User talk:ElectricRay

Archived Material

Dewi Evans

While I disagree with you, the consensus and precedent from a certain case in 2007 is that tangential witnesses in criminal cases are not notable, and are not considered to be co-defendants, regardless of how much harm they cause to others. It's a bad law, because in the original case, four Black teenaged girls committed suicide, but it's not worth relitigating. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I understand one could take another view. If I may, I will pass that on to the debate on the talk page. The Dewi Evans article is only six days old, and is already clearly the focus for people with a given agenda (one with which I am largely sympathetic, as it happens) which is not part of the mission of an Encyclopaedia. For the time being, Dr. Evans’ contribution to the case can be encapsulated within the Lucy Letby article and with a redirect. Should (as I think is increasingly likely) Ms. Letby’s conviction be vacated as a result of Dr. Evans’s evidence, I dare say there will be grounds for an independent article about him, in the same way as there is for Dr Roy Meadow.ElectricRay (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Dewi Evans

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Dewi Evans, which you proposed for deletion. I don't think it is non controversial. Evans gets treated extensively in Coffey & Moritz (2024): Unmasking Lucy Letby. He is also covered in many other sources, not all to do with Letby. There is certainly a case for merge, and perhaps a case for repurposing the Letby page to a page about the case and not a straight bio, but deletion would need more eyes on this at AfD.. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with merger or redirect so maybe I used the wrong action, but there should not be a separate article about Dewi Evans at least until Letby is acquitted. None of his notability is unconnected with Letby: even the other controversies are only really germane because people are trying to use them do discredit his evidence in that case. Put it this way: but for the Letby case would there be any public debate about Natasha Lewis or decriminalising offences against children? If so, why did this article only get written six days ago?

In any case the article is far too long for a living person of such peripheral notability. ElectricRay (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have Lucia de Berk case which we renamed because the case was arguably a WP:BLP1E. I'd support a move of Lucy Letby to Lucy Letby case and with a merge of Dewi Evans into there as a section. The size rule argument is spurious - a merge would also allow pruning of duplicated material, and the size issue with the Letby page is because of the way that has developed beyond an encyclopaedic summary style. I think the first stage would be to propose an RM (requested move) of Lucy Letby. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I think Lucy Letby would qualify for a move to Lucy Letby case as and when she is acquitted, but not until. And even then, she would not be notable for one event, but two: a conviction for murder, and then an outrageous miscarriage of justice! In any case I will propose for AfD: presumably (the wheels of Wikipedia justice being more pragmatic than those of the UK) a deletion sentence can be commuted to merger or redirect. ElectricRay (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I note that Luca de Berk's case would have very strong parallels with Letby were Letby to be acquitted. The argument is that the whole case (trial + appeals etc.) amount to a single case. The advantage of having it about the case and not about Letby per se, is that you could then have sections on Dewi Evans and other principal actors in the case, without needing a page. Anyway, let's see what happens at AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. And good point about the other actors. ElectricRay (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First line indented text template

Whilst I was looking for the same thing, I saw a few talk topics you opened asking for a {{First line indent}} template, and its companion {{Hanging indent}} for publishing/bibliographic use. I've now got one for my other Mediawiki install, but I've also added it to Wikipedia should anyone else also be looking. Just FYI! I realise it is few years late. — aoyma3 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice!

Funnily enough I figured one out too. Mine isn't as clever as yours: mine is just <div style="text-indent: 20px;">{{{1}}}</div>. But thanks for demonstrating the “default value” feature in template calls that you access with a pipe: in 15 years of running my own mediawiki instance I am embarrassed to say I never knew about that! That is a brilliant feature! ElectricRay (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]