W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Socialwave597

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/05&oldid=1322758768 -->

November 2025



Hello, can you please explain this ↗? These articles seem to cover related but different topics, and it feels almost like a C&P move except not moved, so more like just a deletion? <span style="font-weight:700; color:#FFD700;">Super</span><span style="color:#00C000; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600;">Code</span><span style="font-family:monospace;">111</span> (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

:That article is just an WP:OVERLAP ↗ of the Al-Fashaga conflict ↗, the main body of the article, is literally just a timeline of the al-Fashaga conflict. There is no reason why that article shouldn't be merged. Socialwave597 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Quit removing content without explanation




Disambiguation link notification for February 16



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alessandro Pavolini ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican National Guard ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antonio Locatelli ↗, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Major ↗ and Aldo Finzi ↗ were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Lechemti massacre ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Lechemti massacre ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Socialwave597&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Lechemti massacre}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1345065282 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Lalibela



Hello, @Socialwave597. I’ve just noticed your revert ↗ of some copyedits I made to the article in question. Upon consideration those copyedits do still strike me as an improvement; they removed phrasing which said the same thing in slightly different ways in quick succession (that is, redundancy), incorrect constructions (i.e. “led him… to fill the Amhara nobles in the top positions of his Kingdom”), and at least one comma-splice. The reversion doesn’t break the article, but re-establishing less felicitous phrasing needs a better justification than “not an improvement”.

Your subsequent edit ↗ is objectively incorrect. That phrase is a quotation and should be punctuated as such. Please consider reverting that one outright. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

:I acknowledge that the current version might not be perfect but my main problem with your edit is that you made the claim that the Agaws "had made a counter-alliance with the fallen king". However this is not supported by the source, the Zagwe Kingdom was an Agaw kingdom, Lalibela and his predecessors were all Agaws. Socialwave597 (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::I see. The current form of the article says only that the seven clans of the Agaw people supported Harbe and were exiled after Lalibela’s victory; I think it’s just as misleading as my rewrite, since it also does not explain that Lalibela and his dynasty were Agaw.
::In any event, reverting multiple copyedits because of one bad phrasing, and using a generic edit summary, is less helpful than fixing the bad phrasing (or communicating with the person who wrote it and telling him to clean up his mess).
::I can reinstate the copyedits, and also rephrase the section to make it explicit that the Agaw people were not a third party drawn into the Zagwe Kingdom’s civil war. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Sure, I have no problem with that. And apologies for reverting your entire edit ↗. I understand how frustrating that might be. Socialwave597 (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::::Quite all right. Thank you- I wanted to check in with you before taking any further steps. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Please Do not remove Casualties



Hello @Socialwave597 I noticed that you’ve repeatedly removed the Ethiopian casualty figures from the Battle of Magdala page. I wanted to point out that those numbers are supported by a cited source, specifically Niall Ferguson’s work, which is already included in the references.

If there’s a concern about the reliability or interpretation of that source, it would be helpful to discuss it on the talk page rather than removing the information outright. That way we can reach a consensus and make sure the article stays accurate and properly sourced.

Let me know your thoughts. UFCfan2016 (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

:I did not remove casualties from the Battle of Magdala page, I believe you're talking about the British expedition to Abyssinia ↗ article? The Ethiopian casualties of that are are unknown according to Clodfelter. So it should be left blank, because we simply do not know how many casualties they suffered during that expedition. Socialwave597 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
::My bad I meant to say The British Expedition to Abyssinia article. Niall Ferguson stated that Battle of Magdala Ethiopian casualties were 700 killed and 1,200 wounded I specifically added battle of Magdala in parentheses in the Ethiopian casualties to just highlight that battles casualties and not the entire campaign. UFCfan2016 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
::Another thing I would like to say is in your book you cited and i went through it states battle of arogee casualties were also 700 ehtipians killed where can I add that in the entire British expedition to Abyssinia article because it is worth adding to the page UFCfan2016 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
:::It should not be added to the infobox, it is misleading because the British only suffered 2 dead during that battle. Maybe somewhere in the body of the article. Socialwave597 (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Empty edit summaries



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. I have noticed that you {{usertalk other|often ↗|often}} edit without using an edit summary ↗. Please do your best to {{strong|always fill in the summary field}}. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to set {{Preferences|Editing|Editor|check={{int:tog-forceeditsummary}}}}. Thanks! <!-- Template:Uw-editsummary2 --> Grnrchst (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything that has been said above. You have done this with "the Second Italo-Ethiopian War and some other articles I have seen recentlySpinney Hill (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

:Youve done it again today Spinney Hill (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
::It is not against the rules to edit without a summary. I'd typically only do that for large edits. Socialwave597 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
:::See page linked above. "all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page." Spinney Hill (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
::::It doesnt take much to put in a short summary for very common situations e.g. "punctuation", "typo","missing word", "spelling" , "better word order" or "not in cited source." The one occasion I have been told a blank space is useful is when you reverse a bit of vandalism. Why not try a few? Spinney Hill (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Menelik II ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wollamo ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Adwa afena



Hi, I noticed you reverted my edits on the Battle of Adwa article. I wanted to understand your reasoning better. You mentioned Berkeley says Ethiopian artillery played a minimal role, but my source for the Hotchkiss guns claim was Milkias & Metaferia (2005), which is a different work. Also, the afena tactic and cross-shaped formation were separate claims unrelated to the artillery. would you be open to restoring those parts? Happy to discuss on the talk page. Thanks Habeshakira (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

:@Habeshakira the afena tactic was actually repulsed with heavy losses by Albertone's brigade, and led to the death of Fitwrari Gebehyu. This encirclement tactic failed, and was of very little relevance to the battle. Socialwave597 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
::sources? Habeshakira (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::A source I found states quite the opposite.
::Many accounts established the decided doctrinal inclination of the Ethiopian imperial army towards a specific form of pincer movement; they called it afena and achieved it from a half-moon formation during their offensive operations. According to Milkias, “When they encounter a battalion or large body of an invading Army, they employed afena, the poor man’s blitzkrieg. In afena, the Ethiopian fighters surrounded the enemy and advanced towards the center, using whatever cover was available for them. Encirclement was conducted with Fitawrari’s troops dividing into two and making a detour around the flanks of the invaders. The army would then go to direct attack from every side …”
::There are five doctrinal forms of maneuver: turning movement, penetration, infiltration, envelopment and frontal attack. Only the two latter apply to this case study. The term “envelopment” is defined as “a form of maneuver in which an attacking force seeks to avoid the principal enemy defenses by seizing objectives to the enemy rear to destroy the enemy in its current positions. At the tactical level, envelopments focus on seizing terrain, destroying specific enemy forces, and interdicting enemy withdrawal routes” (FM 1-02). By using afena, the Tigrayan Army and the supportive Ethiopian forces succeeded in destroying each and every battalion of Albertone’s brigade. The lateral movement of Ras Alula’s and Ras Mengesha’s fighters associated with a withdrawal denial establishes a strong and obvious link between the Ethiopian afena and a classic and doctrinal envelopment. The slight discrepancy is that the afena commanded to use a divertive force in the central portion of the half-moon formation instead of “avoiding the principal enemy defenses.”
::This diversion was critical to allowing the lateral elements, mainly the cavalry, to slide, encircle the enemy, and crush his flanks; and in fact, this associated maneuver, in light of modern war theory, is a frontal attack. As stated in the FM 3-90, Tactics, “a frontal attack is a form of maneuver in which an attacking force seeks to destroy a weaker enemy force or fi x a larger enemy force in place over a broad front.” Given the ratio of forces — more than 15,000 Ethiopians versus 4,092 Italians — the Tigrayan army used its overwhelming combat power to strike directly his weaker enemy in his positions, prior to the envelopment achievement. All in all, the Ethiopian’s form of maneuver called afena, a variant of pincer movement, was effective and decisive in the overwhelming and glorious victory achieved by Emperor Menelik II and his Ethiopian troops at the Battle of Adwa. By applying this subtle combination of two forms of maneuver — envelopment and frontal attack — the Tigrayan army led by Ras Alula annihilated Albertone’s brigade and called for further destruction of the Italian army. This resounding success propelled the Ethiopian empire into the league of independent nations and later served as a compass for many ant colonialists and pan-Africanists in the quest of their identity.
::https://hornaffairs.com/2017/02/27/battle-of-adwa-tigrayan-army-annihilate-italian-forces/ Habeshakira (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:::https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2011/NOV-DEC/pdfs/NOV-DEC11.pdf
:::From the US Military as well. Perhaps you could approve my edit or share your sources Habeshakira (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::::@Habeshakira The sources you posted are magazines and articles and not reliable sources (See WP:RS ↗). Read page 74 of George Berkeley's book https://archive.org/details/campaignofadowar0000berk/page/74/mode/2up?q=tactics ↗ — "On the original front this movement of Galliano’s created a gap, so at about 9.30 two companies of Hidalgo were ordered into the firing line, under Captains Pavesi and Brabanti. On the arrival of these fresh troops the original advance was renewed, each company gaining ground by rushes or bayonet charges and then halting to fire, while the artillery was also pushed forward, even as near as 1,100 yards from the enemy. As for the Tigréans they pursued the usual tactics of the Abyssinian soldier—namely, those of concealing themselves for the purpose of making a sudden dash forward when it was possible to get to close quarters, but without success; in spite of their great preponderance in numbers, the superior discipline of the Italian troops had assured them victory on this front."
::::It is well known that the Tigrean army was repelled with heavy losses by the Ascaris of Albertone's brigade and later the Italians of Dabormida's Brigade. They never played a decisive role in the battle. As for the artillery this is what Berkeley has to say; "The Shoans had by this time brought into action several pieces of artillery, and opened fire from the heights of the tucul, but without much effect ; they served their guns slowly, and each shot sent out a cloud of smoke, but, as far as could be seen, without doing any damage whatsoever."
::::Therefore based on this, I am reverting your edit as I don't see how it can be improved at the moment. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::fair. Thank you for the time to discuss this with me Habeshakira (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Antonio Cicirello ↗ has been accepted


<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:var(--background-color-success-subtle, #dff2eb); padding: 0.5em 1em; color: inherit; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''Antonio Cicirello ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!'''<br />

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />

The article has been assessed as '''Start-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time ↗. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

'''Future articles'''
<div class="autoconfirmed-show">
<div class="unconfirmed-show">

'''Next steps'''
Thanks again, and happy editing!
HazelAlbertSheriff (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC accept-->

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive



{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' <span style="font-size:85%">June 2026 Backlog Drive</span>
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:TechnoSquirrel69@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/June_2026/Mass_message_list&oldid=1356124266 -->

Your nomination of Second Italo-Ethiopian War ↗ is under review



Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Second Italo-Ethiopian War ↗ is <span class="nowrap">20px|alt=|link= ↗ </span>'''under review'''. See '''Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.<!-- Template:GANotice default --> <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HPGirl362</small> -- HPGirl362 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Second Italo-Ethiopian War ↗ has passed



Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Second Italo-Ethiopian War ↗ has <span class="nowrap">20px|alt=|link= ↗ </span>'''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗''' for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing ↗ somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down.<!-- Template:GANotice |result=pass --> <!-- Template:GANotice --> <small>Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HPGirl362</small> -- HPGirl362 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The Ethiopia Barnstar of National Merit



{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 50px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Ethiopia Barnstar of National Merit'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For sustained anti-vandalism work and rigorous, source-based editing across Ethiopian history articles over several years. Habeshakira (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
|}

Dispute resolution noticeboard



Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion


62px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic :Ethiopian–Adal War ↗.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}}<!--Template:DRN-notice-->
Habeshakira (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)