LucyGermanDog

Welcome, LucyGermanDog!

Have a plate of cookies!

Welcome to Wikipedia, LucyGermanDog! I'm UtherSRG, and I've been assigned as your mentor. All new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Order of Battle and strength at Bladensburg

I have not seen supporting sources being cited, in relation to the edit you made, so I have undone it. If there are inline citations that are from WP:RS, then please do add these with the edit. Standalone edits without the supporting evidence are liable to be reverted. Keith H99 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

New Orleans

Hello, I see that, in good faith, you uprated the result to include the word "decisive", and this has come up before. It's a good idea to see if a change has been proposed in the past, and debated on the talk page.

Talk:Battle of New Orleans/Archive 1

When this came up before, there had been WP:CON to leave it as a victory, rather than "decisive victory", so I am going to revert the edit. Keith H99 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Edits to Infoboxes for battles

@LucyGermanDog I have noticed that your edits have been limited to battles, in particular those of the War of 1812.

As a consequence, the infoboxes are becoming bloated, and this runs counter to the purpose of the infobox.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose.

As a consequence, these edits have been reverted by myself and others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_North_Point&oldid=1303737660

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Baltimore&oldid=1305074279

In essence we should not to try to write the article in the infobox. Given that the infobox is high level, it makes more sense that further detail as to the composition of the forces is stated within the main body of the article, and is properly sourced. Yes, there was a numerical superiority of the Americans at Bladensburg, but the quality of the troops left a lot to be desired. This warrants a further discussion, and it should be covered in the article as to how the troop numbers could mislead the reader, insofar as quality and quantity are two different attributes. The brevity of this cannot be conveyed by an infobox, and ought not be attempted.

Regarding Farnham Creek, there has been ambiguity as to the high level of participants. You have increased the numbers, but you have not provided an inline citation. In many cases, a visit to a public library will allow an editor to access information from history books that are reliable and verifiable sources.

Similarly, when the result of a battle is to be changed, that you see if this has been debated by editors in the past, or that you seek consensus that a change to a result should be made.

I would ask that you take some time to familiarize yourself with the guidance on wikipedia and its principles, so that further edits are in alignment with these principles. Keith H99 (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TonySt. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Battle of Big Sandy Creek, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tony 02:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of Big Sandy Creek, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. tony 02:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@LucyGermanDog your edits appear to be of a disruptive nature. Can you please ensure that your subsequent edits are in keeping with the principles of wikipedia.Keith H99 (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@LucyGermanDog Can you please ensure that your subsequent edits are in keeping with the principles of wikipedia. I have reverted the edit to the infobox, in order to remove bloat. In general, efforts should be directed towards improving the article itself.Keith H99 (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm JalenBarks. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Battle of Plattsburgh—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jalen Barks (Woof) 01:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Keith H99 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TonySt. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fort Bowyer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tony 18:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Siege of Fort St. Philip (1815). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Keith H99 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Keith H99 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not letting me reply back to you on the siege of fort st Phillip discussion we were having.

But I'm not going to continue debating an engagement the British clearly lost. To put things simply, the British attacked, failed, and retreated. When an enemy forces lays siege to a fort and they end up retreating and the defenders end up holding, by all aspects of siege warfare it's a victory for the defenders. You can try to spin it however you'd like but at the end of the day the Americans were victorious at the siege of fort st Phillip. LucyGermanDog (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Keith H99 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that you will follow consensus in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks EdJohnston. I rolled back their last two edits. LucyGermanDog, this is not the way. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Infobox bloat

Regarding the Fort Bowyer infobox edit, this is too much detail. It belongs in the article, not in the infobox, as per my comment dated August 12.Keith H99 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I will reply in a few days time to your other comment. I thought it worth mentioning that if the infobox becomes bloated, and where what has been added runs counter to the guidance, the edits will be reverted. I strongly recommend you re-read my comment dated August 12, not because "I" wrote it, more that there are some links to guidance, which I did not write and which I do not "own". Please do familiarize yourself with the guidance, and the overall philosophy of wikipedia.

You won't be the only person this has happened to. I recall that in the past I have added bloat in WP:GOODFAITH to the infobox for the Siege of Fort St Philip, and have had it removed. In the first instance I added flags. Given there were only two nations present at the skirmish, flags were not needed. In the second instance, I added chapter and verse as to the breakdown of Overton’s forces. This was removed, as this level of detail should be in main body of the article itself. In the third instance, I added two outcome takeaway bullet points to the result, of which I shall mention more in a few days.

In this regard, having been made aware that my well-intentioned edits were bloating the infobox, I keep an eye out for bloat issues, going forwards.Keith H99 (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Fortuna, imperatrix 11:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Attack_on_Fort_St._Philip_(1815) Keith H99 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There are two sides to every story. I have put forward my side, it would be worth putting your argument forward.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Summary of dispute by LucyGermanDogKeith H99 (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Maguaga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Nations. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox/Battle of Stonington (October 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:LucyGermanDog/sandbox/Battle of Stonington and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, LucyGermanDog! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Infobox flags

I note that you have been adding flags to belligerents and/or commanders in infoboxes where there are only two belligerents. In such a case, the two columns are sufficient to distinguish the two sides and the addition of flags is redundant (see MOS:MILFLAGS). I undid one such edit with an edit summary inpart: Per MOS:MILFLAGS - flags here are redundant. You reinstated your edit with the edit summary: Undo every battle where the flags are in the info box. This response falls to WP:HORSETRADING and is an inappropriate reason for the reinstatement. You are editing against P&G and the broader community consensus it represents. I would suggest you self-revert where such additions remain at this time. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You continue to add/reinstate flags contrary to the guidance . Also edit summary is not an appropriate place to make an allegation. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:LucyGermanDog/sandbox/Battle of Stonington

Hello, LucyGermanDog. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:LucyGermanDog/sandbox/Battle of Stonington, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:LucyGermanDog/sandbox/Battle of Stonington

Hello, LucyGermanDog. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandbox/Battle of Stonington".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Edits to Infobox for Fort St Philip, yet again

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keith H99 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I see it was reverted Keith H99 (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi LucyGermanDog. Thank you for your work on Siege of Fort Madison. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add content to the prose of the article and add more sources. Thanks and have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Fort Madison moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Fort Madison. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because the aftermath section will make limited sense until the background section is written. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Northernhenge (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)