User talk:Mountwolseley

Gili Islands

Is there a fourth island in the group, or am I thinking of a different Gili?--92.41.151.170 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No only three. I stayed on one and visited the other 2 in July '08. From the hill on Trawangan I could see all three. There is no group of 4 gilis anywhere around Lombok either as far as I can see from my close-up map in Times Comprehensive atlas --Mountwolseley (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

......or in the superb map in the Lonely Planet guide to Lombok as well--Mountwolseley (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction of Miss Waldron's Red Colobus

Miss Waldron's Red Colobus is still thought to be extinct, unless there has been any recent development in research that I've missed. If you could provide a source before removing large areas of sourced text. Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Miss Waldron's Red colobus monkey: as the most recent publication on the matter -"Update on the Search for Miss Waldron’s Red Colobus Monkey", International Journal of Primatology, Volume 26, Number 3 June, 2005 by Scott McGraw says that it probably is not extinct - yet. Since he is probably the most knowledgeable expert on it, the case is not proven. In addition the WP article describes Miss Waldron's as a species; it is generally considered a subspecies anyway so the text in the article is misleading and not informative so it is not appropriate. (This is to ignore the fact that the whole subject is an ongoing tragedy but that's a different matter altogether).--Mountwolseley (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Color" vs "colour" on Propene

That's a weirdly sensitive issue there (see Talk:Propene for details). It actually wound up as an edit-war, page protection, and nearly user-blocks over which one to use! There is self-imposed detente. On almost any other page on the whole dang Wikipedia, WP:ENGVAR rules:) DMacks (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Minoan eruption appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Do not place a Christian POV on articles that have a longstanding editorial consensus of using BCE. This article does not discuss Christian history, and, in fact, completely ignores it since the eruption occurred in 1600 BC. If you pursue your edit-warring, I will request that you are blocked. User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] Contributions 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept your comments on my talk page or the reverts that you made to Minoan Eruption today. Please do not try to intimidate me by threatening me with blocks - this is not acceptable behaviour.....Kindly don't lecture me on Wikipedia policies when you do not appear to be aware of them yourself. The applicable WP policy involved here is quite clear - the original format is to be retained. That one was the BC/AD convention and this is the one that I used to harmonise the article. Take some time to look up the applicable policies before leaving confrontational messages on talk pages. In addition I (and others) do not wish to be lectured on my talk page about your particular religious (or lack thereof) prejudices.--Mountwolseley (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountwolseley the above 'editor' uses the those kinds of bittersweet messages as a matter of course. It is one of the worst perpetrators of its own POV at others' expense and in the light of the above sanctimonious lecture, may not stick WP policies as well as would appear.--94.196.186.41 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the discussion [[1]] bear you out. --Mountwolseley (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]