Talk:Wapasha I

May 2009
This article lacks all references, foot notes, citations, etc. I've added tags to relevant facts which should be cited, although there are probably more. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
User:66.41.56.19, please see this page Citing sources, before continuing to remove cite sources tags. I'm glad to see you've finally included a reference book. If you do the inline citations the way they are layed out in the link I provided, they will appear in the reference list below, as well as being in the body of the text as cite numbers. Here is a sample :

you insert this immediately after the sentence of fact that you are citing. And then by placing under the ==References== header, it will show up as a number in the body of the text, and as a reference under that header. I hope this is clear and clears up this problem. For citing a website, use this

Thanks very much, and have a good day. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
User:66.41.56.19, I've have left you a message at your talk page, and now here. DO NOT REMOVE REFERENCES OR CITATIONS NEEDED TAGS FROM THIS ARTICLE. If you continue to do so, I will go to WP:ANI to report your behavior, and seek a solution. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to you. I've left messages here, on your talk page, and in the edit summaries when I've reverted you. This is the last one I'll leave for these actions. It's now your choice. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The same editor (or an editor with the same MO and interest in the same set of articles) also uses 72.21.231.126. As far as I can tell, s/he/they are just vandals. (If you see him active, please check his contributions and clean up and place additional warnings on his talk page for each page vandalized.  That way it'll be easier to block him.)  Magic ♪piano 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed their similar interests and edit patterns. Altghough I'm not sure their edits are sole vandalism for vandalisms sake. I think they may have WP:OWN issues, not realize they are getting messages, and a few other things. But who knows, since they refuse to communicate via the talk pages. I say, the next time either of these IPs, which seem to be about 99.99% the same individual to me, does this, we just go immediately to ANI and see if we can get a block. If nothing else, a block would force them to take notice that others are trying to communicate with them about their edits. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My experience with ANI (admittedly somewhat limited) is that admins at ANI do not usually act unless there is either (1) ongoing vandalism or (2) the equivalent of uw-vandalism4 on the offender's talk page; hence the need for posting escalating warnings when the behavior is persistent. User 72.21 is well on his way, but 66.41 needs more.  Sigh...  Magic ♪piano 20:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think we can probably show they are the same person using 2 IPs, seeing their similar editing patterns, same articles edited, and geolocate to the same geographical area. Besides, they seem to be interested in a theme, a set of subjects, and as such are prolly well meaning, not necessarialy vandals, I'm still WP:AGFing. I think an admin might give a short block, to force them to communicate and work within the bounds of the project. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)