User talk:Chiswick Chap

Mathematics and art: the Fraser spiral illusion (made of concentric circles) says something about visual perception, and is a forerunner of Op art.

Archives

2006…11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 -

RFC alerts

Hello,

Regarding this revert: Next time you wish to notify someone that a post is in an inappropriate location, please do so in a constructive and informative way, instead of labeling the post "spam", which is rude and judgmental. The post was made in good faith, and was an alert to editors of the Gandalf page that an RFC is ongoing which may interest them. The guidelines at WP:RFC state that "Talk pages of closely related articles or policies" are an appropriate place to publicize an RFC. In addition, WP:SPAM contains no guidelines about publicizing RFCs or other good-faith discussions about article content. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Not really, no: simply saying that I think a policy applies in a general way to a post is in no way rude or unconstructive; nor have I accused you of acting in bad faith. You had already posted to the WikiProject page, which was appropriate, and to some other Wiki-forums; posting to multiple ordinary pages within the project could reasonably be considered excessive in that context, as could the sort of telling-off which you've ventured to make here. I see that, as usual, policies overlap in complex ways or straightforwardly disagree: an article's talk page is elsewhere explicitly stated to be only for discussion of the content of that specific article, and it's by no means clear how many talk pages can reasonably be included in "closely related articles" within a WikiProject, though one might venture that it ought not to be very many. I'd personally never have put a project-wide notice on the Gandalf page, but then I knew already that there was a WikiProject page. So from my side, I can see you're doing your best to comply with good practice; I hope you can see that I'm doing the same. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Perhaps you could explain what harm the post causes? The talk page is very quiet, with the most recent discussion having occurred two years ago. Therefore, the post does not clutter up the page and distract from other ongoing discussions. You said that policies overlap and therefore we must exercise a level of interpretation on occasion; I am not sure why we should err on the side of removing a well-intentioned post about a recently-launched discussion that is closely related to the topic of the article, and which may have ramifications for the content of that article.

Part of the reason I referred to your edit summary as rude is that you invoked WP:SPAM, which does not cover the publicity of RFCs or other good-faith discussions about article content; WP:SPAM is about practices such as advertising for self-interest or profit, distorting pages to promote a brand, and linking to biased websites. If I am mistaken and WP:SPAM does cover the publicity of RFCs, please point out the section of that page that is relevant here. I hope you can see that it would be concerning to have my post removed to comply with a policy that does not seem relevant here. Also, it felt like you were equating the publicity of an RFC with the type of sleazy advertising that WP:SPAM focuses on, and that felt insulting.

One thing I see editors do quite often during disputes is deny that their actions are rude or unconstructive based on their subjective assessment or on a presumed objective assessment. For example, you said, "Not really, no: simply saying that I think a policy applies in a general way to a post is in no way rude or unconstructive." That is an opinion, not a fact, and I brought your attention to this phrasing problem recently on the Aragorn talk page. This phrasing is also dismissive, as it swiftly rejects another editor's feelings and concerns as "wrong" even though there are no objective definitions of words like "rude" in Wikipedia policy or in broader human communication. When another editor challenges your behavior, responding with a swift denial comes off as arrogant and communicates that your assessment is "right" and that there is no room for discussion. A more productive and respectful way of responding would be to take my concern seriously and, if you are struggling to understand my point of view, ask questions until it is clear. It takes courage and humility to pause for a moment and acknowledge that your actions felt rude to someone else and that perhaps there is an opportunity for you to improve how you interact and communicate with others. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know how you feel. I am very sorry that you feel like that. I can assure you that I had no intention of being in any way rude or dismissive. I am quite clear that another person's statements of their feelings is not something that I or anyone else can dispute or negate, however the recent events may have appeared to you.

There are, I think, three components to any interaction of this kind. These might be envisaged something like this:

Realm 1: The receiver's mind --- Feelings, sensations, interpretations

Realm 2: Shared elements --- Use of common language, mentions of policy, etc

Realm 3: The sender’s mind --- Thoughts, intentions, feelings

For what it's worth, I believed that what I said was entirely in Realm 2, as it makes no sense for anybody else to make remarks about Realm 1. I can see that people could misinterpret what I said, and I'm sorry for that too. I could say much more (the first draft of my reply was far more detailed), but I think I'll leave it at that, with the hope that should we ever interact again, the discussion will be friendly and collegiate. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)