In my view you have each made valid comments here.However,...

In my view you have each made valid comments here.

However, briefly in response to some of these matters:

• "showing directors/management holdings having skin in the game could have been easily shown as one block in the pie chart as a % held as directors but it doesnt say that does it ? They go to the effort of breaking down the directors holdings ..like I said weird... "

Noted - but it is possible you may in fact be elevating mere linguistic infelicity to something more significant? i.e One explanation is that the heading for the "Major Shareholders" slide was just incorrectly worded. Sometimes the simplest answers are the right ones / chaos resigns over conspiracy.

• "Top 20 as % indication of shares on issue not worth a mention like just about every other preso I have seen for the last 20 odd years"

Agreed - as evidenced, for example, by the 2 August 2021 presentation announced by LTR (NED Dave Richards' "other" play), where that percentage approach was adopted (albeit expressly noting Tim Goyder's place on the register):

• "add to that when you go to the effort to update the TOP20 on your website but not follow thru on a slide deck ???"

I think you may have addressed your own question in this in your preceding comment? In other words, no need specifically to identify the constituents of the top 20 shareholder group, but rather just the overall percentage of the top 20 would be standard.

As you mentioned in an earlier comment @Mahony it is possible the composition of the top 20 may have changed since the 7 July 2021 list on the website, and hence it would be interesting to seek and review an update.

Another perspective entirely could be that the company sought to note the fact that "strategic" shareholders (i.e the current directors) only account for a relatively small portion of the company, and hence advertise that the register remains somewhat "wide open" to newcomers being able to take a large position in the company at this fledgling stage and while its market capitalization remains low. However, I agree that would not explain the omission of the Cazaly Resources holding.

• "trading off TG’s involvement would be a little infra dig."

Agree with the sentiment that this could be viewed as more than a little "unclassy"; but then again in past couple of years it would also be reasonable to assert that Tim Goyder has become almost a stand alone category of fundamental analysis in and of himself!

Nonetheless, he is not a director of the company and nor is he (via his controlled entity, Lotaka Pty Ltd) a substantial shareholder - in the sense of formally being required to lodge such a notice by reason of holding 5%+ in the company - and so I agree there was no proper basis to include his details in a formal company announcement (and no doubt the company, by releasing the top 20 update of 7 July 2021, would be aware they had already announced that fact indirectly).

• “new leadership”** - a matter of fundamental importance -.... together with the quality of the tenements, the drill results to date and the exploration strategy - instils confidence in me at least."

In heated agreement (at the very least with points (1); (2) and (4) of your list) and this is why WML continues to ticks a number of boxes for me as the true "explorer" to retain in my current portfolio.

Anyway, the above represents my personal commentary and opinion, and is not intended as advice in any form. Best wishes to all WML holders.