Talk:Diane Beamer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orange Grove affair[edit]

Is the 2004 allegation of corruption still significant enough to remain on Beamer's page 14 years later? After all, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) made no findings of corruption against anyone. One possibility is to create a "See also' section and add a link to the Main article: Orange Grove affair. Sampajanna (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little much in its current form - it might be fine if this was a really long and detailed article, but that and the allergic reaction are all that there is at the moment. I have removed both headings as a start, but either the section needs to be expanded considerably, or they could probably both go. I'd agree with the See Also link, I think; it was certainly part of her state career, just not as prominent a part as the current article form suggests. Frickeg (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to reassess it at least - I think that text was written before Beamer even left the ministry. It was a prominent controversy of Beamer's state career but wasn't a defining aspect of it, so there's good reason to cut it down if the article isn't expanded so undue weight isn't placed upon it. I think it'd be better to briefly explain it here rather than to deal with it in a see also link, but I'm not keen myself to try to edit that in a way that still makes the explanation of the Orange Grove affair make any sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frickeg & The Drover's Wife: Here's one possible edit version for your consideration and improvement.
(BEFORE): On 16 June 2004, the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, advised Beamer as Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration) to approve a variation of the Local Environment Plan (LEP) which would have retrospectively validated the planning approval for an Orange Grove shopping centre. On 8 July 2004, Beamer declined to approve the proposed variation[1] on the grounds that the shopping centre tended to undermine the viability of the Liverpool shopping centre.[2] The owners of the Orange Grove centre subsequently claimed that this decision was corrupt. This led to an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which made no findings of corruption against any person.[1]
(AFTER): On 8 July 2004, Beamer declined to approve a proposed planning variation on the grounds that the Orange Grove shopping centre tended to undermine the viability of the Liverpool shopping centre.[3] The Orange Grove owners subsequently claimed that this decision was corrupt. This led to an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which made no findings of corruption against any person.[1] Sampajanna (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this loses too much explanation in why it was controversial - ministers decline to approve planning variations all the time, but the Orange Grove one was so controversial because it effectively shut down an already-built shopping centre. On second thought, I think it's impossible to slim this down unless it's somehow completely rewritten to tell the whole story more succinctly - the current wording only gets the bare minimum across as it is, and removing details from that essentially makes it incoherent to anyone who doesn't already know the story - if anything, that text probably needs an added sentence or two to make it make sense. Also, regardless of the wording, the piping of Orange Grove affair as "claimed" needs to be removed - that article is not only relevant to the claims of the owners. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Please submit your own edit version on this talk page for due consideration.Sampajanna (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically said I wasn't volunteering for the task. There's no reason why it can't stay in its current format if no one can write a coherent alternative - it is important, and it does need to be included in a way that actually makes any sense to unfamiliar readers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Are you trying to say that the possible edit version (above) is not coherent? Sampajanna (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It leaves readers none the wiser about what the issue is: it's not a case where sentences can simply be chopped out of the current wording and have the remainder still make sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Are you trying to say that the possible edit version (above) is not coherent? YES / NO Sampajanna (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I answered this perfectly clearly less than an hour ago. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here. It isn't an attack on you to say that removing sentences from the current text makes the remainder not make sense and that if it's going to be made shorter, it really needs to be completely rewritten in a more succinct way so that it clearly explains to readers what happened. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does Frickeg (talk) have any further comments to add? Sampajanna (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know why the edit summary for the above comment asking for further comments stated "Matter sorted via per majority agreement" just after you removed the section entirely without explanation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Frickeg wrote (see near top of this talk section) as follows ...

"It's a little much in its current form - it might be fine if this was a really long and detailed article, but that and the allergic reaction are all that there is at the moment. I have removed both headings as a start, but either the section needs to be expanded considerably, or they could probably both go. I'd agree with the See Also link, I think; it was certainly part of her state career, just not as prominent a part as the current article form suggests. Frickeg (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)"

I tried to add that I also agree with Frickeg in the last 15 minutes or so, however there was an edit conflict because The Drover's wife was simultaneously posting to talk. Sampajanna (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Two out of three editors agree. Because The Drover's Wife is the one that doesn't, s/he is making a fuss. I agree with the reasons stated by Frickegtalk Sampajanna (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Report on investigation into planning decisions relating to the Orange Grove Centre" (pdf). Independent Commission Against Corruption. August 2005. Retrieved 2007-03-04.
  2. ^ "Beamer Denies Fault". ABC News. 23 July 2004. Retrieved 2007-03-04.
  3. ^ "Beamer Denies Fault". ABC News. 23 July 2004. Retrieved 2007-03-04.

Infobox officeholder is incomplete[edit]

Not all of Beamer's ministry positions are included in the Infobox. Is there a valid reason or protocol to substantiate such discrepancy? Sampajanna (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They often don't because in many cases it would make the infoboxes extremely long. It currently includes all her full ministries (edit: I missed fair trading, which should probably be there) - I'm not sure there's a need to include assistant minister roles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minister for Fair Trading is missing from Infobox Sampajanna (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that - and it should be added. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Would you care to do so then?. Sampajanna (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Incidentally, your edit history (above) is clearly visible. Sampajanna (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you couldn't just add this yourself from the get-go. It's clearly not controversial. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife (TDW) has demonstrated a regular practice of deleting or criticising other editors' good faith contributions based purely on TDW's own POV. Once any such concerns are responded to, TDW tends to find alternative ways to criticise the same issue, even if it contradicts TDW's original concern. This has been TDW's opportunity to make a slightly more complex coding edit, instead of merely and persistently attacking the good faith efforts of others. Sampajanna (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are certainly in good faith - but they're frequently poorly worded and have at times been either misleading or outright incorrect, and in each and every opportunity your immediate response has been to revert war your edits back and make personal attacks as opposed to dealing with the issue that has been raised. A consequence of this is that you tend to have rather a higher level of conflict than the average Wikipedian across the board. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: That is simply not correct. The only "higher level of conflict than the average" may be with YOU in this particular article. Please do not over-exaggerate to try and strengthen your own mindset. Your assertion "frequently poorly worded and have at times been either misleading or outright incorrect" is absurd. Finally, "revert war your edits back": it has been necessary to keep directing YOU back to this talk page to potentially diffuse a revert war. Sampajanna (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In each and every case where I've had to revert your edits, I've made clear in my edit summaries what the problem was. My comment above: your edits on Barnaby Joyce were misleading (inadvertent or otherwise), and your edits re: Emma Husar's non-retirement were objectively factually wrong. In the vast majority of those cases (including in the above two), you've just immediately re-reverted and ignored the issues I raised entirely. You don't "diffuse" a revert war by refusing discussion and making further reverts - rather, you effectively force one, many times in circumstances that would have been completely unnecessary if you'd just acknowledged the issue raised. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Does that explain why you are "following" me now on the Diane Beamer page? In both cases above (Barnaby Joyce & Emma Husar), I have been a major contributor. When last checked, there were no unresolved issues with either. Sampajanna (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you resolve disputes eventually - but not before masses of immediate reverts, personal attacks and refusals to discuss issues, with your contributions to this page continuing the behaviour seen at the Husar and Joyce articles (the former of which I wasn't involved in). How long do we have to wait before you decide to provide an explanation for your hospital admission reverts? One day? Three? A week? Two? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Does that explain why you are "following" me now on the Diane Beamer page? [A simple YES or NO will suffice]. Previous response written simultaneously to The Drover's Wife posting his/her response. Perhaps it may be prudent to put this talk matter on hold for say 48 hours. If necessary, then restate your POV. Sampajanna (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have this article watchlisted, along with just about every other Australian political biography going back to self-governance, and so am alerted to all edits to this page, by you or anyone else. If 48 hours is what it takes for you to calm down and discuss your edits, then so be it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: The writing of "what it takes for you to calm down and discuss your edits" is not necessary. Again, this talk is not going anyhere at the moment. I am not disputing that the Infobox officeholder is incomplete. Please let it be for say 48 hours. Sampajanna (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of transitions (linguistics) in articles[edit]

In an attempt to alleviate any editorial confusion surrounding the purpose of transitional words in articles, please click on this internal Wikipedia link. In particular, note that transition words add information, reinforce ideas, and express agreement with preceding material for the benefit of readers en masse. Sampajanna (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with transitions in grammar, thank you. What I don't understand is what you're trying to achieve with them in this context, because it does none of those things here. As an alternative, I've removed the factoid entirely: many people get taken to hospital, and it doesn't seem to be significant in the scheme of things. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: If English is your first language, at what level are you trying to engage with it? Again, please click on this internal Wikipedia link. You may care to also check the meaning of some words before using them. Furthermore, if you genuinely believed that Beamer being rushed to hospital from Parliament House is not at all significant, then why bother initially disputing the linguistic value of transitions? Sampajanna (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I initially challenged the awkward English, but having to actually discuss the paragraph raised the issue of why it was there in the first place. There's been no attempt to explain why it would be relevant - there's no suggestion that it was an ongoing issue that would be significant to her entire biography. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Try reading carefully back through the edit history Sampajanna (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Sampajanna (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the edit history or anywhere else. There's a lot of personal attacks and reverts, but nothing that might shed light on why you think it is tremendously important that a 58-year old was once taken to hospital. This is becoming a bit of a habit of yours - for someone who repeatedly makes dramatic edit summaries about other editors using the talk page, it takes quite a lot of effort to get you to first use the talk page and then actually discuss disputed edits. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Please try to be consistent and avoid over-exaggeration. As the article history indicates, it has been necessary to keep directing YOU (and only you as an editor) back to this talk page, not the other way round. Sampajanna (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've now made four comments in this section, all of them containing personal attacks, and none of them containing any response to the paragraph about the hospital admission. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that no further discussion is required on the use of transitions (linguistics) in articles. Thank you. Sampajanna (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my removal of this paragraph with the edit summary "it is AGAIN requested that The Drover's Wife, as a matter of common courtesy, please use talk page accordingly". You have now refused to discuss your revert at all, despite not once having explained why you disagree with the removal. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: As we can do not appear to be able to reach a consensus, perhaps it may be prudent to put this matter on hold for the time being. Sampajanna (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inability to reach a consensus when you've entirely refused to even provide an explanation for your edit, let alone discuss the issue. It isn't being reverted yet because of the three-revert rule, but your explicit refusal to discuss your edits ensures further conflict on these issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Perhaps it may be prudent to put this talk matter on hold for say 48 hours. If necessary, then restate your POV. Sampajanna (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Sampajanna (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about we begin with an explanation of why you reverted the removal? I can't address your perspective if you refuse to explain it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: This talk is not going anyhere at the moment. Again, please let it be for say 48 hours. Sampajanna (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonistic & provocative behaviour by User:The Drover's Wife[edit]

The Drover's Wife is simply being antagonistic and overbearing. It was mutually agreed in talk at 08:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC) that there would be no more discussion for at least 48 hours. Instead, TDW reverts an edit before the expiry time. Is this meant as intentional provocation and disregard for any form of common or professional courtesy?) Sampajanna (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I waited two days. You've still, as of this moment, not explained in any way why you have a problem with that particular removal. In all my time on Wikipedia, I've never encountered this kind of aggression and refusal to explain actions: sometimes, for instance, people might have a strong point of view on an issue, but I've got absolutely no clue why you're reverting these edits. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: 48 hours is usually 48 hours. Stop trying to be antagonistic and overbearing. Sampajanna (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please just engage and explain your edits - if you do that, then as happened at the Joyce and Husar articles, this dispute will get resolved. If you refuse to answer them and insistently revert war, you will not get your way - this will just go on and on until you do explain your edits (just as happened elsewhere). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: There are no unresolved matters on this Diane Beamer page or the other two mentioned above. Please do NOT keeping posting to my talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Orange Grove content[edit]

Sampajanna's disruptive behaviour is getting out of hand. For no apparent reason, they have now attempted to remove the entire Orange Grove section, with the completely misleading summary of "as per majority agrrement in talk" - when that idea hasn't even been suggested by anyone on this talk page. The affair was a significant part of her state career: the Sydney Morning Herald, upon her retirement years later, said she was "best remembered for her role in the Orange Grove affair", and media have also reported it in relation to her federal candidacy. There has been no attempt at explaining this edit either: it seems a purely retaliatory attempt to remove something that I'll disagree with. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Drover's Wife: Two out of three is a majority. Get over it. Refer to 'Orange Grove affair' talk section at top of this talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one else suggested removing the section entirely. This is just getting bizarre. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


User:The Drover's Wife: Frickeg wrote as follows ...

"It's a little much in its current form - it might be fine if this was a really long and detailed article, but that and the allergic reaction are all that there is at the moment. I have removed both headings as a start, but either the section needs to be expanded considerably, or they could probably both go. I'd agree with the See Also link, I think; it was certainly part of her state career, just not as prominent a part as the current article form suggests. Frickeg (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)"

I tried to add that I also agree with Frickeg in the last 15 minutes or so, however there was an edit conflict because The Drover's wife was simultaneously posting to talk. Sampajanna (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't support for unilaterally removing the entire section. Once again, you've refused to explain whatsoever why you're removing it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Drover's Wife: Two out of three editors agree. Because The Drover's Wife is the one that doesn't, s/he is making a fuss.
Sampajanna Are you aware of WP:3RR? More than three reverts in 24 hours, with few exceptions like vandalism, can result in blocking. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Onetwothreeip: Yes. Please refer to my response in the next section. Sampajanna (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reverting was reverted because The Drover's Wife is making inconsistent comments?[edit]

I couldn't care less what squabbling is going on, quite honestly. The above discussions seem very much not about the content itself. I reverted to a particular edit because it very much belongs in the article, potentially benefitting from minor changes. Whether an editor who is not me makes comments that someone doesn't like seems completely irrelevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Onetwothreeip Thank you for commenting on this talk page as requested. Your edit was inadvertently reverted. My follow-up comment tried to explain why. It was a case of mistaken identity. Sampajanna (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you "inadvertently" revert an edit that reinstated the exact same material that I did (and haven't undone it)? "Mistaken identity"? You've just admitted that you're reverting my edits purely because I'm making them, which would explain why you've refused to give any explanation for them in three days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you're going to un-revert it, right? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip To do so, would that breach the 3RR warning that User:The Drover's Wife posted on my own talk page? Otherwise, I have no objection to a revert of Onetwothreeip's Orange Grove edit Sampajanna (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3RR doesn't apply to self-reverts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits Sampajanna (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The intermediate edit that entirely consists of changing an ampersand (&) to the word "and". You're having a laugh, aren't you? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diane_Beamer&oldid=1199703585"