User talk:grapesurgeon

Think this is ready? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

No, her notability is almost all from the band imo. grapesurgeon (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fair enough. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@CherryPie94 Hello. I know the article is on the waiting list and that other requests need to be addressed, but this article has been pending review for too long now. Do you have any idea what might be going on? Greetings. Techgamer534 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

WP:AFC#Article submissions there are 5,166 articles in the backlog. You are not alone in waiting, you must be patient. If you had listened to our feedback earlier you would have gotten articles approved earlier, but instead you made us do multiple rounds. Please wait. We are volunteers doing this for no pay. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Grapesurgeon Ok, thank you for answer my question! Techgamer534 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Grapesurgeon: I'm inclined to accept this based on the recent sources about the Wonhee Is Twenty show. Would you object? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sure, go ahead! grapesurgeon (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Have you considered an RfA in the future btw? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for the suggestion :) I've never really been interested, I'm primarily interested in content and admin work is often pretty abstract and distant from content work. I also don't enjoy dealing with misbehaving people; I only do it begrudgingly when it affects content in my topic areas grapesurgeon (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fair enough! CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, thanks for the recent AfC review. I was curious, do you really think the sources (including both academic articles and news articles) are not reliable, do not provide significant coverage etc. or is just because the topic is too fringe? CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

In my explanation for the decline I explained my rationale. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You're telling me that academic sources like EBSCO, CSIS, peer-reviewed and published articles, as well as multiple reliable news sources, all of which that are entirely about the topic, do not significantly cover it, are not reliable, and are not independent? CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I never said that, read my rationale and click on that AFD link. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ah wait I see how it looks with the template, my bad. Read my comment below the decline. grapesurgeon (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

hi, i checked your comment on the article and published sources months and years after the incident , also included citations in "clash", can it now be published or do i have to add more citations Shav al doki (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 13:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, I saw that you rejected the draft and wanted to ask why, since he has had more than one single enter on the TME Uni Chart, which I believe is the only recognized chart for China right now since it's published in collaboration with Billboard, per WP:SUITCHARTS. Poirot09 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oh I see, perhaps notable then. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, in February 2026, you draftified Draft:Hanil Blue Narae. Wouldn't this contravene WP:DRAFTNO for being created more than 90 days ago, as the page was created in 2007? Fork99 (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oops, yea you're right that's my mistake. I'll move it back to mainspace. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi. I'm going to submit the draft of HueningKai, in which I have made several improvements, such as adding more sources that prove that he is separately notable from his group. I'd like you to take a look at it. Greetings. Techgamer534 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 05:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please revert the edit

Gaza genocide article is under following rule

"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." Astropulse (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

On "pointlessly difficult" what I mean is that if there was some relatively objective issue in some article, forcing people to go to a lengthy discussion instead of acknowledging the issue exists. Like if an article was way too long and caused the page to not load properly, stonewalling tagging the article just because the tag is on a highly visible page and forcing it to go to lengthy discussion despite there being a clear style issue.

And no, I will not fix this. I have enough projects. It is enough for me to identify the issue. Covering our ears and pretending there is no issue is worse. At least people can spot it if there's a tag grapesurgeon (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You spotted an issue. Doesn't mean others agree or want to make that change. Editors have worked tirelessly on that article with their blood and sweat. That tag on a high-visibility article causes readers to undermine the trust in the project. I cannot allow that. Sorry. It's not meant to be bureaucratic. Astropulse (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is a relatively objective concern. Also your point about working with blood and sweat is irrelevant concern. Tags point out issues and there is an issue. This was bureaucratic and needless for reasons that are not accepted as valid on Wikipedia. If you'd like we can rope others in to evaluate the points you made just above and whether they're relevant for tagging. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sure. This is a good read for you Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article

As i mentioned - that tag was placed on the article for 1 month, but no one did anything about it.

@HJ Mitchell I remember you reverting yellow tags on a high-visibility article - asking to use talk instead of placing such tags. Astropulse (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article Are you seriously accusing me of being a Gaza genocide denialist right now? Confirm clearly whether or not that is your intent please. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

read the article. Its talking about the tag - placed as "badge of shame" - and No im not accusing you of "Gaza genocide denialist" - how did you get that idea? Astropulse (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because your reading of that line of text is incorrect otherwise. That line means "don't just tag an article because you don't like the article's content". You make it sound like I dislike the article. I largely like the article, I just identified a relatively objective style issue. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am calling out your idea of placing the tag forever. I do not see any consensus to change the citation style. Nevertheless, if you place that tag forever - its not an effort to fix the problem, but permanent badge of shame. You yourself refused to fix it, claiming you have other projects. Astropulse (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ok, then an RFC is for consensus. And don't characterize my going to RFC as a threat; this literally is because you wanted me to get consensus.

And no, I don't want that tag to be there "forever"; ridiculous mischaracterization of me. Tags are used to point out issues, and there is an issue. You think I'm the only person who edits Wikipedia?

Again, this is like denying tagging an article riddled with spelling issues because you don't like people to see the tag. That doesn't fix the spelling issues. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You said. How long it's been is irrelevant. Some tags stay on for years. Again - we have had a open talk and you placed the tag for 1+ month. My view is that - that's long enough for a high visibility article. No need to keep it for "years"

Opening RFC for a small matter like this is unusual and a waste of community time. I see it as a threat because, there are other channels you can use to get consensus or yet again FIX IT YOURSELF. Astropulse (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

My view is that - that's long enough for a high visibility article. No need to keep it for "years" so if a typo-ridden article doesn't get its typos fixed we should just give up on the tags?

Do not tell me to fix it myself again. I use my limited time productively on Wikipedia. Do I get a turn directing you to do stuff?

What other dispute resolution mechanism do you want me to do if not RFC? grapesurgeon (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Lets chill. Wait for other's to respond. ok? Take care Astropulse (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

WP:TAGGING "Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some Wikipedia editors object to the practice of "tagging" instead of fixing, but there is value in pointing out an article's problems. Tagging allows editors to specialize, teaches editors what is needed, and recruits people to help fix subpar or problematic content. It is better if people solve the problems they encounter themselves, but not everyone may be able to. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I fixed the archive.today issue and removed the tag. I'm not against fixing the issue. But not going to support a tag being placed for "years" when there is no consensus on which style to use and editors doesn't mind existing mixed citation style. Astropulse (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't want it to be there for years either. But I also don't want to put my fingers in my ears and pretend some issue doesn't exist because thinking of the issue is unpleasant. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey grape, It's been a minute. I know you are pretty busy with a lot of projects, but I saw you pop up on some pages I'm watching, and remembered a discussion we both participated in a while back about Korean given names. Right now, as part of an effort to revitalize WikiProject Anthroponymy, I am trying to find Wikipedians with familiarity with the naming systems and conventions of different cultures and languages. I hope to eventually set up a system that allows people to easily access and reach out to members with specific areas of focus within the project, so that questions and conventions can go to experienced members of the project who are also familiar with the more specific topic areas in question. Before I can work on implementing that, the project needs members capable of filling those roles. Your understanding of how Korean names are used both in a native Korean environment, but also in the various ways they can exist when transliterated into English (and how they can change in non Korean-speaking diaspora populations) is valuable. I think you already make important contributions to English Wikipedia's coverage of Korean names, and I want to invite you to consider joining WikiProject Anthroponymy. Since you already contribute to the project, I'd love to make sure you are included in discussions important to its future. Best – Ike Lek (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'll occasionally keep an eye on the project. Please feel free to ping me in any relevant discussions, will be happy to reply. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fair enough. We'd always be happy to see you get more involved with the project, but I'm glad to know I can use you as a go-to for questions on these sorts of topics in future. Best wishes – Ike Lek (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ultimately, I think pages for Korean given names (or East Asian given names, if broadened) should be deleted and disallowed. Koreans do not have culturally common names like John or Muhammad; Korean given names are usually individually crafted words.

See also: a quotation from https://improvemandarin.com/most-popular-chinese-names/

China has a unique baby-naming culture. There is really not a name pool or established list in the Chinese language like what we have in the Western (and many other) cultures. Chinese names can be infinite combinations of any of the 90,000 characters from the "character library", and can take any meaning. Each Chinese name is individually crafted.

This also applies to Korean given names (especially ones that have hanja). ~2026-41894-07 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is not a good place to have this discussion. Nobody can see it here and it is not really relevant to this thread. Please post elsewhere where it is more appropriate. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This one editor has had dozens of temp accounts. You are probably already familiar, but in case you weren't, I wouldn't recommend engaging with temp accounts at all on this subject. Ike Lek (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I know and am friends with this editor, although we disagree on certain things. They're very helpful; coauthor with me on the automatic romanization software. grapesurgeon (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

By the way, I do mean the above. There are cultures in which names are usually individually crafted (whenever a baby is born, whenever someone decides to change their name, etc.). In such cultures, there is really not a "name pool" or "established list" of names; etymology and meaning are usually opaque; gender is unclear; etc. In other words, almost nothing can really be explained about each name. I don't really know what is actually gained by having those name pages.

Someday, I might open a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy about this issue. ~2026-42310-07 (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 18:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Grapesurgeon, how's it going? Checking in about the rutgers school of criminal justice page. I took your edits in mind and created a new version of the page that I feel is much improved. Let me know what you think! Happy to hear any feedback you might have in mind. MichaelGormanEditor (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Grapesurgeon,

Thanks for all the copyedits, the reference formatting fix, the em dash spacing, the MOS:FOREIGNITALIC corrections. All good catches, and I appreciate the offer to explain any of them.

I noticed you also added the AI tag. The article started as a translation of the Korean page of 조각보, and I used an AI tool to help with the translation. However, I've since gone through and rewritten most of the text by hand, and every claim is sourced.(I also fixed some of the citation errors.)

Is there something specific in the current version that still reads as AI-generated to you? Happy to fix it if so. If it looks okay now, could you remove the tag, or let me know what else needs fixing?

Thanks again for the help cleaning up the article. MosaicMind (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

(talk page stalker) See WP:LLMTRANSLATE. Do you meet the criteria listed? guninvalid (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for letting me know about the LLM translation guideline. I believe I meet the criteria. I'm fluent in both languages, checked every AI-translated sentence against the sources, added citations where needed, and left an attribution note on the talk page. I've also written a fair amount of original content beyond the translation itself, including a History section and sections on geometric/mathematical analysis and contemporary reinterpretation, and made corresponding updates to the Korean article as well. MosaicMind (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Lee Han-yeol.jpg . The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

FWIW, in my opinion it sounds like you handled the discord situation exactly the way you should, which was to say that this level of conversation needs to take place on wiki, not on discord. I was not able to find the actual discussion, but genuinely do take you at your word. Not going to rehash the entirety of the ANI but wanted to say to you directly that I appreciate your feedback. If we should cross paths again in the future, hope it is on a more enjoyable topic. I'm on discord from time to time (same username) so feel free to drop me a line there or on my talk page if I can ever be of assistance. Happy editing! Zackmann (^{Talk to me} /_{What I been doing} ) 04:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you Zack, I appreciate the kind words. I think you do great work btw, agree with hoping we meet in better circumstances next time. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I declined this article yesterday but I've cleaned it up today.

Since you reviewed it before, thought you might be interested. Mme Maigret (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply