If these have been coined elsewhere then let me know and I will credit them. For whatever reason I keep thinking of these as I edit wikipedia:
WikiPedia content is primarily provided by new editors and, if they are lucky, improved by others rather than challenged and deleted under a bunch of WikiLawyering. That said there is still way too much stuff slipping through the cracks.
Calling a person non-notable is really rude. If it must be done (usually at AfD) then the nominator should at least do some freaking research as to why. Being unable to find notability is different...
Waiting for administrators to get around to stuff is like waiting for paint to dry: sure it happens sooner or later but you can't enjoy the results until it's done. This makes hedonistic edits less likely, so perhaps there are too many fully protected pages and/or templates.
WP:UNDO should very rarely be used for good faith edits and never if any part of the edits are kept.
By calling a vote "!vote" you are acknowledging that it is indeed just a qualified vote.
If an editor appears to be applying at RfA out of frustration (perhaps intending to make a WP:POINT somehow) they are probably misunderstanding the position and should reapply in a couple months. WP:DGAF is my number one qualification.
Deletionism hurts WikiPedia. Inclusionism hurts WikiPedia. If you see a delete vote, actually try to find a reason to keep, or vice versa. Don't just read the other group of votes and run with the pack.
WP:AFD is sadly being used for cleanup and I don't think enough people care.
Related WP:ATA is too exhaustive, which is probably why many of us ignore it. Heck, I've cited it directly before in a vote.
Future RrC: WP:CSD#A7 is redundant and could be scrapped in favor of a general notability guideline.
Future RfC: If an AfD nomination consists only of unqualified arguments to avoid it should be closed as speedy keep immediately.