User talk:Grapesurgeon

Hello, do you have a preferred short name you go by? For example, would you like to be called "Grape" or "Surgeon" or simply "grapesurgeon"?~2026-12603-67 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Anything's fine! "grapesurgeon" is all lower case by convention though grapesurgeon (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Surgeon. Would you mind reviewing my draft about the Yoon Suk Yeol article? I am considering changing the existing hatnote (hatnote "b" here) to better explain his name.

Preview: ^[a]

~2026-13455-30 (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It is fine as-is.

1. 석열 → [서결] is not assimilation; this is just resyllabification and nothing is "assimilated". [성녈] is a result of ㄴ addition (ㄴ 첨가) and assimilation though ([석녈] ([ㄴ] added) → [성녈] (assimilation [ㄱㄴ] → [ㅇㄴ] occurred because of the added [ㄴ])).
   • While ㄴ addition itself is a recognized phenomenon in Korean, it does not always occur. Names like 숙영 is usually just pronounced [수경], not [숭녕]. Standard Korean Language Dictionary gives 윤탁연 [윤타견] (not [윤탕년]), 정학유 [정하규] (not [정항뉴]), 지석영 [지서경] (not [지성녕]), etc. So it is safe to say that the name 석열 is pronounced [서결] by default. (And I think ㄴ addition usually does not occur in names which are usually individually crafted words.)
2. Just because he spells his given name with a space does not mean strict romanizations should also have spaces in them.
3. People do not really need to know how [성녈] came about. What people need to know is that regular pronunciation rules give [서결] but he prefers [성녈] (for whatever reason).

~2026-13600-79 (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I see you are reviewing my article for submission to the mainspace. I am not sure you have the administrator rights to do so, but I found another reviewer using this GUI to eliminate redundant self-redirects on Revive+. Hoping this is helpful while waiting for the other page of the same title to be deleted. Thank you for your assistance, and very insightful contributions to Wikipedia. I learned a lot, especially about the history of Hangul. InvisPerson5009 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Grapesurgeon.

Thank you for the previous review.

The draft has been revised to address concerns regarding notability and sourcing. The article now includes multiple independent secondary sources providing substantive coverage of Giacomo Leronni’s work.

In particular:

- Reviews published in Corriere del Mezzogiorno (Bari) and La Voce di Mantova discuss his poetry collection Polvere del bene with critical commentary.

- Additional independent literary discussion appears on La poesia e lo spirito, incroci on line and Poesia del nostro tempo, covering his style and thematic approach.

The article also maintains a neutral tone, presenting biographical information, published works, and awards factually, without promotional language.

These sources are independent of the subject and provide coverage beyond routine mentions. We believe the draft now addresses the concerns raised under WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Chiangone (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. It seems you approved GROSMIMI for publication in mainspace without noticing that it was AI generated from the very first edit (it included a pre-declined AFC submission template, typical of AI slop). Submitting drafts written from scratch using AI isn't allowed on Wikipedia; see WP:NEWLLM.

Also see WP:BRANDING; we don't refer to companies in article titles and prose according to that company's branding guidelines. In this case, the name shouldn't be all caps.

You did make some improvements, but even in its current state I wouldn't have approved it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Anachronist I have nominated the article for deletion. The only sources I can find are sparse reviews, lists, and reddit. --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah darn I missed the AI bit, my mistake. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing is worth reading, even though it's long. With enough experience looking at AI submissions (and there are many of them) it becomes pretty easy to identify when someone is violating WP:NEWLLM, and the draft can be declined accordingly or nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G15 if you include a rationale in the db-g15 tag.

In this case it was obvious, since the AI included a pre-declined AFC template in the first edit. In other cases you'll see AI tag information in the citations themselves. Plus there are the usual formatting tells, although those aren't 100% reliable.

The typical AI style of writing often includes vague assertions that coverage exists (complete with name-dropping of sources) without actually describing what the coverage is. You'll see phrases like "has been covered by numerous sources including....". The GROSMIMI article does this in the last sentence: "Regional business media have reported that ... and has been recognized ...".

Similarly, you may see an analysis that cites only primary sources, violating WP:SYNTH (this is often seen in AI-generated drafts about academics, where the AI attempts to summarize the subject's significance and focus while citing only the subject's works).

With more AI slop being submitted every day (sometimes directly into mainspace) we all need to be extra vigilant in reviewing new drafts and articles. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi grapesurgeon. Thanks for your review on Draft:David Long (British author). I wanted to get clarification on what you said about needing coverage of him as a person. Would such personable coverage typically be expected of this type of article? For an author, I would have thought suitable reviews/coverage of their books alone should be enough for notability? I've added several sources from national newspapers that focus directly on his books (not just passing mentions) to this effect

I've also added a comment clarifying that he was a guest on the cited radio shows being featured for his books, not just a cohost or passing mention

Thanks again Gailar (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah my mistake on the radio show thing.

I think this is a bit of a hairy case. I was wrong about the coverage of him as a person thing; it's possible that coverage of his work is sufficient. However, see WP:LITERATUREOUTCOMES; you need to prove individual notability of at least two of his books, by identifying two reviews for each book. Most reviews provided are for one book each. I'm spotting two reviews for the Bizarre England book. Am I missing a second review of any of his books? grapesurgeon (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it thanks for adding that information. I've updated it to include a second review of Animal Heroes and I may find some more later

Also, do the 2/3 sources on Survivors count towards book notability as they discuss biographical information? Thanks Gailar (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the cleanup tag related to? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Ref 8 has error in it grapesurgeon (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Grapesurgeon. I would like to hear your opinion about this user and their contributions, especially those at List of prime ministers of South Korea; generally, they look pretty much disruptive to me. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The edits seem to be made in good faith; imo not really disruptive. You may disagree with them, but I wouldn't characterize that as disruption. I don't have much more to say about it for now; would need to read more in detail but busy lately grapesurgeon (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am suspecting AI usage on Lee Myung-bak, Park Won-soon, Goh Kun, Oh Se-hoon, Cho Soon, etc.

• Adding unnecessary comments (e.g. <!-- Main Section -->, <!-- Personal Section -->, etc.) in a template
  • And a missing > broke the Lee Hoi-chang page
• Adding unnecessary <br /> between parameters of a template

~2026-15740-79 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm a WP:NEWBIES, so pardon me if this is trivially easy to do. How did you notify the various WikiProjects when a RM is made? I'm assuming that there is a way to do it via script or bot? Do you have to be in the WikiProject as a member? Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries, it's a non obvious question! User:TarnishedPath/MovePlus Installing this userscript adds a button to the top of the move discussion that helps with notifying. No, you don't need to be a member of any WikiProjects you notify. There are some social expectations though; you should only notify for relatively important discussions, and if there's already been a notification you shouldn't notify again. Should also only notify WikiProjects that are reasonably related to the move topics. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

My story today is about Bernhard Waldenfels. Remember? You put a lot of thinking into the DYK review, - thank you! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Very nice! I'm glad you appreciated the DYK review, all the best! grapesurgeon (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)