User talk:Saskoiler

Your GA nomination of Milos Raonic
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milos Raonic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 333-blue -- 333-blue (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milos Raonic
The article Milos Raonic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Milos Raonic for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 333-blue -- 333-blue (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milos Raonic
The article Milos Raonic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Milos Raonic for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 333-blue -- 333-blue (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Milos Raonic
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Milos Raonic career statistics
Some of what you did is great, and some are against longstanding and meticulously fought out tennis guidelines. I don't mean to say they are better or worse, but changes such as winner>win, category>level, 500 series>500 would need full scrutiny at Tennis Project. Plus changes such as "level" and "500" would only work with Raonic at this particular point in time because we also have Tour Finals, Grand Slam, and Olympics as categories for other players. Heck you could change win/loss to w/ru to make it smaller still but the fact is you barely save any space because the word "result" and it being sortable wipes out any space savings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. It's very frustrating because [1A] The tennis guidelines are (in my opinion) poorly organized, so it's hard to find anything [1B] My attempt to reorganize the guidelines died on the vine due to lack of interest. [2A] The tennis guidelines are (in my opinion) not self-consistent, and in some cases disagree with MOS and Accessibility guidelines [2B] WP:PROJPAGE makes it clear that WikiProject advice is no more binding than an essay. It is demotivating because I'd like to help improve things, but see no way to do that. - Saskoiler (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Standard Wikipedia guidelines also are easily overridden by consensus... I see it all the time. For the most part tennis guidelines do not disagree with MOS. Do I think the guidelines could be better organized...absolutely. But I do recall when you attempted it I didn't think it was any better. But what you attempted to do with this edit would have helped zero with other players and barely helped with Raonic. Winner was no longer than Win when the actual heading is even wider. Same with using "Level" when you still have to squeeze in "Olympics" and "Grand Slam." Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well done on Raonic
A great job in getting the Raonic article is such terrific shape. You stuck at it with all the suggestions flying this way and that. Just wanted to say thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done indeed. Good to get another tennis article to FA (after 1877 Wimbledon Championship). It's certainly not the easiest choice to pick an active player because the article will progress significantly over the coming years and it will be challenging to keep it at FA level. But that bridge can be crossed in due time. Good job!--Wolbo (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your congratulatory words. I appreciate all that both of you have done to shepherd the collection of Wikipedia tennis articles. I learned a great deal going through the process, and hope to apply the lessons learned to other tennis (and non-tennis) articles. Saskoiler (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your kind words, and for recognizing the variety of small contributions that I've made to Wikipedia. I appreciate the fact that you've noticed. I've learned a great deal these past few months (especially working through FA and GA reviews), and I hope I can continue to have a positive impact. Saskoiler (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1474 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Milos Raonic Top 10 Wins
The table structure for Raonic's top 10 wins is incorrect. Table does not resemble ANY other player and all wins should be numbered along the left hand side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.184.52 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Kim Clijsters FAC?
Hi, not sure if you are back, but if you are... I nominated Kim Clijsters as an FAC a few weeks ago (the first tennis FAC since your nomination of Milos Raonic a few years ago) and was wondering if you could leave comments. I already have two supports, but could use one or two more. Thank you, Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)