User talk:68.172.37.109

Hi. Please do not revert explained edits without explanation. In particular, do not restore material removed for having been tagged as unsourced for years. Surtsicna (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The family trees you have systematically deleted over the years has been a difficult thing to bear for the genealogically-minded Wikipedia user. Royal family trees are, as a friend of mine has recently said, "invaluable links to history that map out the connections between some of the most powerful families in the history of the world." Genealogy is the religion of royalty. For myself, an amateur genealogist and longtime Wikipedia user, I often have to go back to older versions of a particular article, when the tree was still existent. I never understood why they were tagged as "unsourced" when there are books upon books filled with royal family trees. Royal history books inevitably have family trees included in them, so there is ample printed precedent for their inclusion on Wikipedia. They serve a purpose, serving as something like historical maps in the game of thrones, and I petition they should be restored wherever they were removed over the last few years. I'm sure my words will mean not a fig to you and be ignored, because I'm just a commoner among the Wikipedia editor nobility, but I felt the need to finally express my longtime frustration. 68.172.37.109 (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.