It's a dull evening and very little to liven it up and the wine cellar is empty. And I notice that Wikipedia has no entry on the 'Eternity of the World' which is a fascinating subject and deserves encyclopedic treatment.

The question is: how quickly can one get banned for writing an article about it?

I appreciate I have done this sort of thing before but, as I have always said (1) it really does improve the coverage of the encyclopedia (2) it proves to the more naive readers fresh from Planet Wiki that improving content is not the objective of the project.

How long can this article be developed before the editor gets banned?

Step 1: establish that many articles potentially link to the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatL...ty_of_the_World

It usually takes them what, about 45 minutes in a situation like this?

I suppose one could say that technically, you're not stating the complete proposition - it's actually "how quickly can I get banned for writing an article about it and then announcing that it's me writing it." That's not to say you should skip the announcement altogether, though.

Well I've been criticised before for announcing it in some way, but I will try and be a little more subtle this time.

Interesting what you learn about Wikipedia in writing such articles: there is nothing on the 'traversal of the infinite'. See the red link in the index below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_phil..._articles_(R-Z)

Quite incredibly, some administrator called Skomorokh has deliberately interfered with the article in order, he claims, to prevent its execution under some rule called G5

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=339695465



Ban him as well!

Nah, he was playing nice, even though I doubt he has a cheek big enough for that amount of tongue.

For a month-old editor Special:Contributions/Rupert_of_the_New_Age knows a lot about you and Greg.

Looks like they could have nailed him on WP:ORDINALS. How can someone be "enemy number 1" if they're second to me?!

Obviously a strawman account--actually, I see it's been banned too.

As someone who truly and passionately believes in Wikipedia, it's unbelievably sad to watch someone get banned while writing a good article about medieval philosophy, just because they got into an argument with some other editor years ago. No matter how many times it happens, it's just as sad--partly because of the work that is lost, and partly because of the tremendous flaw it exposes in the wiki-culture.

Then the demonstration has served its purpose. I have been criticised by members of Wikipedia Review for doing this, on the grounds that everyone, i.e. everyone on Wikipedia Review, knows that Wikipedia does not care about content. Correct, but most people on Wikipedia do not know this. The note on ANI brought many Wikipedians here to read this thread. Now it becomes obvious to them that 'disruptive behaviour' includes writing articles that belong in a comprehensive reference work. From the notes on the talk page to the article I can see that a number of others on that planet are beginning to wonder what is up.

[edit] Another Damian block by PeterSymonds includes Edward Ockham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Edward_Ockham who did much to clean up the article on Bertrand Russell's best-known work http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history, as well as useful information on Russell's dispute with Albert Barnes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history.

Stop the presses. They have deleted all trace of the article. And here, someone called 'Fram' is removing the links to that article from other places e.g. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340397140
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340397072

Fram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fram is a self-described 'Belgian comic addict'.

And so Wikipedia has no article at all on a famous dispute of the thirteenth century which had important repercussions in the history of philosophy and science. I have translated works by Bonaventura on related subjects, see here for example http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonavent...tion-III-A1.htm.

It is absolutely incredible. I didn't believe they would actually delete it. This will surely have repercussions

Whatever about the Wikipedia shenanigans, that's a superb piece of work you have done on the Bonaventura translation. Wow!

Thank you Alison. It was some of my earlier work so don't look too closely.

I'm still surprised, nonetheless, that someone actually deleted the article. That has never happened before. Although Lar has now saved it.



I suppose nothing about Wikipedia should surprise me any more.

There is also the question of all the links to the article that our friend Fram removed. E.g. this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340496980

I put it back. What a waste of time. Fram went around and reverted everything this EwabiP did and then I went around and reverted Fram (fixing the article title reference where I remembered as the article got moved).

Silly.

Well, that's what Fram does, always. No reason to be surprised.

So probably a good person to include in the email for the next time round? Many socks, and one close-to-featured article. Now that would be hilarious.

My favorite Fram-job was this edit of his:





He's like the perfect Wikipediot.

Yet, ArbCom sought to ban me, and Fram just continues prancing about, degrading quality everywhere.

PeterSymonds is a fat cretin. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

Really, Petey, that Symonds kid doesn't belong in the same city as you do!



Yes, the most annoying Belgian this side of TinTin.



Oh, Snuffleupagus? He lurks around WR, too. Not one of the brighter crayons in the box, is he?

Oh for pity's sake, he was editing it so that the "delete it because because because" crowd wouldn't be able to. Didn't work but it was a valiant try.

Correct.