User talk:WMSR

This is WMSR's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

		The Railways Barnstar
		For updating and correcting the Mexican railway and bus station lists I had been procrastinating on fixing for a while. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 03:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your helpful edits on the Slovakia page and was wondering if you'd have a minute to take a look at a proposal I made. I've studied Slovakia for a long time but am a novice to Wikipedia so don't want to step on any toes, but I'm wondering if you think this idea would be acceptable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_Slovakia. No worries if you don't have the bandwidth but I'd love your opinion. kdk Kevindeegankrause (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @WMSR, I’m a new editor and I’d like to raise a concern about the “Controversies” section in the Rebeca Grynspan article. Several of the claims (e.g. regarding campaign conduct, use of UNCTAD resources, and press non-response) appear to rely primarily on a limited number of sources, particularly Inner City Press, and in some cases describe allegations that have not been independently verified or responded to. Given that this is a biography of a living person and saw your last edit of sentence case header, I wonder whether the current wording fully complies with Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. Some statements read as factual assertions rather than attributed claims. Would it be appropriate to: Attribute these statements more clearly (e.g. “according to…”), Add additional independent sources where available, or Consider trimming or rephrasing material that is not well-supported? I’d appreciate input from more experienced editors. JoLoppen (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoLoppen- my only edit on that page was changing the capitalization of the section headers. I have no knowledge about any of the other content in the article. WMSR (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is misinformation against women candidates. Thanks for flagging it to appropriate editors. Thanks, Joanna JoLoppen (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Party shading/Unionist/Hold, a dependency of this page, has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]