Jump to content

Talk:Jim Gamble

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jim Gamble/Comments)

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jim Gamble/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page seems to generate varied views. I think this reflects the emotive areas in which this individual has worked. Many of the articles when read in sequence indicate some very strange and perhaps self interested behaviour. I have sent a copy of some of these edits to the Child Exploitation Centre for the information of the subject as one or two edits seem very mischevious.

Last edited at 10:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

[edit]

change this:

James Gamble, QPM (born November 1959) is a British former police officer and head of Belfast region for the now disbanded RUC Special Branch.

to this:

James Gamble, QPM (born November 1959) was the founding Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command (CEOP) Centre in the United Kingdom until 2010, the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on Child Protection and Child Trafficking and the founder and initial Chair of the Virtual Global Taskforce.[1] Pirate-window (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, another single purpose account from Jim Gamble trying to use this article as an extension of this own PR. Really embarrassing that he has carried this type of editing so long. For this reason and others I disagree with this amendment. --MartyTheArty (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Admin. "Letter to the Guardian from Jim Gamble, Deputy director general, National Crime Squad; Chair, Virtual Global Taskforce". The Guardian. Retrieved 2023-10-11.

COI template

[edit]

With regard to the COI template, and the long history of COI editing on this article, see the Aug 2024 thread at COIN here [1] or here [2]. The main issues relate to a user (Hannahpaul42) (who off-Wiki info suggests is still closely associated with the subject) who was blocked in Sept 2022 as a promo only account. Edits have since continued via an IP address. The obviously promo activity of both the blocked user and the IP address has included attempts to spam images of Jim Gamble onto the articles of better known people, so the IP address activity would appear to be block evasion. Axad12 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

user:MartyTheArty, following your recent edit summary I am opening a talk page thread as per your request.

Please explain why the following info is relevant to an encyclopaedia article:

Membership of a political party.

How someone voted in a party leadership election.

Whether or not someone intends to stand as an MP in a location where his party does not field candidates (i.e. whether or not he intends to do something impossible).

This article has been extensively edited in a promotional way by the subject himself and by a close associate of the subject. Much trivial info was included by those individuals, the above details are (I would suggest) part of that promotional trivia. Axad12 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this information was not added by one of the accounts that had been adding the promotional type information. In fact looking through the edit history it shows this information was added by an editor that was removing the promotional material.
Secondly, I find your editing style extremely aggressive and problematic. Not all editors are on here 24/7 like you so just chill out and have a civilised discussion before trying to bully and force you opinions on articles.
Thirdly, Gamble regularly comments on political matters in the media and as a result his political allegiance and being a member of a political party is certainly pertinent. It is also sourced by the BBC which in my view is a strong source. --MartyTheArty (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since user:MartyTheArty seems unprepared to participate in the thread that they requested that I open here I will put forward a compromise suggestion...
The fact that an article subject is a member of a political party is a piece of info which is sometimes included in WP articles and thus can remain.
How someone voted in a leadership election is blatant trivia and should be removed.
The fact that Gamble has stated that he does not wish to do something which is currently impossible (and for which there is no reason to imagine will be possible in the near future) is also blatant trivia and should be removed.
So, user:MartyTheArty, can we agree on 1 or the 3 pieces of info being included and 2 being removed?
The fact that a detail is reliably sourced does not mean that it is encyclopaedic information, otherwise all material ever covered in a newspaper article would be able to be included in Wikipedia - which clearly is not the case due to policies such as WP:DUE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc., etc. Axad12 (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here in this article, Gamble is highly critical on a new Conservative government and again here over this issue. Both show he is commenting in the political sphere and I think it is therefore pertinent to show what political party he in a member of. Thank you. --MartyTheArty (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so do you agree with me that 1 of the 3 items of info above is pertinent (and should remain) but that the other 2 are not (and should be removed)?
Also, will you retract your WP:ASPERSIONS of uncivilised behaviour, bullying, ownership etc. I only reverted you again because you reverted me rather than participating in the discussion that you had asked me to open here 2 days ago. I feel that that was rather unreasonable of you, but at least I restricted myself to suggesting that you were 'mucking about' rather than suggesting that your behaviour was problematic. Axad12 (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]