User talk:Masavisa

Royal intermarriage
Hi. I've reverted your recent edit to Royal intermarriage. The section, as it stands,  is not an interpretation of any facts,  but simply explains what the mentioned sources claim. If, of course, you have sources to indicate otherwise then they should be included, but only to show that there may be more than one interpretation of the facts. Sotakeit (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, please stop deleting sourced work. If you can find a source rebuking the section as it stands please feel free to add it, with an explanation. Until then, please stop arbitrarily removing sections. Sotakeit (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see here for the specific reference. Sotakeit (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)