Did I not have a discussion already over the Australian Open. Maria is included on the official websites player list, her ranking doesn’t allow her direct entry into the main draw so she’ll receive a wildcard. STOP or I’ll get you blocked from editing. Coloursred1 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: If you were smart you would realise that the list is from last year's Open. It still includes players who have recently retired like Cibulkova and players who aren't even playing like Azarenka. Keroks (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god your clueless, click onto the players in that list and you’ll see their most recent ranking Coloursred1 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: Sure because Halep is the current no.1??? Also you're not your again ;) Keroks (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sharapova’s, it’ll say 132 which is her ranking. Coloursred1 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: And yet Cibulkova who has retired still has a players page. It means nothing Keroks (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://ausopen.com/players/romania/simona-halep Click on it you’ll see the ranking,,,, whatever thoughts you have towards Maria need to be put aside. Coloursred1 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: Still you're ignoring the facts about Cibulkova who still has a players profile but is retired. Also I do not have anything towards Maria, I am simply stopping the delusional bias from fans trying to put up unconfirmed information onto Wikipedia. Keroks (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do, attacking her character in an earlier discussion when you clearly don’t know the facts of the case. It’s far from delusional it’s fact, use your brain and get off that high horse Coloursred1 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: You realise Wikipedia is a place for REAL and CONFIRMED information. Not just for your assumptions. If YOU want to assume something go to TennisForum or Twitter and spread your information there. Putting FALSE or UNCONFIRMED information on Wikipedia is what gives Wikipedia a BAD reputation. Keroks (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People like you give players like Maria a bad name for assuming information that was proven false is true. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and the information is true, just you wait. You’ll be eating your words by the end of the next week. Loser Coloursred1 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: If it is true, it will be announced and then therefore you can add it to the list. It is better to be safe than have false information on Wikipedia. As for the Mattek-Sands wildcard, you have absolutely no proof about this. Add some proof to it then I will stop removing it. Thanks. Keroks (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s already true Coloursred1 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coloursred1: Nice evidence you have there. Keroks (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it’s better than the evidence you have for false assumptions about players 😏 Coloursred1 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinja Kraus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that a comment is needed to NSW cases plot in the Article to explain that 189 at July 3is not an outbreak of new cases but just adding historical data. The details and the citations are on the Talk page. Could you please add the comment to the plot? COM-03 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw on worldometers how they have the Active Cases for each country, and I think you are right it looks better as a line graph. I switched it over. Maranello10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maranello10: Looking at the Worldometer site has given me a thought about this chart that we are missing a big chunk of data prior to April. It can look a bit misleading at times. What if we went off the active cases numbers from this chart? Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia medical cases chart and we can have the same footnote too. Keroks (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keroks: I don't think there is much harm backdating prior to April 5, but I am not sure it adds anything new... the line graph would look the same as the cumulative cases graph (minus a few deaths). It isn't a big deal if it did get backdated, but I don't think we are missing information necessarily by leaving it out. However, I do share your concern that the information on the page is inconsistent. The problem is I don't see NSW feeling the need to ever update their recoveries while they have their own active cases definition that is decoupled from it... I hear them reporting their active cases now in the media. My concern of changing it to the medical cases chart definition is that, even if Australia one day has no active cases, we will still be reporting [NSW total cases - 2,992] as the active cases, which could be in the thousands, which would be much more misleading than just having graphs that say different information. I think if NSW finally start reporting recoveries again you should change it so it is consistent, but for now, particularly given the federal government literally gives a daily active case figure, we should be using that. I'd rather have one graph that is a bit more accurate that doesn't match up somewhere on the page than have two graphs that we know are misleading but match up. Maranello10 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maranello10: Sorry I meant using the active cases numbers from the Medical cases chart for the backdated data (prior to April) to fill in the active cases chart. I also agree with you in terms of the current numbers for active cases and am happy to continue it this way. I also thought maybe we could edit the medical cases chart to have another colour representing 'unknown' cases. Aka cases that have not been reported as recovered, but aren't being reported as active. Both NSW and VIC have quite a big chunk of those now. That way we could potentially get the Active Cases in that chart to line up with the rest of the article. Keroks (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keroks: Yes I agree with you, adding "unknowns" as a separate colour is a fantastic idea, that would line it up. I've seen a couple other countries do the same thing. On the first point, what's the difference between the active cases numbers prior to April on the medial cases chart and just the total number of cumulative cases to a particular date? Either way I don't mind adding them, but they seem to be the same thing. Maranello10 (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maranello10: I just thought having a more holistic view of when the active cases started increasing and then decreasing the first time around might be useful. As for the medical cases chart, I'm happy to work on that although it may be a bit tricky as I don't understand the mechanics of the template. Do you have an example of which countries have a chart like that? Keroks (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reporting total cases numbers as the total active cases, it won't show active cases going up and down, wouldn't it? It would just show them going up until April 5 I'd imagine... do you have a source for the national active cases prior to April 5? As for the medical cases chart, I found Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Singapore medical cases chart that has non standard classifications. I read through the template documentation today, I think I can work out how to do it... I will have a shot at it tonight and you can tweak it tomorrow to suit you. Maranello10 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maranello10: Sorry I misunderstood, I didn't realise there were no recoveries being reported in the medical cases chart before April 5. I thought there was at least some estimation of the recoveries from the different state sources. My bad. As for the edits to the medical cases chart happy to let you play around with it! Keroks (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keroks: I have added "Unknown Cases" to the chart, you should be able to follow the syntax quite easily. I would have preferred to put the unknown cases between recoveries and active cases but there is no way to switch the colours around, and I think it is important that active cases remains orange to not cause any confusion. I will ask though on the template talk page if there is a workaround. I backdated to July 20 when you started reporting the federal government's active case numbers. Let me know what you think. Maranello10 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maranello10: Thanks it looks good! Lets see what the others think and hopefully someone can find a workaround to automate the unknowns too without us having to manually calculate them. Keroks (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keroks: I will ask about the automation on the template talk page as well. Maranello10 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keroks: Update: I don't think it can be unfortunately, I played around with it, and it seems the third value has to always be the total number of cases, so you can have deaths, recoveries and then if you only have three classifications, the remainder is the third. If you want four classifications, they all have to be specified. Maranello10 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you moved the section of "Champions" to the bottom of the 2021 Adelaide International article. As was consensus at the four Majors, that info should be right below the prose since it's the most important info on the page. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you know if there is something amiss in this chart? There is an IP who keeps on "correcting" the number of active cases from 110 to 105, but the dashboard was clearly showing 110 active cases when I edited that chart a few days ago. If the number of active cases was indeed wrong, then the number of assumed recoveries should also be wrong. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LSGH: Hi there. I would just follow whatever is being published on the Australian Government's dashboard/infographics and revert back those edits made by that user. Thanks. Keroks (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3-Byes-with 3rd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Open 88 Contrexéville is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Open 88 Contrexéville until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. I see you created the Wheelchair draws for the 2021 French Open tennis tournament. Do you, by any chance, have information on the prize money for the singles, doubles and quads winners for men's and women's disciplines, so, I can update the prize money table? I scoured the internet, yet could not find any. If you could find some info on the matter, I would be very thankful. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qwerty284651:, I've just had a brief look on the internet and wasn't able to find anything either (or anything that seemed accurate). Keroks (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering where did you find the WC draws for men's and women's singles, doubles and quads. I searched far and wide online, but to no avail. Care to share your sources? Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qwerty284651: They are on the Roland Garros website here and also on the ITF website here. Keroks (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source on twitter, google or in the media which can verify this claim after around an hour of searching. Either I can't search (probably true) or she hasn't withdrawn. Could you please provide me with the source if there is one? Thanks, JManthe675 (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I now realise this wasn't you that made that change, but if you can still find a source, or know of one, that'd be great! Thanks again, JManthe675 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi again. Will you be able to update this chart and the corresponding article regularly? I would like to discontinue updating those pages already (as well as some other similar pages), but I do not know yet if those pages will continue to be updated regularly by other editors. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anzhelika Isaeva, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Iffy★Chat -- 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Violet Apisah, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violet Apisah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I went ahead and reverted your changes here and in a couple of other places. Using that blank flag instead of just leaving an empty flagicon template makes it seem like the players are playing under a white or blank flag when they are actually playing with no flag. I feel it best to just leave the spot empty, as the Indian Wells page does the same. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamtt9: No worries Adam! I didn't realise they had reverted to the no flag rather than the blank template now. I'll make the changes on the other pages too! Keroks (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1090386547/1090482698 - see WP:AWSURL for more info, thanks. -- GreenC 19:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a major creator of articles in the tennis project, i strongly suggest you to familiarize with External Links and References and the differences between the two in order to convey the same grade of standard actual and previous editors in this wiki project have used so far. In particular avoid to gather all links, inline citations and not, under the same header at the bottom of the article ( as you're actually doing on French Open's subpages), and if you use some standard model to create these articles, make sure to extend the needed corrections also there in order not to propagate it further. Thanks. Opencross (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keroks: Thanks for your quick comprehension and for adhering to the standard guidelines so fast. Kudos for your collaboration. Opencross (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page Category:Tennis in Democratic Republic of the Congo has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:

• The category had been empty for seven days or more and it was not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Karlsruhe Open – Doubles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Iffy★Chat -- 10:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Keroks,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sergis Kyratzis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergis Kyratzis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steffi Carruthers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steffi Carruthers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erik Arutiunian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Arutiunian until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were such a prolific contributor I'm just wondering what happened after January. Hope all is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fyunck(click), thanks for checking in. I'm all good, have unfortunately just fell out of love with editing Wikipedia. I have devoted over 10 years of my life to editing Wikipedia and have decided that it was time I moved on. Keroks (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure everything was alright, since it was so sudden with no note about retirement. Stay cool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keroks, would be a shame if you left for good so I'm hoping it is just an extended break. But yes, thankfully there is life outside of Wikipedia, so enjoy! Your contributions to the tennis project have been very considerable. Just want you to know it has certainly not gone unnoticed and is very much appreciated. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keroks!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 2023 Burg-Wächter Ladies Open – Singles. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Vero Beach International Tennis Open – Doubles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Adamtt9 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2023 Burg-Wächter Ladies Open – Singles. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman I've added more information on the page now. Thanks Keroks (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]