Talk:Amy McGrath

LINKROT

Per WP:LINKROT do not revert archiving of links. Web Archiver often is not able to rescue links because editors never archived them. The trawlers are hit or miss. Editors who don't understand this revert archiving. There is no good reason to revert archiving - it does not make it impossible to edit the page, it doesn't really bloat the wikitext very much at all, and the links are neatly added within existing citation templates. The importance of preserving references far outweighs any WP:JDL arguments for removal. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Importantly, any editor who has spent time actually verifying citations can tell you that link rot happens regularly. Sometimes, the new URLs can be located; sometimes, archived copies exist. But not always. Either way, omitting the archive parameters creates more work for others and makes it impossible for all but the most dedicated editor to verify the information. Rebbing 12:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

1) I had this very productive and AGF discussion with Seraphim System already which was very kindly resolved, so I'm not sure why this is being done again. As they mentioned, the links are archived in the process in the archive link, which is a very productive thing.

2) Since I am actively editing this page and as you said there was no substantive changes made, the question is why make the changes at all. I would request that at minimum you wait until the page has stabilized and no further edits are made before making changes.

And possibly, as an act of AGF, not make these types of cosmetic changes to a page that is obviously being competently edited and move on to something in more need of assistance -- and content creation. Please, I ask this in total AGF. I would like to continue to edit this page, but if you refuse to AGF and allow me to work on the page, I will be forced to abandon editing, as has happened in the past when you have done this. I really and truly hope I do not need to do this, as I would like to maintain the page, especially as it develops. It's your choice here. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You bullied the other editor into going away; that's ownership, not collaboration. Since you edit in very small pieces—literally hundreds for what most of us would do in a dozen—there is no reason you can't cope with others' changes: it's not as if you're working for hours on a single edit and struggle resolving complicated edit conflicts.

Anyway, your revert to remove my corrections was against the consensus here, undermined good practice (see WP:LINKROT), and flouted our guidelines (see MOS:VLIST, WP:OVERLINK). It appears you only did it to spite me and the encyclopedia. I spent time manually restoring the archive parameters that you had removed rather than reverting you, but, since you needlessly removed them again, I've reverted to my last edit, and I leave it to you to re-integrate your changes. (Here's the diff of your additions.)

If you want to stomp your feet and refuse to edit unless others let you have your way, I can't stop you, but if you remove the archive links again, you'll be in danger of being blocked for 3RR and battleground behavior. Rebbing 17:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Great job. I'm off this page now because of you. I refuse to participate in this type of editing minutae. It's a waste of time, it's toxic, and interacting with you is unpleasant. I am not interested. I'm moving on. Hope you are happy. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No, this was a toxic waste of time, Erica. You chose to have a conflict when you chose to disregard page consensus and common sense (WP:LINKROT) by repeatedly going out of your way to strip out what others had added to help ensure our citations remain viable for the future. Rebbing 17:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: Egads. There was no page consensus. There was only you stepping in after an issue was very constructively discussed and resolved and making a decision to disregard and violate what was agreed upon. It's exactly the reverse of what you are accusing me of doing here. You have gone through and basically plotzed all over the page that I was intensively working on. I didn't strip anything -- it was your action here that has (a) driven me off the page and (b) added nothing but garbage to a super clean, lean page. If you read the prior thread carefully you would see that the archived links exists permanently (we think) so even if they aren't on the page, they have been archived for posterity and future use. I shake my head at your behavior here. You obviously get some sort of pleasure at behaving in this way. It is the opposite of AGF, it's aggressively rude, it's patronizing (who exactly is this royal we in "our citations," that I am so against, me, someone seriously obsessed with citations?!?) -- and you drive good editors away from contributing. As I've said before, you are a picture perfect example of what is wrong with En Wikipedia editors. Just know that I see what you're doing, I have your number, and whether you are trolling here or what, your behavior is an embarrassment to the community. I recommend re-evaluating your approach to editing. It is not collegial. It adds nothing. It is harassment and scolding. Unproductive. It is a zero value add. Yet again you win in abject incivility. -- BrillLyle (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC) aka Erika with a k

One other editor acceded to your domineering demands elsewhere; at this talk page and article, you have three editors who agree with the general community sentiment reflected by WP:LINKROT, and only you who dissent.

I did not "plotz" all over anything; I carefully repaired your damage, leaving everything else you did intact. Since you edit one piece at a time (example—60 commit run) and use automated tools to edit, it's particularly difficult to understand why you are unable to cope with others' changes.

You stripped out archive links here, here, and here. True, removing them doesn't destroy them, but it puts them beyond the reach of all but the most determined reader. I'm aware of your motiviation for adding citations, but Wikipedia's interest in having citations is that readers may verify material—an object hindered by dead URLs. The "we" is the three of us—Theroadislong, Seraphim System, and I—the three editors who have helped produce them.

You drove yourself off the page by refusing to cooperate, by making a huge fuss over others' additions. I recommend you review your behavior and comments. The only one refusing to collaborate, to behave in a collegial manner, or to assume good faith is you. Rebbing 08:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything you say here is the actual opposite of what happened. Again, hope you are happy with yourself. You lecture and chide and at the end of the day, you create a hostile environment for editors adding content. The outcome is all negative -- for both Wikipedia and for newbies and/or even experienced volunteer contributing editors. But we have discussed this many times. There are many examples now of this happening. No one will stop you or step up, because that's part of the cancer that is Wikipedia editing. I can only object so many times. But NOTED. -- BrillLyle (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I restored content that was inexplicably deleted from the page especially to the Politics section. The deletions were not about archive links so it is unclear what the justification was for doing this. Beyond the archive links, the entry should not pay the cost for this unseemly and very personal attack on the editing contributions that I made when I improved the page. There is nothing wrong with this content, it further establishes notability and updates the page to be current, and should remain on the page. -- BrillLyle (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting that User:BrillLyle was indeffed by the Wikimedia Foundation. This editor made a number of problematic and promotional edits here and elsewhere. I'm going to work on removing them here. Marquardtika (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, remove any problematic or promotional edits, but not all of the edits they made may problematic or promotional.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've started going through the article, and I've found a number of issues already. For example, this edit. It says "Congressman Jim Bunning (R-KY), who recommended McGrath focus on positions that were more in line with women." The given source doesn't say anything about Jim Bunning. This makes me concerned that portions of BrillLyle's edits may be at best sloppy and at worst fabricated. It will take some work to figure out what content should stay. Marquardtika (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent attack ad edit

I’m concerned about this recent edit. Typically I think partisan sniping over campaign ads is a bit beneath Wikipedia. I don’t know that I can find any Wikipedia policy page that says so specifically, but it doesn’t feel notable to me. If we included every campaign ad, or even most, Wikipedia would become quickly cluttered and unreadable.

Now, I understand this one is a little bit more controversial than a typical campaign ad, and maybe therefore more notable. So I’m open to discussion. Is there anyone else who is watching this page who feels one way or the other - whether this material should stay or go?

If it does stay, I do think it should be revised to work toward a more neutral POV. It’s pretty clearly a counterattack against McGrath as it reads now. -Trevdna (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link. Here’s the diff. -Trevdna (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Military career

"McGrath, though, has been consistent about her role in the military and careful to say she was the first woman Marine to fly in an F-18 into combat. She served as the back-seat weapons system operator during her 89 combat missions, not as the front-seat pilot. She did later become a front-seat pilot, but never steered an F-18 during a combat mission."Lexington Herald Leader dated 18 October 2018 KenGfromKYUSA (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Could we get a real ref on that one please? -Trevdna (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The Lexington Herald Leader is a real reference. Unless you mean can you get a URL, in which case I apologize. WipediToya (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)WipediToya

Actually, I apologize. I understand it is a real reference. That was kind of a rude way to phrase it. I just meant some way to verify the accuracy of the quote. So yes, exactly, a URL. —Trevdna (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

An opinion article in a newspaper is a secondary source, not an actual source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.130.178 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

She was an NFO. That's the back seat officer. Not the pilot. She's never piloted a combat mission, EVER. As per the data received by the Kentucky Aviation Museum Hall of Fame. Guess you'll need to send someone there to look. I've seen it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EE60:FC0:CE5:FD3:5738:95FD (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

HQMC not in the Pentagon

HQMC is in Henderson Hall, near but not in the Pentagon. It may be a minor point but IMHO merits a fix nonetheless. Marked it as disputed in case there’s some reason to say LtCol McGrath worked in Pentagon not just metaphorically. AndersW (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

HQMC has offices in the Pentagon under Dept of Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.130.178 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It is false to say that "HQMC is in Henderson Hall." While the HQBN is at Henderson Hall, they play a purely administrative function (administering PFTs, CFTs, conducting urinalysis, etc.) for those at HQMC. 162.1.159.115 (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, DC I&L/MCICOM is at the Pentagon, DC Aviation is at the Pentagon, AR is at the Pentagon, the Counsel's office and the SJA to CMC are at the Pentagon, Office of Legislative Affairs is at the Pentagon, etc. 162.1.159.115 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

First combat pilot contradiction

Re these two statements in "Service overseas (2002–2011)":

• "In March 2002...she flew 51 combat missions in an F/A-18D in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. She was the first woman to fly a combat mission in the United States Marine Corps."
• "During 2005 and 2006, she was deployed on a second tour of duty over Afghanistan with Squadron 121. During this time she became the first woman to fly in an F/A-18 in combat for the U.S. Marine Corps."

These statements can't both be accurate. Was she maybe a WSO for the first statement and then a pilot for the second? -- Hux (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

They are both accurate. She was WSO first and then a pilot on her second deployment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.130.178 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

She was an NFO. Never the pilot for a combat mission. NFO is a back seat position, in her case, in an F-18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EE60:FC0:CE5:FD3:5738:95FD (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)