logo for WMG. I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons as the representative of the company, but I know I’m not supposed to directly edit Wikipedia articles when I have a conflict of interest. Would you be able to take a look at the request to swap out the old logo and logo caption at Talk:Warner Music Group ? Thank you so much for your consideration.Music2022 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Use–mention distinction
Hey Andrew,

You said above that I had no understanding of Use–mention distinction. Could you please explain? I'd love to be corrected and want to take this opportunity to learn. Thanks, VR talk 10:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

OK... I made that comment after checking my posts and deciding that I had been quite careful enough, and that if you didn't understand what I had said then you were not applying the Use–mention distinction correctly. And in English it can be very difficult.

My teacher Vic Dudman gave the following example: (1) My name is Vic Dudman (2) Vic Dudman likes beer *(3) Ergo, my name likes beer.

We spent several weeks on it. This and the material conditional were two of Dudman's special interests.

One way around this is of course to put the name in quotes, as in (4) My name is "Vic Dudman" but English does not require us to do this. The sense of (1) and (4) is identical. And when we schematise language, what we want to do is to schematise what its speakers understand it to say, not some 19th century fantasy of what it perhaps should say but doesn't.

Another way of making the distinction is (5) My name is Vic Dudman which is sometimes called display. But this is ambiguous. It could be mere emphasis. Or in another sense not ambiguous at all. (5) means the same thing as (1) and (4), and no native speaker (we call the users of written language "speakers") will be in any practical doubt of this.

Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, its very well written. And you're fortunate to have such a famous teacher! VR talk 05:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was very spoiled. He was not so famous during his lifetime but his contributions are now gaining more of a fan club. After teaching and encouraging me and many others in logic he became disenchanted with logic and spent his last years teaching economics instead. I hope his economics students were similarly blessed, but he was a great loss to logic. Two more instances below. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Dudman taught a three-unit course on metalogic, available (as were most Philosophy courses at Macquarie at the time) at second or third year level. He was dealing with semantic tableau as an alternative decision procedure for first order predicate calculus to that of W.V.O. Quine which we had learned in first year. I cannot remember the exact topic of the lecture (I still have my notes somewhere). But the room had four large blackboards, and he had filled three of them with logical schemata, which I was copying down as were those other students who were not completely overwhelmed. And he stopped. He went back to board two and added an asterisk to the start of one line, indicating that this was perhaps not true.

He sat down in the front rank of the seats. There was a short period of absolute silence. Then without standing he said clearly "That's not true."

He stood and addressed us. "That's not bloody true."

He addressed the offending blackboard. "And I've gone and published that."

He addressed us again. "I wish I wouldn't publish things that aren't true!"

But he quickly saved the proof (on blackboard four) and I assume would have published that correction.

The other story concerns the material conditional... his pet subject... in first year.

"Suppose one of you were to come out the front and tell me to shut up. Don't do it please, this is just an example. Suppose you were to say "Shut up or I'll hit you." And suppose I shut up. And you hit me. And I say (some acting holding jaw and change of voice here) "Oooh... you shouldn't have done that... you said you weren't going to hit me..." I have no reason for complaint whatsoever. Or not as a logician, in any case. So let's just go over that in a bit more detail..."

He's a hard act to follow. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can kinda relate to the first event, I think we all can. Its like the sudden realization that you made an error you made an error on something in the past in a different context...VR talk 06:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)