curprev10:0710:07, 12 March 2024 Dahntalkcontribs 48,467 bytes−4 this is what was actually in the earlier version -- note the period flag used by Ypsilantis (the other one is Caradja's seal), also note that there was no indication of this support lasting beyond 1804 (Wallachia no longer existed in 1812, by the way). the contention here was that Ypsilantis' support was rather perfunctory, of a diplomatic and secretive nature -- which is why it was removed. i tend to agree with that reading, but it can be discussed furtherundo
6 March 2024
curprev14:0714:07, 6 March 2024 Mariusx12talkcontribs 48,471 bytes+43 Why was this sourced add removed? If we go by one side we need to add the other one too. If you need it to be sourced i'll add it, it was in the old one.undoTags: Mobile editMobile web edit
28 February 2024
curprev12:3012:30, 28 February 2024 Dahntalkcontribs 48,428 bytes−42 Undid revision 1210807925 by Aeengath (talk) i gave a direct quotation from the source, at the PROPER place in the text; note how this is the only aspect of the text that "requires" a quotation, and more so a redundant, doubled quotation -- if you impose your theories again, i will personally request that you provide a quotation for each and every claim advanced in this godwaful articleundoTag: Undo
curprev06:2206:22, 28 February 2024 Dahntalkcontribs 48,139 bytes−691 you can clearly see the info cited in the relevant section; i won't bother providing and translating quotations from Trâpcea when this is the only source in the article being asked to provide quotations, and when quotations to the infobox would be remarkably inane -- again, who has an editorial voice here?undo
curprev06:5006:50, 27 February 2024 Dahntalkcontribs 48,864 bytes−42 this is top-tier scholarly source. one may be tempted to question it because of its publication under Antonescu (i note publications under Tito are vetted by this article), but, as one can read in the Dan Simonescu article, the magazine was published by Romanian scholars who subverted censorship. also, for anyone to ask for a "better source" there would at least need to be a discussion on the talk page -- none exists. again, who thinks they own this article and can decide what goes in it?undo
curprev06:4506:45, 27 February 2024 Dahntalkcontribs 48,906 bytes+106 why was this removed? also: i find it stupendous that a source mentioning direct participation of the Wallachian state in at least one battle of the war is shrugged off as "limited evidence" -- who has the editorial voice in this article, and who appointed him/her to that position of censor?undo
curprev06:4306:43, 27 February 2024 Dahntalkcontribs 48,800 bytes+59 Undid revision 1209757536 by Aeengath (talk) this is remarkable special pleading for this particular infobox. also: please understand that the Wallachians were not volunteers, they were conscripts, fighting under the wallachian flagundoTag: Undo
curprev12:3212:32, 23 February 2024 Aeengathtalkcontribs 47,980 bytes−59 There isn’t enough content in the article to justify the inclusion of Wallachia as a participant on either side. Maybe instead add a note mentioning the volunteers from neighbouring Christian nations. Please use TP instead of reversing, and be ready to provide RS. Thank youundoTag: Reverted
curprev14:4814:48, 16 February 2024 Aeengathtalkcontribs 47,958 bytes−438 Wallachia was under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire there is limited evidence to suggest that Wallachia played a significant role in supporting the Serbian rebels, it is not substantial enough to list them as a participant in the infoboxundo