Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Timtrent/

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  speedy delete. Closing this discussion as this page was speedied by Acroterion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Timtrent/

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Editor mistakenly created a subpage in my user space when they appear to have intended to use my talk page. Note the trailkng slash in the name of the page. They have posted what appears to be an identical message to my talk page.

I thought this might be a valid use of CSD, but cannot find the appropriate rationale. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There’s no CSD for usertalk pages.
 * Deleting this looks ok, if their message is a duplicate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge the message is a duplicate, albeit formatted differently on my real user page. I have not read it in forensic detail.
 * It appears to be a genuine error by the creating editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'll bite. I was certain there's be an obvious category but I'm interested in what the good answer may be. Agree that since it's a dupe, it might merely be seen as non-controversial housekeeping. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedied by User:Acroterion as attack page. I was making it too complicated. BusterD (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. That was bad G10. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Rationale? I'm interested. BusterD (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I had considered that attack page issue, but chose not to go that route here because of the issues raised. That does not mean I did not consider it to be an attack page, nor does it mean the I object to this CSD rationale, I just did not choose to use it myself.
 * I had also considered the housekeeping route, but thought it to be a little too vague.
 * All of this is why I brought it here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You did right. For another user's post to complain directly at you to be considered G10 speediable, it needs to be pretty extreme.  Or maybe I missed something?  I oppose liberal or expansive interpretation of the CSD criteria.  If it was G10-worthy, the user should be warned or sanctioned for it.  I considered it a mistake, redundant, appropriate to delete, without comment on the substance of their message. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User talk:IAskWhatIsTrue. My comments were based on the single event.  I see there is more to the picture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.