text:
User talk:Eml5526.s11.team4.yang

 Hello Eml5526.s11.team4.yang, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eml5526.s11.team4.yang


text:
User talk:Egm6341.s11.team3.JA

 Hello Egm6341.s11.team3.JA, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twiter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Egm6341.s11.team3.JA


text:
Transplantation/Solid Organ

Lung transplantation

 * HLA mismatches influence lung transplant recipient survival, bronchiolitis obliterans and rejection: Implications for donor lung allocation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010 Dec 7.
 * Synergistic effect of antibodies to human leukocyte antigens and defensins in pathogenesis of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome after human lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010 Dec;29(12):1330-6
 * Development of antibodies to human leukocyte antigen precedes development of antibodies to major histocompatibility class I-related chain A and are significantly associated with development of chronic rejection after human lung transplantation. Hum Immunol. 2010 Jun;71(6):560-5. Epub 2010 Mar 16.
 * Does Human Leukocyte Antigen Matching Influence the Outcome of Lung Transplantation? An Analysis of 3,549 Lung Transplantations. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2000 May;19(5):473-9.
 * Predictors of lung transplant survival in eurotransplant. Am J Transplant. 2003 Nov;3(11):1400-6.

title: Transplantation/Solid Organ


title: File:Nm1.s11.mtg11.djvu


text:
Paideia High School/Charles Lamb

My First Play

At the north end of Cross-court there yet stands a portal, of some architectural pretensions, though reduced to humble use, serving at present for an entrance to a printing-office. This old door-way, if you are young, reader, you may not know was the identical pit entrance to old Drury—Garrick's Drury—all of it that is left. I never pass it without shaking some forty years from off my shoulders, recurring to the evening when I passed through it to see my first play. The afternoon had been wet, and the condition of our going (the elder folks and myself) was, that the rain should cease. With what a beating heart did I watch from the window the puddles, from the stillness of which I was taught to prognosticate the desired cessation! I seem to remember the last spurt, and the glee with which I ran to announce it.

We went with orders, which my godfather F. had sent us. He kept the oil shop (now Davies's) at the corner of Featherstone-building, in Holborn. F. was a tall grave person, lofty in speech, and had pretensions above his rank. He associated in those days with John Palmer, the comedian, whose gait and bearing he seemed to copy; if John (which is quite as likely) did not rather borrow somewhat of his manner from my godfather. He was also known to, and visited by, Sheridan. It was to his house in Holborn that young Brinsley brought his first wife on her elopement with him from a boarding-school at Bath—the beautiful Maria Linley. My parents were present (over a ) when he arrived in the evening with his harmonious charge. From either of these connexions it may be inferred that my godfather could command an order for the then Drury-lane theatre at pleasure—and, indeed, a pretty liberal issue of those cheap billets, in Brinsley's easy autograph, I have heard him say was the sole remuneration which he had received for many years' nightly illumination of the orchestra and various avenues of that theatre—and he was content it should be so. The honour of Sheridan's familiarity—or supposed familiarity—was better to my godfather than money.

F. was the most gentlemanly of oilmen; grandiloquent, yet courteous. His delivery of the commonest matters of fact was Ciceronian. He had two Latin words almost constantly in his mouth (how odd sounds Latin from an oilman's lips!), which my better knowledge since has enabled me to correct. In strict pronunciation they should have been sounded vice versa—but in those young years they impressed me with more awe than they would now do, read aright from Seneca or Varro—in his own peculiar pronunciation, monosyllabically elaborated, or Anglicized, into something like verse verse. By an imposing manner, and the help of these distorted syllables, he climbed (but that was little) to the highest parochial honours which St. Andrew's has to bestow.

He is dead—and thus much I thought due to his memory, both for my first orders (little wondrous talismans!—slight keys, and insignificant to outward sight, but opening to me more than Arabian paradises!) and moreover, that by his testamentary beneficence I came into possession of the only landed property which I could ever call my own—situate near the roadway village of pleasant Puckeridge, in Hertfordshire. When I journeyed down to take possession, and planted foot on my own ground, the stately habits of the donor descended upon me, and I strode (shall I confess the vanity?) with larger paces over my allotment of three quarters of an acre, with its commodious mansion in the midst, with the feeling of an English freeholder that all betwixt sky and centre was my own. The estate has passed into more prudent hands, and nothing but an agrarian can restore it.

In those days were pit orders. Beshrew the uncomfortable manager who abolished them!—with one of these we went. I remember the waiting at the door—not that which is left—but between that and an inner door in shelter—O when shall I be such an expectant again!—with the cry of nonpareils, an indispensable play-house accompaniment in those days. As near as I can recollect, the fashionable pronunciation of the theatrical fruiteresses then was, "Chase some oranges, chase some numparels, chase a bill of the play;"—chase pro chuse. But when we got in, and I beheld the green curtain that veiled a heaven to my imagination, which was soon to be disclosed—the breathless anticipations I endured! I had seen something like it in the plate prefixed to Troilus and Cressida, in Rowe's Shakspeare—the tent scene with Diomede—and a sight of that plate can always bring back in a measure the feeling of that evening. The boxes at that time, full of well-dressed women of quality, projected over the pit; and the pilasters reaching down were adorned with a glistering substance (I know not what) under glass (as it seemed), resembling—a homely fancy—but I judged it to be sugar-candy—yet, to my raised imagination, divested of its homelier qualities, it appeared a glorified candy! The orchestra lights at length arose, those "fair Auroras!" Once the bell sounded. It was to ring out yet once again—and, incapable of the anticipation, I reposed my shut eyes in a sort of resignation upon the maternal lap. It rang the second time. The curtain drew up—I was not past six years old, and the play was Artaxerxes!

I had dabbled a little in the Universal History—the ancient part of it—and here was the court of Persia. It was being admitted to a sight of the past. I took no proper interest in the action going on, for I understood not its import—but I heard the word Darius, and I was in the midst of Daniel. All feeling was absorbed in vision. Gorgeous vests, gardens, palaces, princesses, passed before me. I knew not players. I was in Persepolis for the time; and the burning idol of their devotion almost converted me into a worshipper. I was awe-struck, and believed those significations to be something more than elemental fires. It was all enchantment and a dream. No such pleasure has since visited me but in dreams. Harlequin's Invasion followed; where, I remember, the transformation of the magistrates into reverend beldams seemed to me a piece of grave historic justice, and the tailor carrying his own head to be as sober a verity as the legend of St. Denys.

The next play to which I was taken was the Lady of the Manor, of which, with the exception of some scenery, very faint traces are left in my memory. It was followed by a pantomime, called "Lun's Ghost"—a satiric touch, I apprehend, upon Rich, not long since dead—but to my apprehension (too sincere for satire), Lun was as remote a piece of antiquity as Lud—the father, of a line of Harlequins—transmitting his dagger of lath (the wooden sceptre) through countless ages. I saw the primeval Motley come from his silent tomb in a ghastly vest of white patch-work, like the apparition of a dead rainbow. So Harlequins (thought I) look when they are dead.

My third play followed in quick succession. It was the Way of the World. I think I must have sat at it as grave as a judge; for, I remember, the hysteric affectations of good Lady Wishfort affected me like some solemn tragic passion. Robinson Crusoe followed; in which Crusoe, man Friday, and the parrot, were as good and authentic as in the story. The clownery and pantaloonery of these pantomimes have clean passed out of my head. I believe, I no more laughed at them, than at the same age I should have been disposed to laugh at the grotesque Gothic heads (seeming to me then replete with devout meaning) that gape, and grin, in stone around the inside of the old Round Church (my church) of the Templars.

I saw these plays in the season 1781-2, when I was from six to seven years old. After the intervention of six or seven other years (for at school all play-going was inhibited) I again entered the doors of a theatre. That old Artaxerxes evening had never done ringing in my fancy. I expected the same feelings to come again with the same occasion. But we differ from ourselves less at sixty and sixteen, than the latter does from six. In that interval what had I not lost! At the first period I knew nothing, understood nothing, discriminated nothing. I felt all, loved all, wondered all—

Was nourished, I could not tell how—

I had left the temple a devotee, and was returned a rationalist. The same things were there materially; but the emblem, the reference, was gone! The green curtain was no longer a veil, drawn between two worlds, the unfolding of which was to bring back past ages, to present "a royal ghost,"—but a certain quantity of green baize, which was to separate the audience for a given time from certain of their fellow-men who were to come forward and pretend those parts. The lights—the orchestra lights—came up a clumsy machinery. The first ring, and the second ring, was now but a trick of the prompter's bell-which had been, like the note of the cuckoo, a phantom of a voice, no hand seen or guessed at which ministered to its warning. The actors were men and women painted. I thought the fault was in them; but it was in myself, and the alteration which those many centuries—of six short twelvemonths—had wrought in me. Perhaps it was fortunate for me that the play of the evening was but an indifferent comedy, as it gave me time to crop some unreasonable expectations, which might have interfered with the genuine emotions with which I was soon after enabled to enter upon the first appearance to me of Mrs. Siddons in Isabella. Comparison and retrospection soon yielded to the present attraction of the scene; and the theatre became to me, upon a new stock, the most delightful of recreations.

title: Paideia High School/Charles Lamb


title: File:Fe1.s11.mtg11.djvu


text:
User:EML5526.S11.t1.ab

Hello everyone...

title: User:EML5526.S11.t1.ab


text: File:Eml5526.s11.team4.ccook.hw1.problem1.fig2.png


text:
Wikiversity:Community Review/SB Johnny

No consensus that SB_Johnny should not have Custodian and Bureaucrat tools or that Ottava Rima's interpretation of policy is correct. Close by Darklama note added by Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC) -

Note, this was originally in the Candidates for Custodianship as the rules in policy for desysopping is to put the user up for a community vote to determine consensus for adminship, the very act that candidates without Custodianship go through. This was added here even though multiple people pointed out that Community Review is nothing more but just another talk page and that elections are all on one page. Doesn't matter, as this is magically listed in both. The internet is a magical place. This process will still close on February 1st per policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a recall/confirmation hearing for Custodian and Bureaucrat SB Johnny.

The Custodianship has the procedure for this confirmation: "Custodians can lose their status for egregious violations of policies. Loss of custodianship involves a process that establishes community consensus. If a specific complaint is not resolved at Wikiversity:Custodian feedback then a new seven day community discussion can be initiated to establish if there is community consensus in support for the custodianship of the custodian who is the subject of the unresolved complaint."

Per a complaint of SB Johnny ignoring consensus regarding the giving Custodianship of Abd as found here, he was asked to immediately withdraw his action and apologize to the community. A complaint was filed per the policy measures for dealing with Custodian abuse. He has refused to address this concerns, and instead pursued a pattern of off-line harassment and inappropriate on Wikiversity blocks.

This recall/confirmation is officially opened. In seven days from 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC), this hearing will be closed and if SB Johnny does not meet the standard support consensus to make adminship (over 66%) and bureaucratship (over 80%), then he will be stripped of both via Stewards at meta.

Any attempt to derail this discussion, delete this discussion, close this discussion, or to do anything that would go against Consensus will be met with blocks as assured by multiple admin who will be watching these proceedings. SB Johnny's inappropriate blocks before and his used of others to meatpuppet and join in his harassment of Wikiversity members makes these measures of the utmost importance.

Recall justifications
1. Countless incivility and abuse: SB Johnny has participated in a 3 year long campaign of attacks, harassment, and nastiness on Wikiversity, on IRC, on Wikipedia Review, through email, and over the phone. He has contacted multiple users in real life without explicit permission, he has outed them and used their real life information without permission on Wikiversity, IRC, and Wikipedia Review, and has threatened to contact multiple user's real life associates and friends with the sole intent to harass. One such incident happened on Mon 19th July 2010, 5:12pm on Wikipedia Review, where he threatened to contact a user's professor, their priest, and other inappropriate measures for the sole purpose to create a poisonous atmosphere. --Ottava Rima
 * This is a rather wild interpretation of history, but I think it's important to give a bit of explanation for that last point. The person who's "support system" I was considering contacting was Ottava Rima's, who seemed at the time to be having some sort of emotional or psychological breakdown. He claims to have "reported me to the FBI" for being a pedophile (which I'm not, and which as the father of a young child I have a hard time laughing off), when he had absolutely no reason to think that. I know he also repeated this allegation to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Just putting this out there for perspective on just how disturbed this person is and why anything he says should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally attacking me and making up claims about an imaginary "breakdown" to defend you outright lies and harassment is not acceptable. You are creating a fantasy of others that Abd was exhibiting, and the fact that you two were constantly reinforcing each other, backing up each other statements, and the such is verification that you share the same problem that needs to be dealt with through removal. It is even worse that you stooped to such measures to try and defend your wacko claim that it is alright for naked pictures of children to be tossed around the internet. Such people are not tolerated in academic communities or around children for a reason. You would fail any background check that interviewed people asking if you ever promoted strange ideas that would endanger children. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll link to the threads if anyone wants to see what he's mischaracterizing here.
 * So Ottava: can you explain how of trying to keep a man from going to girl scout trips with his daughter in order to win some strange battle on a web forum is a sane thing to do? Not that you succeeded in doing so, but judging from what you just said it seems like that was your intent. --SB_Johnny talk 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you think outing me on this website with names of people that I deal with real life that you threatened to harass is some how acceptable conduct in our policies? The only one mischaracterizing here is you and you are using outing as a way to try and hide your inappropriate abuse. If you did this on Wikipedia you would be banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Everybody on WR knows exactly who you are, Mr. Rima. Also, any custodian can easily confirm that I have tried to protect your privacy here on WV. --SB_Johnny talk 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ludicrous to imagine that anyone who wishes to exercise substantial political power over others can do so incognito on one of the most heavily trafficked web sites on the Internet. With authority and responsibility goes accountability.  If one is exercising authority over real people, with real academic credentials, on a publicly funded educational site, one would have to be crazy to believe they could do so anonymously or pseudonymously without being held accountable or jeopardizing their reputation elsewhere. —Moulton 10:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "You didn't answer my question. Everybody on WR knows exactly who you are, Mr. Rima." Yes, everyone knows who I am, which makes your harassment while hiding behind a fake name even worse. You use knowledge of my real life identity to wage a campaign of what can only be described as stalking and harassing to defend your atrocious behavior at Wikiversity. That is not appropriate for a Custodian. Claiming you try to protect me is only further harassment, as a rapist claiming they love their victim is something that causes more damage, not less. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So now you're comparing me to a rapist? Hyperbole gets old quick, for normal people. --SB_Johnny talk 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stalking and harassment have the same psychological damage as found in rape. They seek to destroy an individual's privacy and undermine the victim's ability to trust others. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * With the above in mind, I'd also like to point out that Ottava has been making a lot of rather bizarre and nasty comments about me in various places. After seeing just how far out there he really is, I've generally avoided responding to him. However, my lack of response should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt... it's just me ignoring the guy rather than making a full time job out of responding to him. --SB_Johnny talk 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "lot of rather bizarre and nasty comments" - only you feel that is so. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. --SB_Johnny talk 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See m:Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. No, SBJ is not the only one who feels that way. As to recent stuff, see the section on recent activity at the end. Given what I've seen Ottava banned for before, I see about ninety percent he is blocked on meta within a few days. My crystal ball is broken, though. --Abd 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Abuse of consensus: SB Johnny has demonstrated over 3 years that he does not care about community consensus. He lied on Meta to claim that JWSchmidt was rightfully removed in order to game Stewards into desysopping him without any community discussion. He had a friend of his, Mu301, grant him Custodian and Bureaucrat rights after he broke his agreement with Jimbo Wales as part of the regaining of them (and thus, did not fulfill his end of the agreement) and ignored community opposition to him having such rights. He ignored community opposition to Abd having Custodianship rights. He ignored policy and procedure while also encouraging canvassing and meat puppetry to remove the rights of another, and blatantly canvassed through email and Wikipedia Review while lying to the people emailed to cause attempts to address major policy issues to fail. --Ottava Rima
 * I was not particularly comfortable giving Abd the buttons, and am not particularly comfortable with him having them now (see yesterday's dramas for details). However, policy is pretty straightforward: if someone has a willing and qualified mentor, the probationary custodianship starts. --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This suggests otherwise and is a major reason why you cannot be trusted with the power of Bureaucratship. Your statements on WR, the mocking, the incivility, and the rest verifies that your above statements are misleading and are an attempt to hide from what you see is clear opposition to you. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How does that suggest otherwise? --SB_Johnny talk 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It shows you ignoring community consensus, consensus which is necessary for all things. You then tried to disrupt the policy change to ensure that consensus was followed, and you encouraged Abd in the disruption while making repeated incivil comments about it on Wikipedia Review in hopes to drum up support. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was trying to give you a target for venting on WR, rather than going ballistic here. Didn't work. --SB_Johnny talk 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I was trying to give you a target" - translation: "I abused my ops so that people have something to be upset over". That is ridiculous and such inappropriate views is exactly why you can't be trusted. You treat this like a game in which you win by causing as much disruption and pain as possible. You honestly should be banned for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad translation. --SB_Johnny talk 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No example of abuse of ops has been shown. This is all personal attack, presuming bad faith, with too many blatantly false statements by Ottava to answer. If any other established Wikiversity user is concerned about any of those charges, please set them forth in a separate section and I'm sure that they can be answered. --Abd 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

3. Abuse of block button: Almost every single one of SB Johnny's blocks were done in disputes he was involved in, against users that he harassed on Wikiversity and off Wikiversity, and without any discussion or justification. -- Ottava Rima
 * I definitely should not have made a block I made in 2008, but I reversed it as soon as it was clear that it was not supported (which, tbh, was a surprise to me). Assuming the "other blocks" are those imposed on Ottava, it's quite untrue that he wasn't warned, and also not true that it was for something involving me (if I had blocked for attacks directed at me personally, there would have been a heck of a lot more of them). --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even Guido said that your recent block of me was highly uncalled for and would result in ramifications for that action. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Even Guido"? That's hilarious! Was SBJ the ideal custodian to block Ottava? No. Was it necessary? That's another question. I've proposed Recusal and SBJ adequately followed it with respect to his recent block of Ottava. (As did I, by the way, in fact, I went beyond what it requires.) Ottava opposed that proposed policy when he was a sysop, and frequently violated it. So it's ironic that he now raises this as a problem. --Abd 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

4. Lack of positive contribution to Wikiversity: SB Johnny has participated solely in drama encouraging events. He knowingly encouraged sock puppets of users from Wikipedia to come to Wikiversity to harass multiple users. He waged war against Jimbo Wales without justification and bullied anyone who pointed out the problems with his behavior. He encouraged disruption by user Abd and others, and has failed to work on anything that would make Wikiversity a safe academic environment. -- Ottava Rima
 * On the contrary, I've been trying to nudge the drama levels down (which is not easy to do). --SB_Johnny talk 01:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your posts on Wikipedia Review, your countless taunting, abuse of ops, encouraging Abd's disruption, waging war against the WMF Founder, waging war against Wikiversity's Founder, and the rest suggests that you have been the primary source of drama, not the opposition to it. You were desysopped once for clear abuse for a reason and as JWS pointed out that if we knew that anyone would have tried to allow you to come back the community would have acted to ensure that there would be no way for you to wiggle back to power. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * False on all counts, more or less. And if you can't "take it" on WR, you should stop dishing it out ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 03:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you say it is false but if it was true it is my fault? You own argument undermines itself and is an admittance that you have a major behavioral problem and cannot be trusted to have any position of power here. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. The only thing "taunting" you on WR has to do with WV is that I hope you'll direct your energies there (where many find your antics amusing), rather than here (where your antics are causing rather serious issues). --SB_Johnny talk 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, your claims and justifications are completely ludicrous and you will not be someone who can contribute to this community appropriately until you realize why. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad conclusions. --SB_Johnny talk 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of contributions (if true, it's irrelevant) is not a violation of policy, at all. Much less an "egregious violation" as policy requires for removal of ops. Ottava has filed his four recent Community Reviews in ways that imply that supermajority support for "confirmation" is required -- that's why he's presented it that way --, when the reverse would be closer to the truth. In fact, it's a 'crat decision, by policy, and the discussion is advisory (both as to conclusion and as to community consensus). --Abd 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sysop actions
SBJ had previously blocked Ottava Rima, see block log, for incivility, as had myself (when he was my mentor!), Darklama, and Adambro. SBJ's block, for two days, was not increased from the prior block by Adambro, which was amply justified. Adambro's block was lifted because of apparent recusal failure; that was an error, a block should never be lifted because of recusal failure, but only because of being not needed. Subsequent events proved that the block was, indeed, needed, that warnings were inadequate. So when disruption escalated, and after warning and consultation with the community -- which mostly ignored it -- I blocked for one year, making it clear that this was really "indef," and the longest period I'd think appropriate. A longer block can always be shortened, after concerns are addressed; a short block may simply be ignored, requiring, then, a reblock if the matter continues, with ready claims of "bias." I knew exactly what I was doing.

SBJ, in spite of being very, very aware of the disruption being caused by Ottava, unblocked, without taking any steps to address the concerns behind the block. There was no sign that SBJ reviewed the evidence. He simply considered it inappropriate for a probationary custodian to act like a custodian, it appears. By unblocking without attending to the actual problem, SBJ showed gross negligence. He was technically allowed to do this, but the manner in which he proceeded showed callous disregard for the welfare of Wikiversity. He should be reprimanded or desysopped over this. --Abd 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat actions
SBJ opposed my candidacy from the beginning, as expressed on Wikipedia Review, sarcastically, and here on Wikiversity, on the Candidacy page.

He has taken the position that 'crat approval is routine, with no discretion allowed. That's a radical misunderstanding; 'crats are responsible for all that they do, none of it is simply "routine." The policy empowers a 'crat to promote a probationary custodian if a custodian agrees to mentor, but the 'crat has obvious discretion: if the mentor, for example, were a completely inactive custodian, the 'crat would presumably want to ensure that there was adequate supervision. SBJ, in the past, had offered both to mentor and also assigned the bit, which might appear to be allowed, but, in the case of my candidacy, Jtneill wisely stated that he would not act as a 'crat. Jtneill was, then, explicitly requiring an approval, which is a sound interpretation of policy. By "approving" when he actually disapproved, SBJ failed to exercise the default supervisory function of a 'crat, exercised through commenting on a proposal (i.e., opposing it as a member of the community), instead of closing and implementing it.

Now, in Community Review/Jtneill 2, SBJ is questioning Jtneill's offer to mentor and alleged lack of supervision. The failure here, if there was one, was SBJ's, and if he's not willing to take responsibility for that, he does not understand the 'crat role. SBJ offered to approve the candidacy before it was re-opened, continuing a tradition of making decisions more privately -- this was offered on Jtneill Talk --, which are then presented to the community as a fait accompli. SBJ has a long history of this, and it happened again in my desysop. It appears that the agreement of Mikeu to the desysopping was negotiated off-wiki. But SBJ carried the water, and, given his clear prejudice -- i.e., he really agrees with the claims being made about my editing and my functioning as a sysop -- he was the wrong person to close. Mikeu was neutral, I believe.

Jtneill knew my history much more deeply, he'd studied and commented on my own review of my previous custodial actions, and had confirmed my warning and block of Ottava for incivility, and when he warned Ottava again, Ottava promptly filed Community Review/Jtneill as payback and possible attempt to establish a recusal requirement. The community, as is normal, did not address the history, and simply looked at this horrifying appearance of a probationary custodian crazy enough to block his mentor. What that block did, in fact, was to trigger a series of events that led to Ottava losing his sysop bit, and, as I've found by later review, there had been a lot going on that the community has never noticed as a whole. He was truly a problem before I tapped him with a warning and a 2-hour block. He was a ticking time-bomb, and that nudge did cause it to explode. That does not make me the bomber!

There were many opportunities for any 'crat and, indeed, any custodian, to intervene in what I was doing. The only one who intervened was SBJ, to effectively nullify all my efforts to protect the community.

SBJ, in the recent events, used Ottava's canvassed proposal as an excuse to revoke my bit. He was, he stated, "unwilling to serve as my judge," when I'd offered to allow him to yank the bit simply on his own discretion, before my CR was ever filed. SBJ thus had the power to avoid all that nonsense, but didn't use it. However, then, he did become the judge, closing the CR desysop proposal and implementing it as a 'crat. He could have allowed Mu301 to close, but I suspect Mike would have more carefully reviewed the thing. I had, by the way, also allowed any crat to yank the bit, immediately. And any custodian to stop me. I was proceeding with strict caution under what I saw, rightly or wrongly, as emergency conditions. I would do it again.

'''SBJohnny was from the beginning opposed to my candidacy, initially supported emergency desysopping as soon as it was proposed, and never addressed the reasons for my block of Ottava. His close of the discussion as consensus for desysop was therefore in violation of a recusal requirement. A sensible close would have considered the nature of the !votes, and his closing discussion did not. That's a 'crat failure.'''

In implementing desysopping, I requested at meta that he close based on my prior and repeated offer of the unconditional right. He angrily rejected that as "insulting," and insisted upon closing my CR as if community consensus were blatantly obvious in it. Even Moulton has noticed how rude this was. I wonder what JWS will say!

The same appearance exists in this CR. If it is defective here, it was defective there. Normal desysopping process was not followed. There is a reason for the normal process, precisely to avoid these train wrecks. Indeed, this CR was more legitimate, because it was preceded by a Custodian feedback filing, mine was not. This was put up as a "confirmation hearing," which was quite defective, but my desysop hearing started as a topic ban proposal, even worse, gained votes on that basis, which were then copied to the new CR. For future reference, folks, do not allow !votes from one context to be stripped and placed out of context in a new one. The wikilawyering tricks Ottava used here were impressive, and, it appears, I was the only sysop who noticed them and who realized what was going on.

Ottava, when I warned him before blocking him, promptly filed that topic ban proposal, so that if I blocked, it would seem to be retaliatory. He's highly skilled at this business, in fact. And that is precisely why he's so dangerous, and why, in unblocking Ottava, without taking steps to protect the community, SBJ abused his sysop bit. I now believe that he did all this deliberately, knowing that the appearances created would lead to sufficient cover for my desysop.

I don't mind the desysop itself, I don't need the tools, and I take no joy in blocking anyone. But who, exactly, is going to protect Wikiversity from the bullying and threats and lies that continued, that intensified, once Ottava was desysopped? There are some who seem to enjoy the drama and who think that nobody should ever be blocked for anything. No real university could function in that way. It's been tried! They didn't last more than a few years! Consensus and deliberative process require protective structure. SBJ is standing firmly in the way of that. He should lose his bit, and can then function as an ordinary member of this community. --Abd 19:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for candidate
In 2008 Jimbo vastly disrupted Wikiversity and I wonder what pressures were imposed on SB Johnny at that time. I would have included SB Johnny in the community review of "problematic actions" last Summer had I thought he intended to return and exercise special user rights at Wikiversity. I'd like to hear from SB Johnny about how he views the events of 2008 and if he has an interest in returning Wikiversity to the peaceful learning community that existed before Wikiversity was infected with "Wikipedia Disease". --JWSchmidt 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if I knew then what I know now (namely that Jimbo wasn't actually capable of just "turning off" Wikiversity if we didn't do what he wanted), I think things would have been very different. Hopefully peace will reign again one day, but not if we have to go through a drama per week like we have been lately. --SB_Johnny talk 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, SBJ was being pressured by Jimbo, who was in turn being pressured by FeloniousMonk to intervene on his behalf. FM was already here, as User:Centaur of attention, but he had been blocked.  Once FM/CofA was out of the picture (thanks to ArbCom) those atrocious bullying tactics lost most of their traction.  —Moulton 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Felonious Monk, Hipocrite, and KillerChihuahua were disrupting the community and waging war on other users before Jimbo arrived and were aided by SB Johnny in IRC and on Wiki. He went so far to give one sock puppet ops even though he threatened to make sure "Moulton would never be able to edit" with a script that was opposed by the community as reckless and dangerous. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was bizarre. The way I read it now, SBJ gave Salmon of Doubt enough rope to hang himself. —Palomino of Certainty 02:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They were too chummy on IRC, Wikipedia Review, and Wikipedia to lead me to think such. But, if SB Johnny did give him enough "rope" he used it to hurt a lot of others before himself. Such is irresponsible. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whom did Salmon of Doubt harm due to SB_Johnny mentoring him for a few days? If he harmed someone, did he use admin tools to accomplish it? I've looked, I haven't noticed anything, but perhaps I missed something. Isn't "chummy" the right way to treat Salmon? --Abd 06:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Potential is more important. Custodians require community trust, which Salmon of Doubt did not have and as a known sock puppet used to cause disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentored custodianship is a manifestation of the trust of the community through the mentor. If a custodian cannot be trusted to mentor, then the custodian should be prohibited from mentoring. The proof of the pudding with SoD was that SB_Johnny did not allow damage to occur. By offering to mentor, as he did, he avoided a contentious discussion, thus helping the community. Ottava is trying to change long-standing WV policy allowing any custodian to mentor, without discussion, it only requires a 'crat approval of the mentorship. Given that no actual damage has occurred from this, we can see how the present claims are motivated, not by protection of the wiki, but by revenge and payback. Determining, here, "known sock puppet used to cause disruption," would have been, at the time, way too disruptive! I.e., exactly what SoD may have wanted. SB Johnny finessed it, taking the wind right out of SoD's sails. Really, it was brilliant. --Abd 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "a manifestation of the trust of the community through the mentor" No. All Custodians, temporary or not, need community's trust. If a mentor pushes a mentee who lacks it or is found later to be abusive, then that undermines the community's trust in a mentor. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now do you see why I characterized it as a Po-Mo Theater of the Absurd? —Moulton 03:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Whom did Salmon of Doubt harm" <-- The real world equivalent of making SoD a Custodian would have been deputizing Lee Harvey Oswald after he assassinated Kennedy. Such a sickening travesty of justice could only happen at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 21:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In 2008, SB Johnny sided with Jimbo and was able to remove you and Moulton, which represented two influential people here. He also repeatedly blocked you without reason and set about trying to alienate your supporters, as many of them no longer edit here. When Jimbo came around in 2010, SB Johnny went against Jimbo. It would seem that Jimbo was only a tool of convenience, as the personal attacks against you and Moulton on IRC, Wikipedia Review, and elsewhere shows something more deeper than just Jimbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. If I supported blocking Moulton, I would have just done so. --SB_Johnny talk 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If that was true, then Moulton wouldn't have been repeatedly booted by you from IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moulton can be a frustrating participant in conversations. Without reviewing those logs, it's impossible to tell if the "booting" -- which is temporary in effect, practically speaking -- was abusive, and it's abusive for Ottava to argue this here. It's moot. More to the point would be Moulton's block log. Notice who set the longest effective block terms. Short blocks are merely a sergeant-at-arms "You are out of order, sit down!, enforced." Moulton was globally locked in 2008, as I recall, so the later unblocks and blocks of Moulton were symbolic in effect, until the recent SBJ renaming action, which I supported, and it was the Caprice account which was allowed to edit, so see Caprice block log. Adambro unblocked because I asserted recusal failure. Ottava was unblocking quite possibly as a provocation, i.e., perhaps he anticipated that Moulton would be a big problem, and he was about to be desysopped. Or it was making up for previous errors. I'm not a mind-reader. --Abd 15:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Moulton can be a frustrating participant in conversations.
 * It depends on whether your goal in a conversation is at cross-purposes with mine. What is your objective in a conversation, where you find yourself frustrated and blocked from achieving your goal?  —Moulton 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The amount of influence I have here is el zippo de nada. —Caprice 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you managed to get quite a few people to join you at Wikiversity and worked on many foundational projects. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whodat? —Caprice 12:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Caprice/Moulton has the same right of influence as do I. The extra "power" of a block button is weak, indeed, if not backed by the community, in the long run. Use it and lose it, if you use it abusively. It just takes time, sometimes. And sometimes people cry "abuse," when, in fact, the sysop is correctly anticipating consensus, or at least community permission. Recusal was designed to protect against the most serious abuse or even appearance of problem, but that is only proposed policy and isn't widely understood. (Basically, the recusal part is somewhat understood, but the "emergency" bypass is not. Yet, in fact, this is what happens, except that sysops claiming the right to act in spite of an appearance of involvement don't consult, too often.) Similar was proposed for Wikipedia and generally rejected, because admins there dislike the idea of any restrictions at all on their behavior, and they assumed that recusal failure would be wikilawyered to death; but, when an admin there violates that unstated policy, and offends enough users and especially other administrators, they do lose their bits. Hence the emergency bypass, which sets up procedure to follow, clear and, in fact, simple. --Abd 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it only took two and a half years here. And on WP, Meta, and other WMF project sites, it's still an unresolved issue after three and a half years, notwithstanding the fact that FeloniousMonk was slapped down by ArbCom a year ago.  I don't care about retributive justice, only restorative justice.  When will I be restored to the status I enjoyed before the corrupt bullies of IDCab played their foolish game? —Moulton 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When you stop your own bullying, Moulton. It could take some time, still. Societies display inertia. I confronted the same cabal, Moulton, and I'm not blocked on Wikipedia. I withdrew from the fray, there, though, because I concluded that Wikipedia structure is hopelessly defective and "victory" was way too expensive. It wasn't because I didn't know how to do it, there were several sysops I could have creamed before ArbComm, that door wasn't closed. But, at best, it was such a royal pain in the ass that it wasn't worth it. There is only one sysop that I believe I could get desyopped over what he's done, the others would just get "admonishment," and you know what that does? They ignore it, and they retaliate, or their friends retaliate. Wikipedia has zero protection for whistle-blowers. Those sysops weren't so bad, usually, just stupid, and the structure enables that kind of stupidity, it even appears to recruit it and depend on it. I saw the sane users leaving, and eventually simply joined that crowd. Wikiversity has similar problems, but the scale is small enough that it might be possible to address them before it is too late. I certainly can't do it alone, though. --Abd 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation discussion

 * Oppose confirmation for Custodian and Bureaucrat per long term abuse of community, harassment of others, and his sole purpose in causing the destruction of Wikiversity. A long term ban of this user would also do a lot to aid in the recovery of this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose confirmation I am deeply concerned of him regaining the bureaucrat and administrator/custodian rights without any discussion with the community, that should have never been done. Diego Grez 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose confirmation Unfortunately SB has not shown me any reason for me to support him and so I don't believe that he is suitable for the position ever. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support confirmation I feel these proceedings are a kangaroo court. →StaniStani  09:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement must show a justification for him being reconfirmed by a Steward, which means why he can be trusted. You have not provided such. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottava posted this on Stanistani Talk. With this threat as well, and even more at Request custodian action, Ottava is threatening those who disagree with him. He presented no evidence for the alleged egregious behavior, and the above comments don't allege egregious behavior, except for Ottava's claims. (Diego is concerned about process, not realizing, apparently, standard procedure on WMF wikis for recovery after voluntary resignation, which was followed. Kevin has "no reason for me to support," and "doesn't believe" SBJ is suitable, but doesn't allege the required "egregious behavior.") Ottava only threatens those who disagree with him. --Abd 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "He presented no evidence for the alleged egregious behavior" 1. There is no discussion that can be found where SB Johnny was deemed by the community as rightfully getting ops back. 2. There is no discussion that can be found that the community discussed removing JWS before SB Johnny went to Meta. Those two alone would warrant a desysop. You have not contradicted them and you know it. There is also no "standard process" for recovery of ops on Wikiversity, and such is only allowed when policy allows them. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Designate as Drama Queen. I propose that all sysops who have abused their Custodial power be switched to a new category of Wikiversity functionary, the Drama Queen. Wikiversity Drama Queens will only be able to block obvious repeat vandals and will only be able to delete Wikiversity pages that were created by obvious vandals. If, during any month, a Drama Queen's number of edits in the Wikiversity namespace is greater than the number of edits in the main namespace, the Drama Queen will automatically and permanently lose access to all special tools. Similarly, any Drama Queen who uses their tools for any purpose other than dealing with repeat vandals will automatically and permanently lose access to all special tools. I propose that all Wikiversity sysops who have 1) imposed a block on a Wikiversity community member for any reason other than obvious repeated vandalism, or 2) censored a Wikiversity community discussion or 3) participated in an emergency desysop of a Wikiversity Custodian when no emergency existed or 4) acted to support one of Jimbo's interventions into Wikiversity affairs be designated a Drama Queen. --JWSchmidt 13:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Adendeum: I see no indication that SBJ is willing to limit his use of Custodial tools to dealing only with cases of obvious repeated vandalism. Rather than say that he will change his ways, SBJ continues his past methods including denigration of honest complaints from Ottava. If SBJ does not agree to limit his use of Custodial tools to only dealing with obvious repeated vandalism then he should no have access to any special user rights. If there is a remaining Wikimedia Functionary who cares, the list of policy violations and abuses by SBJ is long. The main problem has been poor judgment in supporting the disruption of Wikiversity by a gang of policy violators from Wikipedia in 2008. SBJ imposed a bogus community ban on Wikiversity community member Moulton. SBJ showed poor and damaging judgment in forcing upon Wikiversity policy-violating Custodial candidates who have in their own turns vastly disrupted Wikiversity. SBJ has imposed emergency desysop procedures against Wikiversity Custodians when no emergency existed and lied to the Wikiversity community to attempt to justify his actions. Rather than correct and admit to his policy violations and his vast disruption of this project he has used his special tools to silence those who tried to stand up to his abusive misuse of his position or trust and responsibility. I believe that if this community is going to be able to bring back the abused community members that SBJ helped drive away and attract a healthy community of collaborating learners then SBJ cannot continue to be in a position to continue making more bad decisions and cause further disruption of this project. --JWSchmidt 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose that the Cast of Characters who are designated as Drama Queens be recruited to perform the newest Comic Opera in the Rinse Cycle, The Final Absolution to be produced by Schadenfreude Theater of the Absurd. The grand finale will be "The Riot of the Mockeries."  —Barsoom Tork 14:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to read through all the background but I saw this at the Colloquium and I don't see enough to say that I can trust this user having rights. IDangerMouse 15:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your well thought out remarks that will surely encourage a unified learning community. I look forward to more civil discussion from you. -- dark lama  16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I think Mu301 may have miscalculated how controversial giving the tools back to SB_Johnny would be, and it may make sense to require SB_Johnny to go through some kind of process to establish that there is community consensus for SB_Johnny to have administrative and bureaucratic tools again. -- dark lama  16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about Mike, but I certainly miscalculated on that note. Or maybe I didn't... it's a bit hard to tell :-). --SB_Johnny talk 00:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to my calculations, we are in for a blizzard of words. —Moulton 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * ' Oppose desysop' Just to be clear. This process is hopelessly flawed, presented as a "confirmation hearing," which we don't do. We have a clear and specific desysop process, and it has not been followed, except now, in the name of this page, but simply moving the page did not change the content. The description of process at the top of this page, is misleading --Abd 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC) see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are very good reasons to maintain the standard policy that resignation not under a cloud may be reversed without process, upon request. It is to encourage users who don't need the privilege to resign. It makes the cost of resignation low. Administrators may also resign, sometimes, out of temporary frustration, and there is no reason to convert that into making it impossible to recover the bit. As is well-known, administrators who are active frequently make enemies, and thus requiring a full process for recovery usually means the end of the line, even if that admin is no less trusted than other active admins. It is the most disruptive users who pay the most attention to process like this. --Abd 05:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * }
 * see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * see new comment --Abd 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose I don't see a reason to trust SB Johnny with Custodian or Bureaucrat status, more evidence needed. IDangerMouse 15:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support confirmation I have seen nothing to justify removal of the tools, which have been in place long before they were incorrectly removed by Jimbo and before SB Johnny needed a well-deserved wikibreak from the drama. Adrignola 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, multiple instances of ignoring the community when it comes to giving and taking sysops is nothing? Is it a coincidence that you tag team with him on Wikipedia Review and make other problematic statements? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only people making significant contributions to that site are yourself, Abd, and SB Johnny. Note that I have not taken sides there nor have I made comments about people there.  If I have something to say, I say it on wiki, on record. Adrignola 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SBJ is not particularly my friend on Wikipedia Review, he completely ridiculed the idea of my being a custodian there, and he flat-out doesn't get it as to what I've been doing. Ottava sees everything in terms of the Vast Battle Between Good and Evil that is his view of the wikis, and "Evil" means "anyone who disagrees with him," it's been obvious for a long time. I predict he's banned on meta within a week. Wikiversity was unwilling to ban or even restrict JWS, so I have no idea what will happen with Ottava here. I do believe that the status quo is causing massive and ongoing damage, I'll ask Adrignola to testify to that. --Abd 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's my take on things. The problem is I've put a lot of effort and work into trying to bring order to chaos at Wikibooks, then I see the community evaporate in spite of it. I find myself very reluctant to put such attention into any other Wikimedia project, including Wikiversity.  Wikiversity has always been a conundrum to me, always something I've found difficult to understand; the project itself often doesn't seem to understand itself either.  I have ruled out any idea of long-term significant maintenance at Wikiversity, much less acting as a custodian, until all the people calling for removal of those they feel are causing disruption realize they are causing far more disruption themselves.  It's pedantry left and right, assumptions of bad faith, incivility with name-calling such as "drama queens" above and "charlatan" below.  It's bouncing back and forth from one discussion to another; once one "side" gets its way in one area it feels enabled and starts another call for action; if one "side" doesn't get its way in another area, it calls for action against whoever it feels slighted them.  It's blown over to Meta, Wikipedia Review, IRC, emails.  Great that it's such a welcoming environment for giving people second chances, but at some point you need to draw a line.  But I don't think anyone will, because people are afraid of further retaliation.  Time for a reboot.  Go ahead and remove all the bureaucrats and while you're at it, all the custodians.  When the project is capable of rational discussion and consensus-building, with policies and procedures put into practice in such a way that resembles a stable community of people working hand-in-hand, then you deserve to administrate yourselves. Adrignola 01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a strange chick/egg theory. Two possibilities - people complain about abuse then abuses happened or abuses happened and then people complained. It would seem from the multiple desysops without community consensus in 2008, the adding sysops multiple times without going by discussions, making countless "civility" blocks while ignoring that civility says that ignoring is the first step and not a pattern of incivil warnings and blocks that only cause more drama. Tthere ae many other problems too. Most people here would like a reboot of the admin - many were added with no discussion, 12 have been inactive for over 2 years, and many other actions happened here in defiance of community will. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * "The only people making significant contributions" Fair enough, but when I do see you it always seems to be inline with SB Johnny's statements. You can still think what he did in the past doesn't warrant a desysopping while acknowledging errors. I find it odd how you think a Bureaucrat should ignore the community will. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose process. This entire "reconfirmation process" fabricated by Ottava has no precedent or basis in policy. The existing probationary custodianship process states that once a mentor accepts a candidate then a crat should flip the bit. Perhaps the custodianship process should be modified, but that is a separate issue from any individual's actions. I support SB_Johnny as a custodian and crat but do not consider the many reviews opened by Ottava (including this one) to be legitimate. --mikeu talk 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The precendence is 2. 1. JWSchmidt was removed without community discussion. 2. Ottava Rima was removed after 3 days even though unanimous community consensus was to throw the whole thing out as inappropriate. Mu301/Mikeu was involved in both. This process, however, follows what is expressly written in the policy. It is interesting that Mikeu says this is wrong yet was involved in two that ignored community consensus and were deemed abusive by many here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mikeu, the conclusion that process or policy needs work could actually be the main outcome here. Reviews don't always end in a simple 'for' or 'against'. Regards, Guido den Broeder 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Guido says. I'm quite sure Mike feels the same way about policies needing work. --SB_Johnny talk 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad Idea, in fact, but a common one on wikis. Under Robert's Rules, a motion must be on a single topic, and people who don't care about the topic may ignore the debate. It creates social utility efficiency, in fact. Wikis, in theory, could be even more efficient, but allowing the question(s) to shift in midstream places the prior !votes in a questionable context, and, as well, people who have looked and who were not interested in participating don't know that something new has arisen. (that happened here, in fact, there is an unclarity about the question and the process of decision. Is it "confirmation" or is it "removal of the bits)." So we depend on closer discretion to extract consensus from a farrago of opinions given under different circumstances. It can work, but it can also be incredibly inefficient, and it burns people out. I believe we need hybrid systems that incorporate elements of traditional deliberation and the freer wiki style. I experimented with some on Wikipedia, and they worked. But the community picked up on none of it. If we want real dispute resolution, we will need efficiency as well, if it's inefficient, it isn't sustainable. --Abd 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that was the intent when the CR page was setup, but I'm not seeing suggestions that policy needs to be clarified. Instead, the review jumped to the conclusion that a "recall" should be put to the community and a few people immediately started voting on that question. Why wasn't there a discussion of the problem before a solution was proposed? --mikeu talk 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Why wasn't there a discussion of the problem before a solution was proposed?" There was a lot of discussion. We attempted to fix the problem via passing policy, it was brought up at Meta, and it was discussed in multiple forums here. The other matters with previous incidents by SB Johnny were discussed for many months here in many forums. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above) Freedom from evidence has been a feature of the recent processes filed by Ottava. Just to give an example, I closed the Candidates page that was later moved here by Ottava. That closure stood, for reasons explained on the Talk page. However, when Ottava then put up the topic ban proposal for me, the first !vote was from User:Diego Grez. His complaint? I'd closed that Candidates page. In other words, my "crime," worthy of a topic ban, was taking a simple action that enjoyed consensus. A careful Community Review would collect evidence and present it before any !voting starts. We should write this in process, if we want out decisions to have some depth. Otherwise they become merely a matter of how loudly the crowd shouts, what friends can be gathered and how quickly, and the principle of a closer weighing both evidence and arguments, as well as numbers of !vote, becomes meaningless. --Abd 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Freedom from evidence has been a feature of the Ottavan Empire.
 * Churlatan. n. An invented word, compounded of “churl” and “charlatan,” denoting an individual who justifies his or her opinion on a contested and controversial subject by crediting only the evidence that supports his side of the argument, and conceals the dishonesty of his position by aggressively attacking proponents of the opposition. Coined by Paul Janssen, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 2011.
 * Example: “The churlatan railed against anyone who dared to suggest that 'excess heat' in Cold Fusion experiments was either an error in measurement or a mundane effect explained by principles of classical physics that have been well known since the days of Antoine Lavoisier and Michael Faraday.”
 * Moulton 21:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My my, Favorite Topic by Favorite Troll. But off-topic here. See Cold fusion, where vigorous debates rage down in the grass, like in Blue Velvet (film), over a topic where there is a vast gap between common understanding and what the mainstream peer-reviewed literature shows. Correction of stupid unsourced churlish POV-pushing, on any side, at any level, cordially invited. --Abd 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ottavan Empire. Nice. I think I'll use it at meta. Damn! I wrote "Ottava Era," I was almost there. See why I want Moulton around? Besides, hardly anyone else will play. --Abd 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no escape from Moulton's atrocious song parodies. —Montana Mouse 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Major Oppose SB Johnny has shown himself to ignore community consensus, cause drama, and cannot be trusted with adminship or bureaucratship... He is indeed a fucking charlatan who only thinks of himself... --Anonymous Uploader 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks for sharing. --SB_Johnny talk 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The incivility is unfortunate, but I could no longer effectively warn, eh? The basic conclusion, though, is sound. SBJ's personal irritation with "walls of text," which boils down to an unease with someone who has lots of ideas, lots of experience, and whom he doesn't understand, and doesn't want to take the time to understand, is behind much of his comment, over the last few months, about me. --Abd 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose confirmation. Arguments will be presented above for the removal of both the 'crat and sysop bit for SB_Johnny. The issues are separate, and some of the charges made against SBJ here are spurious, as noted before. However, there are legitimate reasons for concern, as the ultimate play-out of my own probationary custodianship made clear to me. This CR was premature and defective, but a 'crat can still sort it out, as, indeed, SBJ argued in my case, where the defects were even worse. Please note the arguments SB Johnny gave in closing Community Review/Abd. He applied them there, against me and in favor of Ottava's claims. Those same arguments and principles, applied here, would lead to a conclusion that SBJ has, indeed, offended the community. True? How would we know? Looking at the votes in my CR, it appeared so. Looking here, practically the same appearance exists. A 'crat would not have acted like this, SBJ had means to end the issue over my adminship non-disruptively, with my explicit consent. He chose, instead, to end it controversially, as will become clear. As to his sysop bit, my primary reason is that he, without ensuring that the community was protected from very serious disruption, threats of block and steward intervention, as well as tendentious argument and gross incivility, offenses over which Ottava had previously been blocked, three times, with no community opposition, unblocked Ottava without addressing the reasons for the block. While he had my permission, that didn't make it any more than technically proper. It left the community unprotected, forcing me, ultimately, to continue to act. He could have left it in place, or, probably better, reduced it to some length he thought more appropriate. Note that, by recusal policy, he could not increase it. That's one reason I made it a year! SBJ showed what I've ultimately concluded was personal animosity, he'd turned pretty ugly at Wikipedia Review, and opposed my custodianship from the very beginning. Reversing a block merely because the blocking admin was "biased" is widely rejected on the wikis; rather, a reviewing admin will look at the reasons for the block. Just because someone is allegedly biased does not mean that a specific action is wrong. --Abd 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Support confirmation — from a passerby. I've not gotten involved in this project because every time I look at it, I see major drama storms... and I see SB Johnny seeking to protect this project. I know him from other projects, from a friend who has had dinner at his house, that I've had entirely agreeable emails with him over several years. And I know his detractor, who *lies* about anyone who's ever offended him. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support confirmation It has taken me some time to think this over. I believe that Ottava Rima's concerns are sincere and that he has been correct and justified to start this review, although I'd rather not have multiple, connected reviews at the same time. Clearly there is pain from the past that has not been sufficiently dealt with earlier; maybe it never will be. It is also quite possible that SB Johnny has made errors in judgement on more than one occasion. In fact, I have seen him make one. However, none of us is perfect, and in contrast to someone else who comes to mind (no, not Ottava) SB Johnny doesn't claim to be. IMHO he has dealt admirably with the most recent major issue, the end of Abd's probationary custodianship, and has shown willingness to improve himself as well as work towards a better future for Wikiversity as a whole. And that is the important part here. This place needs an overhaul, and the people to make that happen. SB Johnny, like Ottava Rima, is capable of playing a significant, constructive part in that effort. The idea of a social contract has gathered support and may be the very thing that can turn things around. Best regards, Guido den Broeder 02:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose procedure. I am not aware of any precedent or procedure for confirmation processes on English Wikiversity, thus I oppose the current process. I'm also not sure where the claimed need for 66% and 80% in favour comes from (but I'm interested to learn), especially as I've seen Ottava argue elsewhere along the lines that vote-counting doesn't matter but rather that argument and consensus matters. I'd prefer to first see community discussion about the general idea of confirmation processes before applying it to particular cases. Similarly, I don't see why should we have a one-off confirmation process for one custodian/bureaucrat. If the community thinks this confirmation processes are a good idea, then it would seem only fair to systematically apply it to all custodians/bureaucrats. Having looked around a little at some sister projects I see that there are some examples of confirmation processes which we could review and consider their relative merits (e.g. Stewards/confirm. Personally, I think the general idea has merit and could be useful at Wikiversity because I think that custodians and bureaucrats should be subject to ongoing scrutiny and that the community should have a chance to undertake regular review. A more regularly confirmation process could help to prevent the somewhat messy and unresolved CR situation, which seem mostly to be about custodians/bureaucrats. However, I think the possible merits or otherwise of confirmation process should be made as a separate proposal for discussion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Process is our most important impediment to progress. —Moulton 14:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity:Community Review/SB Johnny


text:
User:Eml5526.s11.team1.Hao

Useful Links
Eml5526 Course Wiki

Homework
=Problem 6: Newtons Law of Colling=

Given
The partial Differential Equation is

1.Develop Weak form similar to (3)-(6) page 34-3.
The weak form will be as below,

Lets calculate the derivative of the following factor, Therefore, Replacing in the integral we obtain, Applying the Gauss Theorem on the first term we obtain, We can recognize that the Heat Flux is Given by, Eventually We have,

Organizing We get, Simplifying we get, For the Case when Conductivity if the Identity Matrix, we have following equations, Also We can Write as,

2) Develop Semidiscrete Equations (ODE's) similar to (3) page 23-3. Give Detailed Description for all the quantities.
Performing the Discretization on the Dominium we have,

Where N is the vector of the Interpolation (Lagrange Polynomial) and $$\displaystyle u_{e},w_{e}$$ are the Nodal Values of u & w Respectively. The Derivative With respect to $$\displaystyle x_{1}$$, $$\displaystyle x_{2}$$ are Replacing on the Semi Discrete Weak form we obtain, From the Last Equation we can Obtain the Conductivity Matrix, the Heat source vector and the Capacitance matrix. The Conductivity Matrix is Given by

Further the Capacitance Matrix is Given by,

And the Heat Source is

3.Solve G2DM2.0/D1 Using 2D LIBF (similar to HW 6.6) till $$10^{-6}$$ accuracy at center. Plot Solution in 3D w/Contour.
To solve G2DM2.0/D1 Following Routine was developed. The following figure shows the result for 16 points.

To solve the problem using LIBF we will devide the x-axis and Y-axis in 2 parts initially. In that way the Approximated solution by LIBF is given by:

We Have developed a COMSOL code to plot this routine. The COMSOL code is as follows

Appendix
The Plots for the Routine Developed along with the intended 3-D contour is as below.

Comment:

We can see from the above figures that there also exists a negative value, which is the same with our results from HW6.10.

Comment: The Contour is plotted for $$\displaystyle n_{el}=4$$. The above MATLAB code is developed for larger values of $$n_{el}$$.
=Group Page= Team 1 Page

title: User:Eml5526.s11.team1.Hao


text:
Solution Architecture

Lessons

 * 1)  History of Solution Architecture
 * 2)  Business and Planning for the Solution
 * 3)  Determining and Identifying the Architecture

title: Solution Architecture


text: Template:SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/nav


text:
SPIR608 Political Simulations and Gaming/2011/Week 2

Friday 28th January

 * Week 2 Discussion of Guy Debord, The Game of War.

* Is the design of the game's mechanics (board, pieces, cards, etc.) fit for purpose?
 * the game is confusing at first sight, as we're not used to its mechanics;
 * the game is serious, bold, adult, intellectual, mathematical;
 * it would be a good idea to have the combat values for attack and defence on the pieces - maybe on the bottom of the pieces;
 * the game is beautiful to look at, but it can be confusing as the board & terrain are the same colour as one of the two sides' pieces.

* Is the game enjoyable and sociable to play?
 * yes, but not necessarily sociable - as it's a one-on-one game;
 * it works surprisingly well as a team game;
 * the game is time consuming - we didn't finish the game even though the class overran its time;
 * the rules and principles were easy to pick up.

* What techniques does the game use to model its chosen subject?
 * the game is about warfare in Napoleonic times;
 * the main goal is keeping open your lines of communication;
 * the best way to win the game is to keep your forces in groups;
 * the game rewards correctly assessing the element of risk in your decision-making.

* How does the game combine abstraction and realism in its workings?
 * the pieces are abstract;
 * its strategic principles are realistic;
 * the game doesn't involve luck which means that every move that you make counts;
 * the game doesn't take into account weather and fog of war.

* How accurately does the game simulate the decision-making processes faced by the real-life protagonists of its chosen subject?
 * the game is modeling the thinking processes of warfare;

* What political lessons can people learn by playing the game?
 * its aim is to teach you to be a political revolutionary - but it isn't obvious how playing the game helps in this process;
 * the game teaches military strategy rather than revolutionary politics;
 * if politics is about gaining power and eliminating your opponents, then the game is very political;
 * playing the game would have helped the people in Tahrir Square in their struggle against the Egyptian dictatorship;
 * the game teaches people to think ahead;
 * it teaches you to anticipate your opponents' moves;
 * this is why Debord's game is more like chess than contemporary wargames.

* How would you improve the structure and mechanics of the game?
 * the board and terrain should be a different colour than the pieces;
 * Kriegspiel computer version can help in learning the game, especially as it does all of the calculations for you;
 * the big problem with Kriegspiel is that it prevents you from making mistakes under pressure like accidentally moving out of supply;
 * Alice Becker-Ho disapproved of the computer version of the game;
 * it's a good game because it's challenging to play;
 * the two teams should be separated so they can have confidential conversations although we were able to communicate secretly by passing notes to each other;
 * this openness could be a political element of the game as it replicates espionage!

Links

 * Photos of Week 2 game playing
 * Alice Becker-Ho & Guy Debord, The Game of War.
 * Class Wargames
 * Film: Class Wargames Presents Guy Debord's The Game of War.
 * Film: Class Wargames представляет: Игра в войну Ги Дебора.
 * Radical Software Group, Kriegspiel.
 * Alexander Galloway, Debord's Nostalgic Algorithm.
 * Nathan Heller, What Is It Good For?.
 * Gene McHugh, Battle Code.


text:
Category:SPIR608 Political Simulation and Gaming/2011

SPIR608 is a course at the University of Westminster.

The first course started on 21st January 2011.


text:
User talk:Jheflick

Hi Jon. Just testing out your talk page. --Majrjejm 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jon, I found some answers here. To see my progression in figuring this out, you can look at the history page. --Majrjejm 01:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for the lead. I made some discoveries as well and have created several links in the Lamb article to both wikipedia as well as wiktionary. Jheflick 04:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jon, cool! I look forward to catching up with you on these discoveries. --75.196.33.142 14:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome :D
 Hello Jheflick, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! -- Devourer09 ( t · c ) 18:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jheflick


text:
User talk:Eml5526.s11.team5.Dahiya

Hello everybody, My name is Lokesh Dahiya

Solution
Free Body Diagram:

 Figure 2

 Theory:

In elastodynamic case, there are 2 major contributors that affect body's motion:

 * Static Forces
 * Body's Inertial effects (resistance to motion caused by Static forces)

In accord to conservation laws as well as Newton's 3rd law, these 2 opposing contributors must be equal to each other.

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$F_{static} = F_{dynamic} \Rightarrow \vartriangle F = ma $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.1)
 * }

where:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ F = force \quad (N) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ m = mass \quad (kg) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle
 * }
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ a = acceleration \quad(\frac{m}{s^2}) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle
 * }

The assumed differential element shape is of trapezoid with force acting on both of its bases. Dynamic equation that resulted is shown below:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ -p(x) + f(x + \frac {\vartriangle x}{2})\vartriangle x + p(x+\vartriangle x) = ( \hat m(x) * \vartriangle x) a(t) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.2)
 * }

where:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \hat m = mass \ per \ unit \ length \ (\frac{kg}{m}) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \frac {p(x+\vartriangle x) - p(x)}{\vartriangle x} + f(x + \frac {\vartriangle x}{2}) = \frac {( \hat m(x) *\vartriangle x)}{\vartriangle x} a(t) = \hat m(x) a(t) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \Rightarrow a(t) = \frac{\vartriangle v(t)}{\vartriangle t} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *  $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.3)
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \Rightarrow \vartriangle v(t) = \frac{u(t + \vartriangle t) - u(t)}{\vartriangle t} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.4)
 * }

Therefore:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \frac {p(x+\vartriangle x) - p(x)}{\vartriangle x} + f(x + \frac {\vartriangle x}{2}) = \hat m(x) \frac{1}{\vartriangle t}\frac{u(t + \vartriangle t) - u(t)}{\vartriangle t} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.5)
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \lim_{\vartriangle x \to 0} \frac {p(x+\vartriangle x) - p(x)}{\vartriangle x} + f(x + \frac {\vartriangle x}{2}) = \lim_{\vartriangle t \to 0} \hat m(x) \frac{1}{\vartriangle t}\frac{u(t + \vartriangle t) - u(t)}{\vartriangle t} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \Rightarrow \lim_{\vartriangle x \to 0} \frac {p(x+\vartriangle x) - p(x)}{\vartriangle x} = \frac {\partial p}{\partial x} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \Rightarrow \lim_{\vartriangle t \to 0} \frac{1}{\vartriangle t} = \frac{1}{\partial t} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \Rightarrow \lim_{\vartriangle t \to 0} \hat m \frac{u(t + \vartriangle t) - u(t)}{\vartriangle t} = \hat m(x) \frac {\partial u}{\partial t} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

Therefore, substituting back into equation we get:

$$ \frac {\partial p}{\partial x} + f(x) = \hat m(x) \frac{1}{\partial t} \frac {\partial u}{\partial t} \Rightarrow \frac {\partial p}{\partial x} + f(x) = \hat m(x) \frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} $$ $$ $$
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.6)

Force = Stress * Area,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \begin{matrix} p(x) = \sigma(x) * A(x) \end{matrix} $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |

$$
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.7)
 * }

Stress = Strain * Modulus of Elasticity,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \begin{matrix} \sigma(x) = \epsilon(x) * E(x) \end{matrix} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.8)
 * }

where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \epsilon(x) = \frac {\partial u}{\partial x} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.9)
 * }

From Equations 1.7-1.9:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ p(x) = E(x) * A(x) * \frac {\partial u}{\partial x}$$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.10)
 * }

Mass / Unit Length = Density * Area

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \hat m(x) = \rho(x) * A(x) $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.11)
 * }

Substituting the above relations we get

$$ \frac {\partial}{\partial x} \left[E(x)A(x)\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}\right] + f(x) = \rho(x) A(x) \frac {\partial^2 u} {\partial t^2} $$ $$ $$
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.12)

b) If we consider a case in which the bar has a rectangular cross section

 Figure 3

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \begin{matrix} A(x) = h(x) * b \end{matrix} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

where

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ h(x) = height \ of \ bar \ at \ x \ (m), $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ b = width \ of \ the \ bar \ (constant)\ (m) \ [i.e. \ Independent \ of \ x,t] $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

Replacing $$ A(x) $$ with $$ h(x)*b $$ in our equation we get:

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \frac {\partial}{\partial x} \left[E(x)h(x)*b*\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}\right] + f(x) = \rho(x) h(x)*b* \frac {\partial^2 u} {\partial t^2} $$ $$
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 * }

$$ b $$ is independent and can be brought outside the partial derivative of the first term

The equation is divided by $$ b $$ to give

$$ \frac {\partial}{\partial x} \left[E(x)h(x)\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}\right] + \frac{f(x)}{b} = \rho(x) h(x) \frac {\partial^2 u} {\partial t^2} $$ $$ $$
 *
 $$ \displaystyle
 *
 $$ \displaystyle (Eq. 1.13)

Files Missing License Information
Thank you for uploading files to Wikiversity. See Media for copyright and license requirements for Wikiversity files. All files must have copyright and/or license information added to the file.

Instructions for adding copyright and/or license information are available at License tags. Files must be updated within seven days or they may be removed without further notice. See Requests For Deletion for more information.

The following files are missing copyright and/or license information:
 * File:Fea2 1.png

MaintenanceBot (discuss • contribs) 03:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eml5526.s11.team5.Dahiya


text: File:FEA HW1.4.JPG

title: File:FEA HW1.4.JPG


text:
User:Egm6341.s11.team2.zou/HW1

=Problem 1.1=

Find
Plot $$ f\left(x\right) $$ and find:

 * $$ \lim_{x \to 0}f(x) $$

Given

 * $$ f(x) = \frac{x} $$ for $$ x \in [0,1] $$

Solution
Using l'Hôpital's rule,

 * $$ \lim_{x \to 0}\frac{x} = \lim_{x \to 0}\frac{1} = 1$$

 * Hw1aplot.jpg]

=Problem 1.2=

Find
$$\displaystyle {p_n}(x) $$ and $$\displaystyle {R_{n + 1}}(x) $$ of $$ \displaystyle f(x) = {e^x} $$ and $$\displaystyle f(x) = \frac{x} $$ at $$\displaystyle {x_0}=0 $$

Can someone please check why my equations appear like this?.. one of them looks good but the rest look so small... I have this problem in Solution section too..... Thank you... Amir

Fixed.

-Adam

Given
$$ {p_n}(x) = f({x_0}) + \frac{f^{(1)}}({x_0}) + \frac{f^{(2)}}({x_0}) + ... + \frac{f^{(n)}}({x_0}) $$

$$ {R_{n + 1}}(x) = \frac{f^{(n + 1)}}(\xi ) $$, $$ \xi \in [{x_0},x] $$

Solution
Note that for $$ \displaystyle f(x) = {e^x} $$

$$ \displaystyle {f^{(n)}}({x_0}) = {f^{(n)}}(0) = {e^0} = 1 $$

So,

$$ {p_n}(x) = f(0) + \frac{f^{(1)}}(0) + \frac{f^{(2)}}(0) + ... + \frac{f^{(n)}}(0) $$

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {p_n}(x) = 1 + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\frac} $$     (2-1)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

and

$$ {R_{n + 1}}(x) = \frac{f^{(n + 1)}}(\xi ) = \frac{e^\xi } $$

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {R_{n + 1}}(x) = \frac{e^\xi } $$     (2-2)
 * style="width:95%" |
 * style="width:95%" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {e^x} = {p_n}(x) + {R_{n + 1}}(x) = 1 + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\frac}  + \frac{e^\xi } $$     (2-3)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

From Eq(2-3)

$$ {e^x} - 1 = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\frac}  + \frac{e^\xi }$$

so,

$$ f(x) = \frac{x} = \frac{x} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\frac}  + \frac{e^\xi } $$

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle f(x) = {p_n}(x) + {R_{n + 1}}(x) = \frac{x} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\frac}  + \frac{e^\xi } $$     (2-4)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

So for $$ f(x) = \frac{x} $$

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$  \displaystyle {p_n}(x)= \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty {\frac} $$
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |

$$  \displaystyle {R_{n + 1}}(x)=\frac{e^\xi } $$

where $$ \xi \in [{x_0},x] $$ (2-5)
 *
 * }

=Problem 1.3=

Required
Integral Mean Value Theorem:

Let $$ w(x)$$ be a nonnegative integrable function defined on $$ [a,b] $$

If $$ f(x) $$ is a continuous function defined on $$ [a,b] $$, then

for some $$ \xi $$ such that

Proof
Suppose $$ \exist $$ an $$ m $$ and $$ n $$ such that

This implies that $$ f(x) $$ is bounded below by $$ m $$ and bounded above by $$ M $$,

For a given weight function

and by simply multiplying the inequality in (4.5) by $$ w(x) $$ one obtains,

A corollary to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus ensures that, upon integration of $$ \textbf{(4.7)} $$, the following relation is obtained

$$ \Rightarrow $$

The definite integral,

is just some numerical value therefore enabling one to divide (4.9) through by (4.10) to get

Furthermore, the Intermediate Value Theorem ensures for a continuous function $$ f(x) $$ on the interval $$ x \in [a,b] $$ that if there exists a value $$ Z $$ on the interval $$ [m,M] $$ then there is at least one such point $$ \xi $$ for which,

Recognizing that $$ Z $$ in (4.11) is

it then follows from (4.11) and (4.13) that

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Still needs work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

=Problem 1.4=

From the lecture slide Mtg 5-3

Given
$$ f(x) = 3x + 5{x^3},x \in [0,1]; g(x) = \sinh x,x \in [0,1] $$

Find
Plot $$\displaystyle {f(x)}$$, $$\displaystyle {g(x)}$$ and find $$\displaystyle {\left\| f \right\|_\infty }$$, $$\displaystyle {\left\| g \right\|_\infty }$$ and $$\displaystyle {\left\| {f - g} \right\|_\infty }$$

Solution
Because

 * $$ {f^'}(x) = 3 + 15{x^2} > 0,\;\;x \in [0,1]

$$

 * $${g^'}(x) = {(\sinh x)^'} = {(\frac{2})^'} = \frac{2} > 0,\;\;x \in [0,1]

$$

 * $${\left( {f(x) - g(x)} \right)^'} = 3 + 15{x^2} - \cosh x > 0,\;\;x \in [0,1]

$$

Which means that $$\displaystyle {f(x)}$$ keeps increasing at [0,1], and $$\displaystyle {g(x)}$$ and $$\displaystyle {f(x) - g(x)}$$ as well

So
 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ {\left\| f \right\|_\infty } = \max \left| {f(x)} \right| = {\left. {\left| {f(x)} \right|} \right|_{x = 1}} = 8 $$     (4-1)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ {\left\| g \right\|_\infty } = \max \left| {g(x)} \right| = {\left. {\left| {g(x)} \right|} \right|_{x = 1}} = \frac{1}{2}(e - \frac{1}{e}) \approx 1.71520 $$     (4-2)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ {\left\| {f - g} \right\|_\infty } = \max \left| {f(x) - g(x)} \right| = {\left. {\left| {f(x) - g(x)} \right|} \right|_{x = 1}} = 8 - \frac{1}{2}(e - \frac{1}{e}) \approx 6.82479 $$     (4-3)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

Using the following Fortran code

program main real,allocatable::x,f,g integer::i,n real::e=2.71828 open (unit=10, file="input", status="old") read(10,*)n allocate(x(n+1),f(n+1),g(n+1)) do i=1,n+1 x(i)=-1.0+2.0/n*(i-1) f(i)=3.0*x(i)+5*x(i)**3 g(i)=0.5*(e**x(i)-e**(-1.0*x(i))) end do  open (unit=11, file="hw1.4.plt", status="replace") do i=1,n+1 write(11,"(3F12.4)") x(i),f(i),g(i) end do   end program main

We can easily get the image of $$\displaystyle {f(x)}$$ and $$\displaystyle {g(x)}$$ as following

Conclusion remark
We can see from above that,

 * $$\displaystyle {\left\| {f - g} \right\|_\infty } = 6.8248$$

 * $$\displaystyle {\left\| f \right\|_\infty } - {\left\| g \right\|_\infty } = 8 - 1.71520 = 6.8248$$

thus in this case we have,

 * {| style="width:100%" border="0"

$$ \displaystyle {\left\| {f - g} \right\|_\infty } = {\left\| f \right\|_\infty } - {\left\| g \right\|_\infty } $$     (4-4)
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 * style="width:92%; padding:10px; border:2px solid #8888aa" |
 *
 * }

In this case we can't prove the statement made in Lecture slide 5-3, it is believed to caused by the same monotonicity of $$\displaystyle f(x)$$, $$\displaystyle g(x)$$ and $$\displaystyle {f(x) - g(x)}$$.

=Contributing Members=

title: User:Egm6341.s11.team2.zou/HW1