User talk:Dreadstar/Admin coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coaching page!

Howdy! First let's decide on a communication method. We can use this coaching page exclusively, or we can do it over email, or a combination, whatever. I also have Gtalk, and I'm on fairly often. Let me know what you'd like; I'm ok with whatever. --Fang Aili talk 01:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The combo sounds good! I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it..or not. Dreadstar † 01:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Way cool about 10K edits! Congrats!

Here's a few things we can sort of "check off" in terms of things typically looked for at RfAs:

  1. Involvement in AfDs or other XfDs
  2. Vandal fighting
  3. Editing an article to FA status
  4. Other significant edits to the 'pedia.

Please tell me your level of involvement in each. :) --Fang Aili talk 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Check off list

1. Involvement in AfDs or other XfDs:

I'm not sure of the exact number, but I've been involved in about twenty or so. I read more of them than I actually 'vote' in. I should probably contribute more, but if I have something substantial to say, I'll definitely get involved. For an example of how I've handled AfD's :

I try to explain in a clear way, why an article should be kept or deleted.

2. Vandal fighting

Yes, absolutely! I like fixing vandalism. I currently watch 126 pages that I keep a close eye on for vandlism. I rvv it when I see it and will post the most appropriate vandal warning tag on the offending Editor's page. I'm always very polite, and if it's a new user, I'll even post the standard welcome message, so the user will know that he's welcome, and have handy links to show them how things work! If the vandalism is against a specific policy or guideline, I'll post a link to the relevant article too, along with an explanation of why it's relevant. I post links to be 'handy' for others..!

Here's a couple of recent examples:

and
  • I've joined the Counter-Vandalism unit, put the tag on my userpage.
  • I absolutely love VandalProof! Awesomely powerful tool that makes vandal fighting much easier! I use it all the time!! Very cool. I'm very cautious about its use, I don't want to revert anything that isn't vandalism or a bad edit, and I don't ever want to falsely accuse anyone of committing vandalism.

I'm going to write in green so we can keep track of who said what. Your contribs look pretty good. I'd say you seem levelheaded and civil--very good qualities. I've used vandalfighting tools in the past too. (I don't remember which one.) They can be quite useful. --Fang Aili talk 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a great compliment! I pride myself on being civil, fair, open-minded, and being able to communicate clearly with others. Dreadstar † 06:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it! I should mess around with it again.. mostly I've been doing new page patrol lately.
This doesn't have anything to do with admin coaching.. but I thought you might be interested. "it's" is for the contraction "it is", and "its" is for possessive. So.. "cautious about it's use" is incorrect, while "cautious about its use" is. You can ignore me if you want.. I'm just sayin'. :) --Fang Aili talk 14:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! You're absolutely right! I actually know this, yet the little errant quotation mark still manages to slip in once in a while! If you ever see me doing that, especially in an article...by all means fix and give me a bonk on the head.. :) – Dreadstar † 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Editing an article to FA status

I've not yet had that pleasure.

That's fine. I'm not sure if some people are still opposing based on that criteria. (I need to read some recent RfAs.) But such folks are usually outliers. I certainly don't consider it a requirement, and I haven't brought anything to FA status either. (Closest I got was Michelle Kwan, a GA, and I would only consider my involvement level to be moderate.) --Fang Aili talk 13:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could collaborate on something! Dreadstar † 06:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Other significant edits to the 'pedia.

  • Articles:

[edit] Created

Nice contributions! One thing you want to watch out for is in-universe style writing, vs. out-of-universe. Wikipedia usually aims for out-of-universe. Another thing--you have uploaded a large number of fair use images for these articles. Fair use is a hot topic these days and you should read up on it. Some people think limited fair use is ok, other people think fair use should be eliminated (such is the case on de:wp). Fair use images have already been removed from lists of episodes (e.g. List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes). I am not up on all the details so I'm not an expert! --Fang Aili talk 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm pretty proud of those articles. Thanks for the good advice, I'll watch out for the in/out-universe style you mention, and I'll go over the articles to see how they can be improved in that regard. I'll read through the style pages to bone up on better writing. I've signed up to a local college to take a writing class or two this fall. Years ago, I used to write a lot, sci-fi/fiction and non-fiction stories. I want to get them to the point where I can submit them for publishing!
Oh, yes I've had a few discussions on images and fair use. I'd have to really search to find the diffs, but I've definitely looked at the fair use issues. Virtually all the images I've uploaded have been either screenshots of a TV program (Search and Probe are two notable examples), self-scanned book or comic book covers, where the images are used in articles about the book (Belgariad for example), or comic (Dreadstar). From what I understand those are ok to use. Virtually all are low-res, irreplaceable, significant to the article, and previously published elsewhere. I'm careful about uploading things that I'm not sure about. And I'm not afraid to ask the image/copyright experts their opinions! I don't want take any risks..for either myself or Wikipedia...! Dreadstar † 06:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm rewriting Dreadstar (graphic novel) in a more out-universe manner. Once finished, I'll run it by you and if good...go on to do the others in the same way. Dreadstar † 08:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributed heavily to


You could upload your free images to Commons instead of en:wp; that way they are more-easily available to other projects. See my above comment about non-free images. --Fang Aili talk 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool! I'll upload to Commons next time. Should I move the ones I've uploaded here, or just leave'em? Dreadstar † 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You can move them. Then speedy-tag the Wikipedia image. (Use {{NowCommons}}.) --Fang Aili talk 14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My most current and probably biggest project is What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Major OR/Synthesis in the article. I cleaned it up, then got reverted by several other editors. I had the page protected and set up a very significant Talk page discussion of sources and OR. Gathered opinions on the WP:NOR Talk page, and set up a very detailed Sanbox to present and discuss sources for the OR.

The disputing editors were all over it when they were reverting my changes, but now that school is in and they need to provide appropriate sources for the OR they were attempting to keep in the ariticle...there's a big gap in 'progress', even tho I've gone beyond the call of duty to define and lay everything out for them.

I even re-wrote the RfC the disputing editors put in 'cause it wasn't very well worded.

Here's a primer for the thing....it needs a table of contents...;) I put in a lot of work, but I think the results so far are well worth the effort.

I won't read into the nitty-gritty of the dispute. Honestly I've never heard of this show before, so it would take quite a bit of work to get up to speed. :) I can give you some general advice though. Try to gather a consensus (looks like you've done that); this can lead to conflict resolution. Always stay cool and collected. Once I was involved in a particularly silly (in my opinion) debate, and consensus was on my side, but this one user refused to listen. Eventually I decided to just let it go and work on something else. You should always be prepared to walk away, or risk losing your sanity to some bit of Wikipedia minutia. --Fang Aili talk 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. Sometimes, you just have to walk away - stress-reduction, if nothing else! I've done that many times, anywhere from avoiding an article or a specific editor, to taking a Wikibreak from the whole nine-yards. I often sit down and have a cup of tea! And I never post when angry or frustrated. I'll generally write something out in Word, then step back, step away, then edit all the angst out of it...so it's just neutral..
But honestly, I don't find myself getting upset very much at all. My real-life job is in management. Managing people, problems, clients and upper management, so I'm very used to keeping a level head at all times. I think my RL experience has translated well into my Wikipedia editing, and I'm always looking to better myself. Helping others is a huge part of my job, and I find it to be a very satisfying thing to to...and it's the same here! I love helping other editors! Dreadstar † 07:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good job getting a consensus on that issue! Always nice when something works out. :) --Fang Aili talk 14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

My most significant dispute resolution involvement was in a dispute over WP:NOR content in the What the Bleep Do We Know!? article. I took the lead and guided the process according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm very proud of my involvement in this. Kept everyone in line and focused on the issues.

– Dreadstar † 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC) – Dreadstar † 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Received some great compliments on it: For the OR/Synthesis dispute on "What the Bleep Do We Know!?:

  • Very nicely handled Dreadstar, I thought - smooth with litte room for personal insults and hurt. Learned a lot from observing this process.(olive 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

And a Barnstar for my efforts! [1]


[edit] Policy

Understanding and proper application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is key to keeping the quality of the Wikpedia environment at a high level. I learned a lot about policy in my early days on Wikipeida. My very first contribution was to a highly contentious and volatile article...it was like walking into a hornet's nest. It was an eye-opening experience that was hell to go through at the time...but now I look back and view it as a real godsend to the expansion of my knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, user conduct, behavior, content...oh, lots of stuff! Made mistakes, learned from'em, and got bit by the Wikipedia editing bug! I love it! – Dreadstar † 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Your first edit is interesting! You used colons to indent your comment, and you signed your name correctly. Most new users would not know to do this. Did you previously contribute anonymously or under a different username? --Fang Aili talk 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You should update your sig. You have a link to User talk:Dreadlocke in it. --Fang Aili talk 14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I just noticed that oversight last night and changed it. Hopefully I'm good to go now! Dreadstar † 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other tasks

  • I just asked for approval to start using AWB, it looks pretty handy! [2]. I also like doing wikignome tasks, I've done thousands of dabs, and I like fixing things, errors, bad links, redirects, cleaning up disambiguation pages (I watch several of those, e.g. Enterprise), ordering sections properly (e.g. 'see also' 'references' 'external links'). I'm good at organizing things. Dreadstar † 09:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the edit summary method you use for numbering separate replies made in a single edit! I have emulated you..[3]. Dreadstar † 16:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You were approved to use AWB! Cool. --Fang Aili talk 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! Very cool, but wow, it's a powerful looking tool! Oh, and I just had my first 'live' anti-vandal chase, it was actually pretty exciting....rv'd a bunch o v's, warned, reported to anti-vandal admins, got the vandal blocked...and got a good report card back: from Luna Santin. Very interesting and satisfying experience.
Helped create a new project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Parapsychology,created a userbox for it: Template:User Parapsychology. and designed a few more: Parapsi userboxes. Keepin' busy! – Dreadstar † 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just got approved for VP. Installed it and now I'm seeing how it works before I try. Very cool tool! – Dreadstar † 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

wild link: wild link

How did that happen?? --Fang Aili talk 13:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I was standing too close to a Gamma-bomb test and when...oh wait...that's someone else.. I was copying/pasting the diff to give you a link to my VP approval and I accidentally deleted the very last number of the diff. When I previewed it and clicked on the link to make sure it worked....it scared the bejesus outta me!
See the diff difference:
The less numbers, the older the first diff becomes:
Apparently, one can compare two different article page versions...not sure what that does to the DB though..and not something I'd want to do on a regular basis..although I can see the possibility for the rare check of two different articles with similar content, I guess....;) – Dreadstar † 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wierd! --Fang Aili talk 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universe writing

I've made some changes to Dreadstar (graphic novel), can you let me know if it looks any better? Dreadstar †

Definitely better. Good job. --Fang Aili talk 17:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Eggcellent! Thanks! I'll work on the others! – Dreadstar † 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving along

Here's one of the RfA default questions:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

My main areas of interest and activity in Wikipedia are to protect Wikipedia, its articles, and editors; to help other editors with any issues they may need assitance with, to improve existing articles and to create new interesting (and appropriate!) articles.

From reading through all the backlog areas, the admin lists, and from what I have experienced, here is a list of sysop chores that I anticipate helping with:

  • Protect Wikipedia
  • Keeping vandalism out of recent changes - Not a sysop-only activity
- Definitely, I do this now, but having the ability to block persistent vandals, speedy delete in some cases the inappropriate pages or images they've created or uploaded; these tools would be a huge help in the fight against vandalism.
  • IP addresses- ???
- When investigating a suspected sock, being able to run a checkuser to view IP addresses. Even tho I may not have this ability, it would be a good tool to have and assist in any backlogs of suspected socks.
  • Checkusers - Not all sysops have checkuser, in fact only a very few do.
  • Suspected sock puppets - It can help to be an admin when you're doing sockpuppet research (you can see deleted edits, for instance), but it isn't necessary.
  • WikiProject on open proxies - How would being an admin help you here?
- Being an admin would help ease the backlog on the Open Proxies project, there, to enforce the prohibition against editing from open or anonymising proxies by identifying, verifying, and indefinitely blocking open proxies and anonymity network exit nodes.
  • Block and unblock
  • Reverting - Not a sysop-only activity
  • Stop edit-warring - Not a sysop-only activity
- If they won't stop, it is..;)
  • Wikipedia protected edit requests
  • Protected pages
  • Deletion and undeletion

Most of the stuff below does not require sysop tools (except for deletion, of course).

Oh, definitely. The tools would merely extend my ability to address these at the more extreme ends. For instance, protecting a page during an NPOV dispute where the ediors are edit warring with each other. I already engage in these activities as a regular user - sometimes as participant, sometimes as a neutral mediator between the two parties. It would nice to be able to protect an article where I am a neutral or uninvolved party. I would not use any admin tools in cases or disputes that I am directly involved in.
  • Serve/help other editors
  1. NPOV disputes
  2. Dealing with grievances
  3. Organize dispute resolution process
  • Improve existing articles
  1. All articles lacking sources
  2. All articles with unsourced statements
  • Clean up
  1. All orphaned fairuse images
  2. All pages needing to be wikified
  3. Articles that may contain original research
  4. Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
  5. Miscellaneous pages for deletion
  6. Images and media for deletion

Naturally, it's not an all-inclusive list, and I can expand on any one of those items!

You probably would like to see this in a paragraph form, like in a real RfA. Let me work on that too...

I made notes on the stuff that doesn't require admin tools. Admin tools basically boil down to deleting, blocking, and protecting, and reversing those actions. Everything else can be done as a normal user (except for higher-level tools, like checkuser and b'crat functions). Perhaps you were just listing all the stuff you'd like to do here (as an admin or not). --Fang Aili talk 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was listing the admin tool stuff, and the related items - basically the areas I would expect to utilize the tools in. I replied to each of the comments you made above. – Dreadstar † 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, gotcha. Just to be clear, not all admins are checkusers. There are very few checkusers, in fact. See here for a list. There are only a few because Checkuser is considered an invasion of privacy unless there's a good reason to use it.
The question of TOR proxies caused disruption at a recent RfA. (There was a story in the Signpost about it.) For a while people were asking admin candidates about their opinions on TOR proxies. Honestly I do not quite understand all the techincal ins-and-outs of that stuff, but it might be something you want to research for the future. By the way, do you read the Signpost? It can be a good way to keep on top of the major wikidrama (er, at least, how it might affect Wikipedia in general). --Fang Aili talk 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm totally with you on the checkuser thing. I'm not sure I'd even want that much responsibility - at least for a while! I used to manage and be the sysop for a major Wall Street investment firm, with top security access to information from over 80,000 users (email, work computer harddrive contents, web access logs, etc) and I was frequently engaged by our legal department and upper management to investigate or gather evidence for lawsuits and SEC requirements - so I know what a great responsibility such access is. I was just giving that as an example of what I would do if I were given those tools. With great power comes great responsibility. I still have my "Marshall's badge" from my days in that capacity. I'm a techie from way back, so the internet and computer stuff is ingrained in me...;)
I haven't been reading the Signpost, but I can start! – Dreadstar † 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the best course is to not even mention checkuser...don't really need it. Sounds like it might be a tender spot to even mention...;) Any other hotbutton issues? – Dreadstar † 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) You can keep up with a lot of the hotbutton issues by reading the optional questions at current RfAs, and reading the Signpost. I know that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is pretty hot right now. Other hotbutton issues are or have included RfA reform, linking external attack sites, and the userbox controversy of old. I didn't and haven't kept up with the latest. Honestly I don't think a lot of these issues have much to do with a potential admin's ability, but other people might disagree with me. When the time comes you will want to be prepared for whatever. --Fang Aili talk 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! With your help, I should be prepared for anything! WP:BLP is one of my bedrocks! It's a great policy, and it was actually one of my earliest 'learning about policy' lessons since I was engaged in a very heated BLP article discussion where the opposing editors wanted to use the article to attack the LP and her family, calling them crooks and frauds, terrible stuff...and they wanted to keep out anything at all positive about the girl! Now the article is far more NPOV and it doesn't violate BLP. A very good thing! – Dreadstar † 21:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Didya get my email about the reversions? – Dreadstar † 21:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, responded. --Fang Aili talk

I'd join this too: Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. – Dreadstar † 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving along questions

To consolidate all this down to paragraph form:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

  • Blocking persistent vandals, protecting pages being vandalized, and deleting inappropriate pages that vandals have created would be a welcome enhancement to my current set of anti-vandalism tools (e.g. VP). I have stepped in on several occasions to stop edit warring disputes and bring the warring parties to the negotiation table, such as this dispute, and I would like the added ability to protect pages and to block 3RR or WP:NPA violators in disputes where I am not involved either as a disputant or a mediatior. I would also like to help clear any backlogs of pages or images to delete, such as orphaned, duplicate or copyright-issue images. <upated to clarify below point>
Cool. One thing--I'm not sure if you would want to block people with whom you are currently mediating. I've never been in that situation, but I can imagine that you might want to get an outside admin to do the actual blocking. It depends on the situation though. --Fang Aili talk 00:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, definitely not! If I'm involved in dispute in any way, I wouldn't block or protect or use any admin powers at all. No siree, Bob! How can I make that abudantly clear? – Dreadstar † 03:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning them in the same sentence made me wonder. :) But your clarifications are good. --Fang Aili talk 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Whew! Anything else in there? – Dreadstar † 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Fang Aili talk 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Great! What's next? – Dreadstar † 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy exercise

CAT:CSD Assume that the title of the page is everything following User:EWS23/CSD/. You are allowed to use any technique that you might usually use to assert notability (e.g.- Google), but you are not allowed to use Wikipedia in any way (you cannot see if the page still exists on Wikipedia, and any Google searches you do should use "Subject -Wikipedia" which is a good tool anyway to help eliminate Wikipedia mirrors).

Write whether you would delete the page or not. If you would, cite the specific criteria at WP:CSD that you would use to delete it. If you would not delete it, state why, and state what you would do to the page (simply remove the tag, redirect it somewhere else, keep it but remove certain information from it, etc.).

  • Union Millwright Speedy Delete. Google search shows it's misspelled. Should be: Union Millwright. Extra "L". No content or context in article, just list of external links. Google search shows that Millwrights are definitely notable, lots of reliable sources. Since this is an article about Millwright unions, I'd probably either find or create an article on Millwrights and add these links to it. Perhaps write some content. I did a search on Wikipedia and found Millwright, so I'd add it there as either 'further reading' or to reference any statements about these unions. – Dreadstar † 17:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
An article that only consists of external links or templates can be speedied without question (A3 - empty). Of course, you are welcome to do research and expand the article if you like! --Fang Aili talk 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Webs Redirect to Web. Content fails notability, no sources, and is pov; but my first thought was Spiderman's nickname, and just the general world wide web 'webs'. No delete, just remove that content and find "webs" or "web" content to dab to. Did a 'pedia search, found Web, I'd redirect there. – Dreadstar † 17:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neil Haverton Smith Speedy Delete and remove contents until then, total violation of WP:BLP, looks like pure vandalism. Check history to find out who created the article and make sure they haven't vandalized anything else. Google search does not provide any sources for the subject, non-notable. – Dreadstar † 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fall Out Boy Speedy Keep Google search gives many reliable source hits, very notable group mentioned in everything from MTV.com to Top40.about.com, AOL music. It's a definite keeper. Never should have been tagged for WP:CSD. – Dreadstar † 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nathaniel Bar-Jonah Speedy Keep On first glance, it appears to be nonsense. But, unfortunately, a google search verifies that this is a notable child killer. This actually brought tears to my eyes to read what the killer did - but it's article material. Rewrite and source. There's lots out there...I don't think I could stomach researching it further myself. Should not have been WP:CSD'd in the first place. – Dreadstar † 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's where we differ the most. If you had the stomach to do a bit of research and rewrite immediately, then that would be the thing to do. I would probably also delete this initial edit so it's not in the history. I can't put my finger on exactly what policy or guideline that would fall under (maybe just nonsense?), but the flippant tone really turns me off. I would delete it as a WP:IAR situation and rewrite if I had the energy. Or just delete and leave it for an encyclopedic writer to write at some point. --Fang Aili talk 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I would have deleted what was there, and put in a very short stub and a reference. Shoulda said that. What was written there was totally inappropriate, if the victim's families had read that...it would have been terrible. I'm not even sure if the content that's in the example should remain...it should should be purged from Wikipedia too. Too flippant about a horrible, horrible crime. Yes, speedy delete the content, but keep the article and rewrite. I would have removed the flippant content immediately upon reading it..and if I could have purged it completely from the database, I would definitely have done so. Without even having to ask. So we're actually in agreement there...I just didn't know we could purge like that. – Dreadstar † 18:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. here I should clarify. When I said that I would delete it "so it's not in the history", I mean the history that a non-admin can see. Admins would still be able to see the deleted edits. There is a different kind of deletion called oversight, which is used only in extreme circumstances. There are only a few users with oversight ability, most of them ArbCom members. --Fang Aili talk 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, that's what I was thinking you meant. And that's one reason I wouldn't have just deleted it, someone might have come along and recreated it with similar flippant content. So I would have addressed the basics of the thing. When I said I didn't have the stomach to research and rewrite, I meant to do a full and complete article. My five minute google search provided me with plenty enough to write a short stub blurb with a reference or two, overwriting and deleting the inapprpriate content. I should have been clearer with my response. But yeah, we're basically on the same page with that horrible flip commentary. – Dreadstar †

[edit] Coach's responses

I thought it would be interesting for me to take the quiz too. I've read a few of your answers, but hopefully I'm not too "contaminated" with your ideas.

Delete. Not much here, A1/A3 deletion, not notable enough for its own article. No sources. Might redirect to Halo 3, but it's misspelled.
Delete as empty. (A3)
Delete as nonsense (G1), redirect to Web.
A7 delete. Non-notable person. Possible attack (G10). If this was a real speedy I would Google him first just to make sure.
Keep. Appears to be signed by two notable labels, have put out various notable albums, charted, nominated for Grammys.
Delete as nonsense/attack (G1/G10). Even if this person exists, this nonsense about him should not be on-wiki.

--Fang Aili talk 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I grade you?  ;) – Dreadstar † 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe.. go ahead! Looks like our responses are pretty similar, or at least lead to the same result. Sometimes speedies are a judgement call. Some admins lead one way, some another (hence "deletionists", "inclusionists", etc etc).
Also, speedy criteria are generally referred to as "G1", "G2", etc (for General #1, General #2), so if you see "A7", it means "Articles #7", which is no assertion of notability. --Fang Aili talk 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, those are exactly what I was looking at, A3, G1, G10, I'll add those next time. The only difference I see is the last one...definite article material, no speedy..what part about Nathaniel Bar-Jonah, did you think was nonsense? I figured the bar-b-que burgers made from the flesh of his victims...but it's not nonsense...well sourced that the monster actually did that....– Dreadstar † 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It was the "best they have had" line that raise the red flag for me. Maybe I'm using "nonsense" liberally, but it just screamed of pranks, BLP violations, and attacks. --Fang Aili talk 18:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, me too. That line would have been gone immediately. I'm thinking it should be removed from the example too. I was just going to retract my question above, I missed your other response. We're in full agreement about speedy deleting that inappropriate content. – Dreadstar † 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And hey, I just realized that I was answering from an 'opinion' viewpoint and not as the deciding Admin. I would do as my votes indicate, only I'd rewrite/purge the last flippant inappropriate Bar-Jonah comment; and I would have merged the Millwright content and deleted the misspelled article. – Dreadstar † 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing about speedying--especially if you do a lot of speedies, you will start getting messages like, "Why did you delete my article???? I worked all day on that!" (unsigned) How would you respond? --Fang Aili talk 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen the ones on your page, and those of other admins. I'd do the same as you do, patiently and civilly explain why they were deleted and what to do if they want to create a proper Wikipedia article. It would be similar to the messages and information I provide to some vandals and editors who aren't quite doing it the right way...like here: User_talk:Classicalloy#Psychic. Patience is a virtue when it comes to dealing with some things Wikipedia...speedy on others...;) – Dreadstar † 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. :)
Have you done much tagging of speedies? I can't recall if I've asked you this before. --Fang Aili talk 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've only done a few, and most of those were subpages or sandboxes. Mostly when I find articles that have either been tagged, or at first glance look like they need to be tagged, it ends out that most of them have been subjects that can be made into an article. I'll come across a speedy tagged one, research it on google, then add sufficient references and content to it, then post a 'hangon' tag. I would not act too quickly when looking at a potential speedy. I had one guy tag a new article of mine within the very same minute that I created it! Now I'm sure to have a more complete initial article when creating, including references and links, before I even think about hitting the 'save page' button. Saves effort that way..;) – Dreadstar † 03:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)