Obedium

Welcome to Obedium. Please note, to avoid continuing concerns over “sockpuppets,” we are working to consolidate all inputs into a single domain.

At Obedium, we are here to defend the bedrock principles on which Wikipedia was founded. For, example, some editors believe only “experts” can contribute to Wikipedia. Although at Obedium we are educated in the physical sciences to beyond the post-doctoral level, we don’t believe you need a Ph.D. degree to contribute. We say let the “experts” take a job at Encyclopedia Britannica. We seek to hold true to those precious words: “The encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit.”

Here at Obedium, we have been the victims of abuse by out of control administrators. That is why we are always here, 24/7, working to ensure that Wikipedia remains open and fair. We understand Wikipedia articles are not meant to be static museum pieces guarded by a few empire-building administrators. We know the purpose of that [Edit] link on each and every article, and are striving to keep the true spirit of Wikipedia alive!

We have noted a recent decrease in civility and increase in ad hominen attacks between editors. We do not engage in these negative attacks. It is instead our policy to stay above the fray, and focus on those positive contributions we can make each and every day.

As part of our ongoing “Commitment to Quality,” Obedium will continue to use only the highest quality references in our contributions. You can rest assured we will never reference our own blogs or web pages.

Please stay tuned for future updates, and thank you for visiting Obedium.

Hey Doc! What the !@#$%&% are you doing!? You stirred up some kind of hornets nest...I have my own hookup now-visit Slamxx. Stay out of trouble. Check out the Nanotech. page when you can. Take care--Slamxx/Scibaby. Slamxx (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello SB. I went to your page and there is nothing there. I'm not sure why everyone has their panties in such a bunch, but sometimes we have to make these sacrifices for the sake of science. E-mail me your new address so we can converse like normal human beings. Obedium (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is not the royal "We", please see WP:USERNAME#Sharing_accounts. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Your latest edit to global warming, changing a sentence in the article to a flat-out lie under a misleading edit summary "improving phrasing" can only be considered vandalism. I have blocked you. Furthermore, since I see you have a propensity to remove the numerous warnings you have recieved here, let me warn you ahead of time - any attempt to remove this message will result in further blocks. Raul654 07:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

Unfortunately, Raul654 had a "Request for Comment" filed against him for that one. It is important to step back and recall that Wikipedia oath we all subscribe to: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." We can only hope this serves as reminder to all administrators. Obedium (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Obedium (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This computer has many users. Scibaby was blocked when on this computer, and has a different account now. This block is unjustified.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but the reason why I am upholding this block is because, as you or your group has stated above, this is a shared account which is not allowed under our username policy. The block stands. —  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  07:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm confused, they were editing under your account? SQL^{Query me!} 07:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, the problem is that Raul654 is in an edit war with this user, and blocked him inappropriately. The indefinite block is only an extension of that. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that yet, just curious, from the unblock statement... "Scibaby was blocked when on this computer, and has a different account now. This block is unjustified."... Is this a shared account, or no? Compromised? If so, what has been done to prevent future compromises? SQL^{Query me!} 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe, as stated by the user above, that this is a shared account, and that, according to the username policy is not allowed.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  07:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with block / decline unblock, on the grounds that this is likely a shared / compromised account. SQL^{Query me!} 07:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Obedium (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is only one user contributing to Wikipedia from this computer at this time. No account is compromised, and this is not a shared account. Since Wikipedia is not sophisticated enough to understand multiple users may be on the same computer, I have limited contributions/edits on this IP to just me, Obedium. Block is unjustified. Please unblock

Decline reason:

You've already clearly stated several times that this account is being used by multiple users, so there's no real point in claiming now that it isn't. The block should stand. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)