User blog:ArtismScrub/Should this be allowed?

So, a couple hours ago, you may have noticed Edwin Shade spamming creation of articles for numbers between 701 and 729. Most of them have no content other than "x is the natural number following x-1 and preceding x+1", the "Numbers 700-799" template, an image with the number on it ('cause, you know, that's Edwin), and the stub template.

Now, looking through the written rules, this doesn't seem to be violating anything. None of the information given is wrong, the stub template was used as necessary, and, honestly, for information that basic, should a source really be needed?

And when there is notable information, I took the time to source it accordingly, as well as add whatever categories were necessary. (unlike Edwin, who just created the articles non-stop)

And even then, Rule 1.2 clearly states:

If a rule prevents you from maintaining or improving Googology Wiki, ignore it.

Anyway, since the person adding all these was Edwin Shade, a long-time contributor to the wiki, I thought "alright, maybe this is okay", especially because it's just filling in the templates.

I even added articles for 201, 202 and 203 just because. (complete with images that I picked out myself from Google Images).

However, this raises some questions, like... could the stub template just be an excuse for rapid creation of pages with virtually meaningless numbers?

Anyone can mash their keypad to get a random number and make a stub article out of it, and it's not much more effort to plug that mess into an online divisor calculator (like this one ) to get categories.

On the other hand, these numbers were part of a template... but so what? Templates are easy to make, too! And most of these aren't even numbers with specific names! At least you could argue that the 8000 numbers in Template:Denis Maksudov's generator of googologisms are worth adding because they've all been claimed. But why these?

Plus, Edwin's been kind of losing his mental stability lately, so this may not have been in good intent to begin with... was it?

I'm rambling, aren't I? Anyway, I've given you the full context on what just happened and then some. Try to come to an agreement on this. I'm gonna go sleep now.

...

Oh yeah, side note, the article for 729 isn't allowing me to edit it, for whatever reason. The page "softlocks" whenever I try to create a references list, and when I click "Publish" it doesn't function anyway. This only happens with 729 right now and I don't know why. It's not the first time I've encountered this issue here, either.

See 728 for what I'm trying to add.