text:
User:Eas4200c.f08.blue.a/Lecture 15

$$\theta = \frac{\alpha}{x} $$ rate of twist    (1)

$$u_{y}=-\theta \times z $$ is the horizontal portion

$$u_{z}=+(PP' )\cos \beta$$

$$=\alpha y_{p}$$

$$u_{z}=+\theta \simeq y$$    )(2)

z is the displacement of a point on the cross section

For the warping displacement along the x-axis is

$$ u_{x} = \theta \psi(y, z)$$    (3)

The kinematic assumptions are equations (1), (2), and (3)

After the following road map, this derivation will continue.

Road map for torsional analysis of an aircraft wing

A. Kinematic Assumption

B. Strain Displacement Relationship

C. Equilibrium Equations

D. Prandth Stress Function $$/phi$$

E. Strain Compatibility Equations

F. Equation for $$\phi$$

G. Boundary Condition for $$\phi$$

H. $$T = 2\int \int \phi dA $$

T = GJ$$\theta$$

J = moment of inertia for a circular cross section

Moment of inertia for a non circular cross section is

$$J = \frac{-4}{\bigtriangledown ^{2}\phi}\int \int \phi dA$$

I. Thin walled cross section

Ad-Hoc Assumption

Formal Derivation

$$T = 2q\bar{A}$$

J. Twist angle $$\theta$$: Method 1

$$\theta = \frac{1}{2G\bar{A}} \oint_{}^{}{}\frac{q}{t}ds$$

s = curvilinear coordinate along this wall

K. Sec. 3.6 on multi cell thin walled cross-section

title: User:Eas4200c.f08.blue.a/Lecture 15


text: File:Displacement of node 1.JPG

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

title: File:Displacement of node 1.JPG


text:
Talk:United States currency/100¢, 3

Deletion request contested
why are you deleting my page? --km 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:United States currency/100¢, 3


text:
Talk:United States currency/100¢, 2

Deletion request contested
why are you deleting this page? --km 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:United States currency/100¢, 2


text: File:3D Explanation.JPG

title: File:3D Explanation.JPG


text:
Portal:North American History/Intro

The programs of this department focus on exploring the history of all countries in North America, in addition to their impact on the world around us. We invite all who wish to learn about North America to enroll in our courses and participate in discussions. If this interests you, please consider teaching a course or mentoring students. This page has been designed to contain relevant information about the department. Feel free to update any section if it is outdated.

title: Portal:North American History/Intro


text:
Portal:North American History/Catalog

Current
The following courses are being offered at this time by the Department.
 * Introduction to Historiography - Offered through the Department of Historiography
 * Introduction to US History (I & II)
 * United States History
 * Westward Expansion

Proposed
These courses are in development. When they are ready to go, they will be moved to the above section.
 * Colonial America
 * The US Presidents
 * U.S. states
 * Reconstruction
 * U. S. Government

Projects

 * The Creation of an Empire I
 * Project for K-12: See The Crafting Freedom Project
 * The Great Depression/Day one
 * History through American Girl: Lessons in History using the American Girl series

Requested
Many requests are received for courses. Those with the highest priority are listed here. Unfortunately, there are fewer instructors than courses. If you can teach a course, please consider doing so.
 * American Revolution
 * The United States of America
 * War of 1812: The Return of the British
 * Mexican–American War
 * The US Civil War
 * Spanish–American War
 * The World Wars
 * World War I
 * World War II
 * Pax Americana
 * Cold War
 * Korean War
 * Vietnam War
 * Invasion of Grenada
 * Invasion of Panama
 * Gulf War
 * Somali Civil War
 * The Civil Rights Movement
 * Global War on Terrorism
 * 9/11 (Please note this topic is going to try to stay neutral about its content and will try to stay away from any personal beliefs about the ensuing wars by the United States in its response)
 * Iraq War
 * War in Afghanistan
 * War in Pakistan
 * Libyan Civil War
 * American-Canadian Relations
 * Canada at War
 * Pre-Confederation Canada
 * Canada and Race: Nativism, Eugenics, and Aliens
 * Imperial geopolitics and boundary disputes in the Pacific Northwest

title: Portal:North American History/Catalog


text:
Portal:North American History/Tasks

Welcome to the North American History's Task page! This one of a series of task pages linked to the School of History Task Page. This page is designed as a simple place where our Projects can list things that they need help on, so that you can dig in and get involved contributing to Wikiversity. If any of the following sound like things you'd be interested in doing, jump right in!

Current Task List

 * Remove links to Wikipedia (as a page).
 * The US Civil War/Week 3, remove Wikipedia link to Wikipedia's article on Fort Sumter, and replace it with short summary of Fort Sumter.
 * Finish Unit 1: The Founders presidents.
 * Improve American Revolution/Chapter 3: French and Indian War.
 * Expand content; add more events here American Revolution/Chapter 2: The Colonists in 1750/Lesson 1.
 * Start Vietnam War

title: Portal:North American History/Tasks


title: File:Image-HW3.jpg


text:
Portal:North American History/Deptnews

 * May 7, 2007 - Department of American History founded!
 * October 7, 2007 - Department of Canadian History founded!
 * October 3, 2008 - Page overhaul!
 * October 7, 2008 - Department of Canadian History is merged into Department of American History!
 * October 15, 2008 - Department renamed to Department of North American History

title: Portal:North American History/Deptnews


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.ateam.nobrega/Homework Report Three

Axial Force-Displacement

The equation for a two-force element,

 * $$ K^{(e)}\cdot d^{(e)} = f^{(e)} $$

can also be expressed with axial forces and displacements where,

\begin{bmatrix} P_{1}^{(e)}\\ P_{2}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} K & -K\\ -K & K \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} q_{1}^{(e)}\\ q_{2}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} $$

This can also be expressed as,

K^{(e)} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -1\\    -1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} q_{1}^{(e)}\\ q_{2}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} =\begin{bmatrix} P_{1}^{(e)}\\ P_{2}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} $$

where,

K^{(e)} = \frac{EA}{L} $$

The relationship between q(e) and d(e) can be expressed in the form of the equation,

q^{(e)} = T^{(e)}\cdot d^{(e)} $$

where q(e) is a 2x1 matrix, T(e) is a 2x4 matrix, and d(e) is a 4x1 matrix.

Consider the displacement vector of local node one, it is denoted by d[1](e) and can be seen at right where,

d_{[1]}^{(e)} = d_{1}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{i} + d_{2}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{j} $$

relating q to d,

q_{1}^{(e)} = d_{[1]}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{\tilde{i}} $$

q_{1}^{(e)} = (d_{1}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{i} + d_{2}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{j})\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}} $$

q_{1}^{(e)} = d_{1}^{(e)}(\overrightarrow{i}\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}}) + d_{2}^{(e)}(\overrightarrow{j}\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}}) $$

Where,

\overrightarrow{i}\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}} = \cos\theta = l^{(e)} $$

\overrightarrow{j}\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}} = \sin\theta = m^{(e)} $$

q_{1}^{(e)} = l^{(e)}d_{1}^{(e)} + m^{(e)}d_{2}^{(e)} = \begin{bmatrix} l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} d_{1}^{(e)}\\ d_{2}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} $$

For node 2, denoted by d[2](e),

d_{[2]}^{(e)} = d_{3}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{i} + d_{4}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{j} $$

relating q to d,

q_{2}^{(e)} = d_{[2]}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{\tilde{i}} $$

q_{2}^{(e)} = (d_{3}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{i} + d_{4}^{(e)}\overrightarrow{j})\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}} $$

q_{2}^{(e)} = d_{3}^{(e)}(\overrightarrow{i}\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}}) + d_{4}^{(e)}(\overrightarrow{j}\cdot \overrightarrow{\tilde{i}}) $$

q_{2}^{(e)} = l^{(e)}d_{3}^{(e)} + m^{(e)}d_{4}^{(e)} = \begin{bmatrix} l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} d_{3}^{(e)}\\ d_{4}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} $$

Therefore,

\begin{bmatrix} q_{1}^{(e)}\\ q_{2}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} d_{1}^{(e)}\\ d_{2}^{(e)}\\ d_{3}^{(e)}\\ d_{4}^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} $$

Here q(e) is a 2x1 matrix, T(e) is a 2x4 matrix, and d(e) is a 4x1 matrix.

Note: On Wednesday September 24 of 2008, the class took the first exam. Dr. Vu-Quoc posted the solutions to the exam on his course website but the direct link is available below.

Exam 1 Solutions.

\begin{bmatrix} P_1^{(e)}\\ P_2^{(e)}\\ \end{bmatrix} = T^{(e)} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} f_1^{e}\\ f_2^{e}\\ f_3^{e}\\ f_4^{e}\\ \end{bmatrix} $$

Where T(e) is a 2x4 transformation matrix which can be used to transform distance and force from one coordinate system to another.

q^{(e)} = T^{(e)} \cdot d^{(e)} $$

P^{(e)} = T^{(e)} \cdot f^{(e)} $$

Recall

P^{(e)} = q^{(e)} \cdot k^{(e)} $$

Where q and P are axial components with k being a 2x2 overlap stiffness matrix and q being 2x1 distance matrix.

Thus

T^{(e)} \cdot d^{(e)} = q^{(e)} $$

T^{(e)} \cdot f^{(e)} = P^{(e)} $$

k^{(e)} \cdot (T^{(e)} \cdot d^{(e)}) = (T^{(e)} \cdot f^{(e)}) $$

The goal is to have a FD distance relationship as described by:

k(e) * d(e) = f(e)

Move the transformation matrix from the RHS to the LHS by premultiplying the equation by Y(e)-1. (inverse of the T matrix)

The T matrix is a rectangular 2x4 matrix, thus it cannot be inverted. However, the T matrix can be transposed to achieve similar results:

[T^{(e)T} \cdot k^{(e)} \cdot T^{(e)}] \cdot d^{(e)} = (T^{(e)} \cdot f^{(e)}) $$

Where the transpose of T is a 4x2 matrix and the overall resultant matrix of the transpose of TT * k * T leads to a 4x4 matrix.

The following problem has been worked out to verify the above statement.

$$     \begin{bmatrix} &  &   &   &   \\          &   &   &   &   \\          &   & K &   &   \\ &  &   &   &   \\          &   &   &   &      \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} &  &   &   &   \\          &   &   &   &   \\          &   & K &   &   \\ &  &   &   &   \\          &   &   &   &      \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & l^{(e)} & m^{(e)} \end{bmatrix}^T $$

>> k=[5/2 -5/2 -5/2 5/2; 5/2 5/2 5/2 -5/2; -5/2 5/2 5/2 -5/2; 5/2 -5/2 -5/2 5/2]

k =

2.5000  -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000

>> T=[sqrt(2)/2 -sqrt(2)/2 0 0; 0 0 sqrt(2)/2 -sqrt(2)/2]

T =

0.7071  -0.7071         0         0         0         0    0.7071   -0.7071

>> TT=T'

TT =

0.7071        0   -0.7071         0         0    0.7071         0   -0.7071

>> K=k*TT

K =

3.5355  -3.5355         0    3.5355   -3.5355    3.5355    3.5355   -3.5355

>> K=K*T

K =

2.5000  -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000         0         0    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000

The justification of this concept can be provided using the principal virtual work theorem. This theorem will be introduced later in the semester.

 * See Lecture 10 for the first example of PVW/Reduction of global FD relationship.

REMARK The k equation from the exam could not be solved using: k-1 * F = d because  k  is a singular matrix.

 K  is a singular matrix, which means the determinant of  k  is 0 and thus  k  cannot be inverted.

RECALL: You need to compute the (det)-1 to find the inverse of the  k  matrix.

 * A famous quote narrated by the professor:

" Ask what not your country can do for you               -ask what you can do for your country." JFK For an unconstrained structure system, there are three possible rigid body motions in 2-D (2 truss - 1 rotation).

Find the eigenvalues of the K matrix, and make observations about the number of 0 eigenvalues.

A =

0.5625   0.3248   -0.5625   -0.3248         0         0    0.3248    0.2500   -0.3248   -0.2500         0         0   -0.5625   -0.3248    3.0625   -2.1752   -2.5000    2.5000   -0.3248   -0.2500    2.8248    1.9375    2.5000   -2.5000         0         0   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000         0         0    2.5000   -2.5000   -2.5000    2.5000

>> eig(A)

ans =

8.4194   2.5879   -0.1729   -0.0219   -0.0000   -0.0000 Observation: Two of the six eigenvalues are zero.

Dynamic Evaluation Problem:
 * k * v = λ * M * V

Where k*v is the stiffness matrix, λ is the eigenvalue related to the vibrational frequency, M is the mass of the system and V is the velocity matrix. Thus, zero eigenvalues lead to zero stored elastic energy meaning the system is rigid.

Infinitesimal Displacement
An alternative way of solving for the reactions is by using the Global Force Displacement relation. Since one knows the values for the displacement column matrix ( d : 6x1) and the global stiffness matrix ( K : 6x6). One can solve for the force column matrix ( F : 6x1).

\begin{bmatrix} &  &   &   &   &  & \\         &   &   &   &   &  & \\         &   &   &   K   &  & \\ &  &   &   &   &  & \\         &   &   &   &   &  & \\         &   &   &   &   &  & \\     \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} d_1\\ d_2\\ d_3\\ d_4\\ d_5\\ d_6\\ \end{bmatrix} =   \begin{bmatrix} F_1\\ F_2\\ F_3\\ F_4\\ F_5\\ F_6\\ \end{bmatrix} $$

Example Calculation:

\begin{bmatrix} 0.5625 & 0.3248 & -0.5625 & -0.3248 & 0.00 & 0.00\\   0.3248 & 0.1875 & -0.3248 & -0.1875 & 0.00 & 0.00\\    -0.5625 & -0.3248 & 3.0625 & -2.1752 & 2.5 & -2.5\\    -0.3248 & -0.1875 & -1.9375 & 2.6875 & -2.5 & 2.5\\    0.00 & 0.00 & 2.5 & -2.5 & 2.5 & -2.5\\    0.00 & 0.00 & -2.5 & 2.5 & -2.5 & 2.5\\ \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 0\\      0\\      4.352\\      6.127\\       0\\       0\\     \end{bmatrix} =      \begin{bmatrix} F_1\\ F_2\\ F_3\\ F_4\\ F_5\\ F_6\\ \end{bmatrix} $$

The form above can be reduced to the form below :

\begin{bmatrix} -0.5625 & -0.3248\\    -0.3248 & -0.1875\\       3.0625& -2.1752\\     -1.9375 &  2.6875\\      -2.5   &   2.5  \\      -2.5   &   2.5  \\ \end{bmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} 4.352\\     6.127\\     \end{bmatrix} =      \begin{bmatrix} F_1\\ F_2\\ F_3\\ F_4\\ F_5\\ F_6\\ \end{bmatrix} $$

How to solve in MATLAB:

>> K = [-0.5625,-0.32476;-0.32476,-0.1875;3.0625,-2.1752;-2.1752,2.6875;-2.5,2.5;2.5,-2.5]

K =

-0.5625  -0.3248   -0.3248   -0.1875    3.0625   -2.1752   -2.1752    2.6875   -2.5000    2.5000    2.5000   -2.5000

>> d = [4.352;6.1271]

d =

4.3520   6.1271

>> F = K*d

F =

-4.4378  -2.5622    0.0003    7.0001    4.4377   -4.4377

Note: F3 and F4 return the given input values for P. Therefore, to make computations easier there is no      need to compute rows 3, 4 since row 3 and 4 will return the values for F3 and F4.

Results Comparison:

Method 1: Using the element force displacement relationship to calculate the force reactions.
 * F 1 = -4.4378
 * F 2 = -2.5622
 * F 5 = 4.4378
 * F 6 = -4.4378

Method 2: Using the global force displacement relationship to calculate the force reactions.
 * F 1 = -4.4378
 * F 2 = -2.5622
 * F 5 = 4.4377
 * F 6 = -4.4377

Method 3: Using statics to calculate the force reactions.
 * F 1 = -5.124cos(30o)= -4.4375
 * F 2 = -5.124sin(30o)= -2.5622
 * F 5 = 6.276cos(-45o)= 4.4378
 * F 6 = 6.276sin(-45o)= -4.4378

The image to the left is a visual representation of closing the loop between the finite element method and statics, to be further described below.To be able to close the loop we need to know how to go from the computed force reaction to an unknown displacement. By the statics method described above, we know the reactions of each element. Therefore, we also know the axial force being applied to that member. If we know both the axial load P(e) and the element stiffness k(e). Then we can calculate the axial displacement of the element. See calculations below for further explanation.

Recall the Equations for Axial Displacement :

$$ q_{2}^{(1)} = \frac{|P_{1}^{(1)}|}{k^{(1)}} =\frac{5.1243}{3/4} = 6.8324 $$

$$ q_{1}^{(2)} = \frac{|P_{2}^{(2)}|}{k^{(2)}} =\frac{6.276}{5} = 1.2552 $$

The image on the left is a geometric representation of the deformed shape of a two bar truss. Length AB is the geometric representation of the axial displacement of element 2. Length AC is the geometric representation of the axial displacement of element 1. The intersection of the perpendicular projection of line segment AB and the perpendicular projection of line segment AC, would be the new location of node 2 after the initial load is applied. If you connect a line from node 1 and node 3 to the new location of node 2 this would give you what is known as the deformed shape of the truss after being loaded.

The infinitesimal displacements are very closely related to the virtual displacement from the principal of virtual work. It is important to note in the figure at right that the coordinate system (in red) is taken to be at point A which correlates to the Global node 2 of the two bar truss system. The black vector ending at point D is the virtual displacement vector.

The length of the displacements AC and AB of the deformed shape are then solved for using the following equations.

AC = \frac{|P_{1}^{(1)}|}{k^{(1)}} =\frac{5.1243}{3/4} = 6.8324 $$

AB = \frac{|P_{1}^{(2)}|}{k^{(2)}} =\frac{6.276}{5} = 1.2552 $$

The next step is to solve for the (x,y) coordinates at points B and C using the following equations.

X_{B} = AB \cdot \cos{(135)} = 1.2552\cos{(135)} = -.88756 $$

Y_{B} = AB \cdot \sin{(135)} = 1.2552\sin{(135)} = .88756 $$

X_{C} = AC \cdot \cos{(30)} = 6.8324\cos{(30)} = 5.91703 $$

Y_{C} = AC \cdot \sin{(30)} = 6.8324\sin{(30)} = 3.4162 $$

The final two unknowns are XD and YD which can be solved for with the following equations.

To do so an equation is needed for the line AB and the line BC

PQ = (PQ)i^{~} = (X-X_{P})i + (Y-Y_{P})j $$

(PQ)i^{~} = PQ[ \cos{\theta}i + \sin{\theta}j ] $$

Therefore

X - X_{P} = PQ\cdot \cos{\theta} $$

Y - Y_{P} = PQ\cdot \sin{\theta} $$

\frac {Y-Y_{P}}{X-X_{P}} = \tan{\theta} $$

Y-Y{P} = (\tan{\theta})\cdot(X-X_{P}) $$

The equation for a line perpendicular and passing through P is as follows,

Y-Y_{P} = \tan{(\theta + \frac{\pi}{2})}(X-X{P}) $$

By definition and from the Finite Element Method in which we solved for d3 and d4

AD = d_{3}i + d_{4}j $$

Continuing, $$ X_{D} = 4.35 $$ and $$ Y_{D} = 6.125 $$

A Three Bar Truss
At right the global diagram of a three bar truss can seen.

Here,the force acting on the system is given to be,

 * $$ P = 30 $$

The properties of each bar are given below,

\begin{matrix} E^{(1)}=2 & E^{(2)}=4 & E^{(3)}=3\\ A^{(1)}=3 & A^{(2)}=1 & A^{(3)}=2\\ L^{(1)}=5 & L^{(2)}=5 & L^{(3)}=10 \end{matrix}

$$

The corresponding global and element free body diagrams are as follows.

Recall the equations used to solve static problems:

\sum{F_x=0} $$

\sum{F_y=0} $$

\sum{M_z=0} $$

Summing the moments about point A is trivial as all forces pass through the point and have a zero length moment arm. This action will give us no new information about the system. Therefore, there are 2 equations and 4 unknown forces. This problem is statically indeterminate.

Breaking Down the Element Coordinate Systems

The three diagrams above describe the element coordinate systems for the Three Bar Truss System.

The Moment About Point B
If the sum of the moments are computed about point B, will the sum still be zero? Since point B does not exist on any line of action, will this strategy allow us to solve for sum of the moments?

 * $$\overrightarrow{BA'}=\overrightarrow{BA} + \overrightarrow{AA'}$$

3D- Explanation:

 * $$\sum \overrightarrow{M_B}={\overrightarrow{BA}} \times {\overrightarrow{F}} ={\overrightarrow{BA'}} \times {\overrightarrow{F}}$$

For all values of A', on the line of action of the vector F:

 * $$\sum \overrightarrow{M_B}=({\overrightarrow{BA}} + {\overrightarrow{AA'}}) \times {\overrightarrow{F}}$$
 * $$\sum \overrightarrow{M_B}={\overrightarrow{BA}} \times {\overrightarrow{F}} + {\overrightarrow{AA'}} \times {\overrightarrow{F}} $$

Where:

 * $${\overrightarrow{AA'}} \times {\overrightarrow{F}} = \overrightarrow{O} $$

Three Bar Truss (cont)
Point A is in equilibrium: $$ \sum_{i=0}^{3}{\overrightarrow {Fi}}=\overrightarrow O $$

Note that the above equation is the same as the two scalar equations summing forces in the X and Y directions.

If we sum moments about B:

 * $$ \sum_{i}\overrightarrow {M}_{B,i}=\sum_{i}\overrightarrow {BA'_i} \times \overrightarrow{F_i} $$

 * $$A'_{i}=$$ any point on line of action of $$\overrightarrow{F_i}$$

 * $$ \sum_{i}\overrightarrow {M}_{B,i}=\sum_{i}\overrightarrow {BA} \times \overrightarrow{F_i} = \overrightarrow {BA}\times \sum_{i}\overrightarrow {F_i}$$

Since $$\sum_{i}\overrightarrow {F_i}=0$$, the sum of the moments about point B is zero.

 * $$ \sum_{i}\overrightarrow {M}_{B,i}=\sum_{i}\overrightarrow {BA} \times \overrightarrow{O} $$

Construction of Global Stiffness Matrix for a Three Bar Truss
The Three Bar Truss problem has 8 Degrees of Freedom (Thus an 8x8 matrix):

$$k_3$$ is in total a 4 x 4 matrix.

$$K_{33}=k^{(1)}_{33}+k^{(2)}_{11}+k^{(3)}_{11}$$

$$K_{34}=k^{(1)}_{34}+k^{(2)}_{12}+k^{(3)}_{12}$$

$$K_{43}=k^{(1)}_{43} + k^{(2)}_{21} + k^{(3)}_{21}$$

$$K_{44}=k^{(1)}_{44} + k^{(2)}_{22} + k^{(3)}_{22}$$

$$

K_{global}= \left [\begin{array}{cccccccc} k^{(1)}_{11} & k^{(1)}_{12} & k^{(1)}_{13} & k^{(1)}_{14} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ k^{(1)}_{21} & k^{(1)}_{22} & k^{(1)}_{23} & k^{(1)}_{24} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ k^{(1)}_{31} & k^{(1)}_{32} & (k^{(1)}_{33} + k^{(2)}_{11} + k^{(3)}_{11})& (k^{(1)}_{34} + k^{(2)}_{12}+k^{(3)}_{12})& k^{(2)}_{13} & k^{(2)}_{14} & k^{(3)}_{13} & k^{(3)}_{14} \\ k^{(1)}_{41} & k^{(1)}_{42} & (k^{(1)}_{43} + k^{(2)}_{21} + k^{(3)}_{21}) & (k^{(1)}_{44} + k^{(2)}_{22} + k^{(3)}_{22}) & k^{(2)}_{23}) & k^{(2)}_{24} & k^{(3)}_{23} & k^{(3)}_{24} \\ 0 & 0 & k^{(2)}_{31} & k^{(2)}_{32} & k^{(2)}_{33} & k^{(2)}_{34} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & k^{(2)}_{41} & k^{(2)}_{42} & k^{(2)}_{43} & k^{(2)}_{44} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & k^{(3)}_{31} & k^{(3)}_{32} & 0 & 0 & k^{(3)}_{33} & k^{(3)}_{34} \\ 0 & 0 & k^{(3)}_{41} & k^{(3)}_{42} & 0 & 0 & k^{(3)}_{43} & k^{(3)}_{44}\end{array} \right] $$

MATLAB: Two Bar Truss Deformation
The undeformed truss is represented with the dotted lines. The deformed truss is the solid lines.

% HW 3 - Two Bar Truss System Deformation Plot % Description---This code plots the initial undeformed truss system and the resulting deformed truss % Created by: %          Michael Carr %          Akash Shah %          Taylor Boggs %          Pedro Rivero %          Josh McNally %          Tatiana Nobrega % Due --08OCT08

clear; %clear screen close; %close open windows

dof = 2; %degree of freedoms n_elem = 4; %number of elements (both deformed and original) n_node = 4; %number of nodes total_dof = 2 * n_node; %total dofs

position(:, 1) = [ 0; 0]; position(:, 2) = [ 3.464; 2]; position(:, 3) = [ 4.8783; 0.58579]; position(:, 4) = [ 7.8161; 8.1271];

% set up the nodal coordinate arrays x, y

for i = 1 : n_node; x(i) = position(1,i); y(i) = position(2,i); end

% setting up the element connectivity array node_connect, defined as follows: % node_connect(local node number, element number) = global node number

node_connect(1, 1) = 1; node_connect(2, 1) = 2; node_connect(1, 4) = 4; node_connect(2, 4) = 3; node_connect(1, 2) = 2; node_connect(2, 2) = 3; node_connect(1, 3) = 1; node_connect(2, 3) = 4;

% plot the whole truss system % loop over the elements

for i = 1 : 2 % for element i, do the following: % node_1 = global node number corresponding to the local node 1 node_1 = node_connect(1,i); % node_2 = global node number corresponding to the local node 1 node_2 = node_connect(2,i); % xx : 1x2 array containing x coordinates of node_1 and node_2 xx = [x(node_1),x(node_2)]; % yy : 1x2 array containing y coordinates of node_1 and node_2 yy = [y(node_1),y(node_2)]; % plot the element i in 3-D using command plot3 % use axis command to avoid having the plot window too tight axis([0 10 0 10]) % solid line plot(xx,yy,'--') %z axis removed from Crab.m code % hold the current figure for the next element hold on  end %The following loop connects the remaining elements for i = 3 : 4 node_3 = node_connect(1,i); node_4 = node_connect(2,i); xx = [x(node_3),x(node_4)]; yy = [y(node_3),y(node_4)]; axis([-2 10 -2 10]) plot(xx,yy,'-g') hold on  end

%This lables the nodes and elements

text(x(node_connect(1,1)),y(node_connect(1,1)), 'Global Node 1', 'HorizontalAlignment', 'center') text(x(node_connect(2,1)),y(node_connect(2,1)), 'Global Node 2', 'HorizontalAlignment', 'center') text(x(node_connect(2,3)),y(node_connect(1,4)), 'Global Node 2','HorizontalAlignment', 'center') text(x(node_connect(2,2)),y(node_connect(2,2)), 'Global Node 3', 'HorizontalAlignment', 'left') text(x(node_connect(2,1))/2,y(node_connect(2,1))/2, 'Element 1', 'HorizontalAlignment', 'center') text(x(node_connect(2,3))/2,y(node_connect(2,3))/2, 'Element 1','HorizontalAlignment', 'center') text(x(node_connect(1,2))/2 + x(node_connect(2,2))/2,y(node_connect(1,2))/2+y(node_connect(2,2))/2, 'Element 2', 'HorizontalAlignment', 'center') text(x(node_connect(2,3))/2 + x(node_connect(2,4))/2,y(node_connect(2,3))/2+y(node_connect(2,4))/2, 'Element 2', 'HorizontalAlignment', 'center')

%Labeling axis and titling graph title('Two Bar Truss---Original Configuration & Resulting Deformation') xlabel('x') ylabel('y')

Contributing Mediawiki Writers:

Eml4500.f08.ateam.mcnally 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ateam.nobrega 21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ateam.boggs.t 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ateam.shah 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ateam.carr 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Eml4500.f08.ateam.rivero 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


text: File:SingleCell.JPG

title: File:SingleCell.JPG


text:
Portal:North American History/Related

 * The School of History

title: Portal:North American History/Related


text:
Portal:North American History/Degree

Wikiversity does not offer degree programs, but this list gives students an idea of what might be required to earn a college degree.

Minor
Normally most institutions do not offer undergraduate degrees in American History. This course sequence would be for a Minor in American History.
 * Introduction to History
 * Introduction to US History (I)
 * Introduction to US History (II)
 * Pre-Columbian America
 * Colonial America
 * American Revolution

title: Portal:North American History/Degree


text:
User:Goldenfool~enwikiversity

The username
This name is one of my pseudonyms, the others being: pyrite(used for forums), asymptote(used for games).

About me
I was an electrical engineering student at Arkansas Tech University.

Since June 28th I have been an Aeronautical engineering student and cadet at the Air Force Academy.

Goldenfool 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

title: User:Goldenfool~enwikiversity


text:
Portal:North American History/Instructors

If you are interesting in coordinating a project or teaching a course, feel free to list yourself in the list of faculty below (A-Z order).
 * Geoffrey Plourde (Department Liaison) Office


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.ramrod.c/9-29-08

2 Bar Truss System

Closing the loop refers to the two upward pointing arrows on the right side of the figure, making your way back to computing the reaction forces.

Using Statics
Taking a look back at the statics method, the reaction forces known and unknown therefore the member forces are P1(1), P2(2)
 * Note: Both members are in tension

How to Compute the axial displacement of dofs (degrees of freedom) or the amount of extension of the bars:
$$ q_2^{(1)} = \frac {P_1^{(1)}}{d^(1)} = \frac {P_2^{(1)}}{k^{(1)}} = AC $$
 * P1(1) = P2(1)
 * q1(1) = 0, Fixed global node 1

$$ q_1^{(2)} = \frac {-P_2^{(2)}}{k^{(2)}} = -AB $$

 * q2(2) = 0, Fixed global node 3

title: User:Eml4500.f08.ramrod.c/9-29-08


text:
User talk:Goldenfool~enwikiversity

 Hello Goldenfool, 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. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on 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.

 * 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.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 03:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Hi! Our name is Vicky-Verity. We are twins and are Wikiversity mascots. We think Wikiversity is a great place to learn and make friends (when we aren't sleeping). Leave us a message!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Goldenfool. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Goldenfool~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Goldenfool~enwikiversity


text: File:Bar Torsion.JPG

title: File:Bar Torsion.JPG


text:
User:Mu301

I am the Curator of the historic Ladd Observatory at Brown University. My research focus is late 19th and early 20th century history of science and technology.

Visit my /Learning blog/ and join in on the conversation. I also have a personal blog called Fornax Chimiæ and I contribute to the Ladd Observatory blog.

I'm a bureaucrat at en-wikiversity;  if you need assistance or help with anything here.

Where I'm currently most active
 * Wikiversity:User:Mu301
 * Wikipedia:User:Mu301
 * Outreach:User:Mu301

Projects that I'm involved with
 * GLAM (Galleries • Libraries • Archives • Museums)
 * Commons:Ladd Observatory
 * Commons:Retro-Computing Society of Rhode Island

My Freenode irc nick and cloak is My other accounts are Mikeu and Mu301Bot (w/bot flag for en-wv and beta-wv)

title: User:Mu301


text:
Introduction to US History

For more courses in this subject, please visit the Department of American history.

This course is a survey of the history of the United States of America taught at the college level. This is a course, therefore this entails lectures, assignments, quizzes (& quiz reviews), and a final test. Since this is an introduction, this history course will only cover US History from the 1500s to 1877. You will learn the interactions of various nations, including the European giants, Native Americans, and Africans, and their economic, social, and cultural impact. This will go over America before Europe, European exploration, the 13 colonies, the American Revolution, Independence, Development of the American government, and the Civil War & Reconstruction.

Along the course, you will have questions below each lecture that you're encouraged to answer. There will also be essays that you're encouraged to write and a student example for you to model your response off of. You'll benefit from reading this course's textbook, which will be on our sister project, Wikibooks (link is below). If you have any questions pertaining to this course, please reach out to the talk page of this course or to my talk page.

Although knowledge of early US History isn't essential in life, I surely recommend that every American citizen should be well accustomed to their nation's history. If I may inject my own two cents, the history of the US is fascinating and entails a moral story to not give up. To think that arguably the most powerful nation in the World in our current times was only founded three centuries ago (compared to our European counterparts) is mind-blowing. The American Revolution, itself, is bizarre in its event. How did a small number of untrained, armed citizens defeat, at the time, the World's most powerful military? You'll figure out the answer to this question.

With that, I say good luck and happy learning! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Lectures

 * Week 1: America Before Columbus
 * Week 2: Foreign Exploration
 * Week 3: The Early Colonies
 * Week 4: Discontent with Britain
 * Week 5: The American Revolution
 * Week 6: A New Nation
 * Week 7: War of 1812
 * Week 8: 1800s America
 * Week 9: Westward Expansion
 * Week 10: Immigration & Industrial Revolution
 * Week 11: Civil War
 * Week 12: Reconstruction

Assignments

 * Week 1-2 Essay(s): Life as an Indentured Servant, Deerfield Massacre
 * Week 1-3 Quiz Review: Quiz Review 1
 * Week 4-6 Essay(s): What would YOU do?
 * Week 7-9 Essay(s): John Marshall
 * Week 4-8 Quiz Review: Quiz Review 2
 * Week 10 Essay(s): Cotton Gin, Abolitionists
 * Week 9-11 Quiz Review: Quiz Review 3
 * Week 12 Essay(s): Rebuilding a Nation
 * Final Exam Review: Final Exam Review

Resources
The following books are resources that can be used to study US History. You do not need to splurge on textbooks. If you have a copy or can acquire one cheap, use them. Otherwise they are a waste of money as I have yet to find a single textbook that accurately portrays US History.
 * US History Wikibook -Free text developed by Wikibooks, missing some areas.
 * The American Pageant. David Kennedy and Lizabeth Cohen. - The most commonly used textbook. If you have a copy, I recommend it as a reference.
 * People's History of the United States. Howard Zinn. - This book focuses on providing an alternative view of history from marginalized viewpoints. Because it is controversial, read it with a grain of salt.
 * CliffsNotes on US History I - Readable online
 * UCCP course - A whole course designed for use by teachers.

United States History Textbook
This will be a textbook created and improved by students. We will be using this as our reference for this class.

 * US History

title: Introduction to US History


text: File:Mond 6.jpg

title: File:Mond 6.jpg


text: File:Mond 6a.jpg

title: File:Mond 6a.jpg


text: File:Airfoil.jpg

title: File:Airfoil.jpg


text: File:Cylinder a.jpg

title: File:Cylinder a.jpg


text: File:Circles a.jpg

title: File:Circles a.jpg


text:
Kootz airfoil

The equations sets are accurate (to a point) however the remainder of the page is no longer current
Kootz airfoils are several series of airfoil designs developed by A. Kootz, an aeronautical engineer. They are designed to cover most common variants of airfoil types using as simple an equation as possible. There are three sets of airfoils, the earliest set was developed using trig functions, the second was improved and simplified through the use of sequential exponents, the third is designed for functional use.

[Page in progress]-pay no attention to the scientist behind the curtain. Thanks, AK.

Early Equations
The airfoils are based off of the parametric equation: r(t)= [ t^2, sin(t) ] : -pi < t < pi.

Most sections are created from the thinner section given by: r(t)= [ t^2, sin(t)/2 ] : -pi < t < pi.

A camber can be given to the equation several ways:

1) a using a cosine function to adjust the value of the sin(t) term.

2) adding a sine(t^2)/4 term to create a preset camber

3) adding a t^2/pi^2-t^4/pi^4 term

4) a recursive camber can be given by -sin(t+pi/2*t^2/pi^2-pi/2*t^4/pi^4)/2

All the above methods can also be used in the inverse by subtracting the them from -sin(t).

Improved equations
The airfoils is solved more simply by replacing the trig functions with exponential functions.

The bounds of 't' are reduced from -pi<t<pi to -1<t<1.

The fairing function changes as sin(t) is replaced by t-t^3.

The camber function thus changes from sin(t^2) to t^2-t^4

This produces a much broader fairing/higher camber thickness ~77% of unit chord. So the function is given a two user defined variables 'a' which controls the fairing width, and 'b' which controls the height of the camber line.

Here is the finished equation: r(t)=[ t^2, (t-t^3+(t^2-t^4)/b)/a ]

Bezier Curve Airfoils
Once the evaluation of the Improved Airfoil equations were completed, a method of creating airfoils through the use of 5 control-point bezier curves began development.

The x(t) equation has two variants, one provides camber location control, and the other provides control over the thickness location.

x(t)=(1-t)^4+16*(1-t)^3*t*(CamberLocation/100-1/2)+ (1-t)^2*t^2*(32*(1/2-CamberLocation/100)-2)+ 16*(1-t)*t^3*(CamberLocation/100-1/2)+t^4

x(t)=(1-t)^4+18*(1-t)^3*t*(ThicknessLocation/100-1/2)+ (1-t)^2*t^2*(36*(1/3-ThicknessLocation/100)-2)+ 18*(1-t)*t^3*(ThicknessLocation/100-1/2)+t^4

y(t)=4*(1-t)^3*t*(Camber/25+Thickness/77)+ 8*(1-t)^2*t^2*(-Camber/25)+ 4*(1-t)*t^3*(Camber/25-Thickness/77)

0<=t<=1

The constants within the equations are determined experimentally and have an output accuracy to within +- 0.0001 of input values.

Alterations
Several series of alterations to the base function have been examined.

A supercritical airfoil can be obtained through conversion of the Cos(t/(n)) function from t/(n) to t^k/(n*(2*pi)^(k-1)). This pushes the effect of the camber function from the upper surface of the airfoil (the start of the iteration) and further back along the lower surface (toward the end of the iteration). This effect can be seen here with t/4 on the inside as a reference, with graphs of k values of 2, 4, and 8. image

A more general alteration is the addition or subtraction of another Sin(t-pi)term. The 'y' equation becomes sin(t)*cos(t/4) - k*sin(t). The results are a thinning or thickening of the airfoil without affecting the camber. This can be observed in this graph of k=-.25(inside),0 (middle),+.25(outside). image

Notable values of 'N'
n = 2; 'thin' airfoil it constitutes the inner limit of the camber function. image

n = 3; this produces a concave airfoil where the bottom surface crosses the chord line at the aerodynamic center. image

n = 4; this gives an airfoil similar to the Clark'Y' that has the bottom trailing edge along the chord. image

n = 6; common NACA airfoil imitation, biconvex with camber. image

n >> inf; becomes symmetric airfoil, can be graphed by replacing cos(t/(n)) with value '1'. image

title: Kootz airfoil


text:
Talk:Kootz airfoil

Please do not edit this page, it is for use by myself and my colleagues as a collaborative teaching effort. Goldenfool 05:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kootz airfoil


text: Template:Math stub

title: Template:Math stub


text: Wikiversity:Major schools

title: Wikiversity:Major schools


text:
Wikiversity talk:Community Review

Blocked user review
If this review is for discussing problems, is there any reason why a blocked user cannot ask for a review here? Or is there a procedure that e must follow? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moulton has been putting notices and comments all over Wikiversity, many of which I and evidently many others see as disruptive - so reverting his edits is not refusing a request for a review, but rather is a strategy for containing Moulton's disruption. We still need to document the run up to Moulton's block, and we still need to address some of Moulton's concerns - but we need to do so without playing 'games', as Moulton likes doing. Cormaggio talk 11:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your answer to be (b): there is a procedure that e should follow. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we discuss WV IRC channels?
Is it fair and within bounds to bring up the banning and unbanning of people on IRC, here on Community Review? Emesee 23:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a separate issue to the wiki unblocks. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would be the best place to discuss blocking some one on #wikiversity and #wikiversity-en ? --LauraHale 20:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Something connected to Chat? JWSchmidt started something there when he was blocked on the channel. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess blocks from #wikiversity-en could be discussed at Community Review. #wikiversity is the Beta Wikiversity channel. Maybe BetaWikiversity:Wikiversity:Babel? -- dark lama  21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I just think if you're blocked from Wikiversity, you should also be blocked from the IRC channels because I've seen one or two people who have used the channel to attack others because they had admin privileges removed or were blocked. I feel the same standards should apply to the IRC channel that apply to the wiki.  (I'm also of the camp that logging should be allowed and you should be allowed to freely share them.  There appear to me to be one or two people who use the culture of not sharing logs to get do things they wouldn't do on the wiki, and that these people are blatantly acting in bad faith.) --LauraHale 23:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Currently, both channels note in the topic that logging is going on. We don't currently have much in the way of policy regarding the channels, but currently they are both managed by Mike and me. --SB_Johnny talk 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I think Wikiversity doesn't have enough standards in place to begin with, but agree that there should be some standards that are true for both the wiki and for IRC. I think who decides the standards for the wiki seems fairly straight forward, English Wikiversity's Wiki Community. WMF hosts, owns, and operates the servers that the English Wikiversity wiki resides on. However I think who decides the standards for the IRC channels is not as straight forward. WMF does not host the IRC channels, assert ownership over them, or operate them. Anyone could start an IRC channel on any irc network for discussing English Wikiversity. Anyone that did so would need to have permission from the business or people that operate the network to do so, and be willing to agree to their terms of use and rules. The people that host and operate any IRC channel at any given time can change arbitrarily without warning or notice unless the owner's or operators of an irc network go to great pains to reduce the risk of that happening. I think the rules of the irc channels come down to the willingness of the operators of the irc channels to enforce the rules of the English Wikiversity where they don't contradict the rules of the network, and English Wikiversity's Wiki Community has no more say in who gets to operate or manage it than they do at facebook or twitter. -- dark lama  06:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Subpages would be a good idea
I'm not sure why it wasn't set up this way earlier, but shouldn't the topics on the review page be subpaged so that individual discussions can be closed when appropriate? I suppose we could do it after the fact, but of course we lose the edit histories when we do it that way. --SB_Johnny talk 15:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We should probably also section the page better, because some of the threads are getting long. On an active page like this it is important to allow section edits without edit save collisions.  --mikeu talk 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Please weigh in with your opinions on whether or not the block should be kept or removed, and nothing else."
Folks, What happened?

SB Johnny wrote those words that appear in the title above in Community Review. Wikiversitians produced their opinions. Then SB Johnny suggested that the unblock be based on some conditions that he was initiating (which may be similar to respect people or other guidelines that wikiversitians are currently developing), because some wikiversitians have asked for it but most wikiversitians have said nothing else. Then he said, concerning Emesee's summary, "I consider this "condensation" to be a simple vote count, without taking any account of the subtleties involved in reaching a consensus." What happened? Johnny, I am very confused as to what your position is. And do you still believe that "the block itself is now causing disruption"? Best wishes, Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, sometimes in a consensus discussion the original options don't fit the need of the community. In this case, there was a lot of misgivings expressed about unblocking, presumably because people were concerned that it would open the door for what happened leading up to the block, so I tried to provide a general guideline for JWSchmidt (and everyone else) to follow that would serve to avoid that. --SB_Johnny talk 10:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * IOW, the discussion before the "yes or no" had far too many conflated issues, so I asked for discussion of a more narrow scope so that we could start getting the first issue squared away. However, the responses made it clear that a "yes, but only if..." option was more generally favored. Insisting on a binary interpretation (vote count) when there was clearly a third way preferred by many runs contrary to how consensus works, and I don't want to support a decision made on that basis. Yes, I still feel the block is disruptive, but creating new disruption to undo it isn't a step in the right direction. --SB_Johnny talk 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I think SB Johnny just pointed out one of the hardest things for admins to admit, across the wikis, and that is the potential for the block to be disruptive itself. Dzonatas 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Thank you! Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 05:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Guideline
I would prefer no tag to the current "Guideline" tag, as I think it invites users to ignore the results of CR's. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 02:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I took the tag down. This page isn't a guideline, nor a policy. Probably not a process either, but rather a discussion forum where a certain kind of process takes place. We need a better language to describe things like this. --SB_Johnny talk 09:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that CQ considers such forums "Processes". The Jade Knight (d'viser) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems so. He was also working on Process. Then there is the recently created process and maybe others.  I think we should be carefull about reclassifying the page after people have showed support for a particular version becuase it might get confusing if some supported it without the template and others with it.  Personally, I agree with the removal of guideline and support the page as a policy.  But, I am not too particular about what we call it, the content is the more important issue for me. --mikeu talk 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Community Review Process
The current Community Review has heightened my awareness of certain dysfunctional aspects, aspects that can be expected to reduce the effectiveness, the carefully deliberated view, the discovery of consensus, that should be a part of a high-level review like this.

1. Community Review should be preceded by lesser advisory process where possible, starting with attempts to directly resolve disputes.

2. A Community Review should never be started by just a single user. If a single user cannot find support, to sign off on the charges in the review, taking co-equal responsibility for them, it is a waste of time to discuss them before the whole community. This is, in fact, basic deliberative process (a motion requires a second before it can be debated, other than when a community is meeting as a "committee of the whole," which is never recommended for the actual making of decisions.

3. The charges are properly included in a section of their own, signed by the author. I'm suggesting that a co-signature should be required, to avoid the spectacle and disruption of an unsupported filing.

3. Given that the charges have their own privileged section (others should not edit within it), the response of the charged editor should also have a privileged section that only the charged editor may edit. Where a charged editor is also blocked, this section can be transcluded from a Talk page section, thus allowing a blocked editor to respond within the Community Review.

4. To encourage users to make a coherent statement rather than just to react to the comments of others, in a threaded discussion, individual users should be able to start their own Comment sections, which would be placed above the open discussion section. This also will avoid much edit conflict when discussion gets hot.

5. This is just a minimal starting description of what a more careful deliberative process could look like. The present process is easily disrupted, spinning off-track, thus it tends to lead to either no clear consensus, or some consensus close that isn't clearly rooted in what the community actually expressed, both of which can be harmful.

I intend to propose a tighter formalization of the CR process, along these lines. Consider how much mess might have been avoided if these proposed guidelines were in effect! --Abd 17:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 * 1 is suppose to already be true. Other attempts to directly resolve disputes are suppose to be done first with a link as proof, along with an explanation as to why the other attempts did not result in a resolution of the problem. -- dark lama  17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as we are so often seeing, what is "supposed to be true" is meaningless if there is no enforcement procedure. Enforcement procedure is what is often missing from current policy, based probably on an early naive assumption that if we discuss stuff, we can find consensus. It's actually true, but ... it requires what I'll call "facilitated discussion" under some circumstances. Straight, raw, undisciplined discussion just burns people out and the consensus found, if it it is any kind of consensus, is often thus quite defective and partial, representing only the view of those willing to dive into the messes that are created. I.e., those with the biggest axes to grind. --Abd 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People as a group decide what to enforce or not. When nobody did so here, that could mean that people find this an acceptable step. Could maybe also mean people would like to reduce the number of steps by making the custodian feedback page obsolete or something. -- dark lama  11:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Regarding the Moulton and JWS matters, we've had 3 and a half years or so worth of discussion. So, there is no need to worry about "process" because we've gone through every single process. Furthermore, "review" is not enforcement. It is the opposite of enforcement - it is free discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "we've gone through every single process" <-- Every policy-violating process. Maybe it is time to try those processes that are prescribed in Wikiversity policy. --JWSchmidt 04:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that the best response to every possibility can be adequately prescribed by any possible set of rules? If so, what are those magical rules no human has ever yet managed to come up with? If not, then sometimes not following rules (especially those invented via "consensus") is what is best. Or are you deliberately insisting we follow a practice (blind obedience to rules) that you know can not work and thus are deliberately insisting we act in a self destructive way? The web is better with Wikimedia than without it. Please don't help those whose only goal is to "hasten the day". WAS 4.250 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WAS is correct. The best practices rarely can be reduced to a set of rules. In almost every case, the best practices call for functional protocols.  If you've studied Operations Research or Managerial Science or Cybernetics, you will appreciate that rule-based systems are too weak to express functional protocols for best practices.  —Moulton 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WAS, it doesn't even need a response like that. Simply put, my concerns about Jtneill were simply to show why I felt that he was overstepping and the recommendations were only to take a breath before jumping in, to be more patient, etc. The responses should reflect the ramification, but it seems that two people above like to act as if everything is an expedition to Mt Everest. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you stop attacking Jtneill? I know you have your agenda but it is fundamentally in conflict with the best interest of the community. Jtneill is an academic.  He brings with him institutional support for Wikiversity. This institutional support means a community of active contributors who create content, who are actively exploring how to use wikis and Wikiversity to do research, who think about best practices, who think about things like "What are the ethical practices that a university demands and how do we realize these on a wiki?" and "How can we do peer review on a wiki?"  These types of discussions may not always be happening on Wikiversity, but are often happening outside the wiki.  They are a result of institutional support from people like Jtneill.  (Jtneill also is connected to his real name, which further supports Wikiversity as a legitimate project as you can connect academics to real academic work taking place on a wiki.) As near as I can tell Ottava, you do not have institutional support on Wikiversity.  You are not representing a specific user.  You are not using your real name.  You aren't partaking in the type of conversations I'm referencig offline and working towards bringing offline solutions that will be actualized on Wikiversity.
 * Attacking academics doing that is counter productive towards what I see as the goals of Wikiversity. Your insistence on being right and seeing your vision actualize to the extent that you're willing to drive away the community, that you're willing to do away with institutional support from Australian universities suggests to me that you're fundamentally acting in bad faith as it applies to Wikiversity's goal on the whole and towards Wikiversity's ability to expand its community by getting academics to participate in the management of Wikiversity.
 * So please get over yourself. Stop attacking Jtneill.  Stop attacking academics.  Please stop acting in bad faith towards the Wikiversity community.  (And if JWS is an issue for you, perhaps we can solve this problem you have rather simply and ban you both to get the drama to stop.) --LauraHale 19:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Laura, did you know that when I first came to Wikiversity in the summer of 2008, it was to work on a project on Managerial Ethics? The point of the project was to introduce the fundamentals of ethics, to counterbalance the corrupt practices that had begun to undermine the governance of WMF-sponsored projects. Jimbo came into Wikiversity and declared that the academic study of ethical best practices was "beyond the scope" of the project. He threatened to shut WV down if we continued to study the fundamentals of managerial ethics. It was a low point in the history of Wikiversity.  —Moulton 20:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Moulton: I was not aware of that. When I've chatted with WMF employees during the past 9 months or so, they have all reaffirmed a commitment to keeping Wikiversity going, telling me that Wikiversity won't be closed or threatened with closure as a result of something like Jimbo's actions again.  I'm keen to take them at their word.  Given that, I think it is fully time to explore that. From the Australian academics I've talked to who are either already on Wikiversity but aren't participating in the process OR who use wikiEducator and are not keen to use Wikiversity, the lack of ethical practices and the lack of methodology requirements are two big hindrances to getting them involved.
 * One of the things that came out of RecentChangesCamp was an acknowledgement of this problem. I think a few of us will be working towards this goal in the future.  Some of this may not be that visible because there are behind the scenes conversations inside our institutions regarding how this need to be done with that institutional perspective in mind.  (And academic schedules differ from wiki/social media schedules.)
 * The problem down here to a degree may be a matter of perspective. My guess is that there is a feeling of neglect.  The foundation will send their employees out to talk to MIT and Harvard, to talk to American and Canadian institutions that don't have the staff and educational investment with Wikiversity that Australian universities have tried to adopt.  WMF appears a bit American centric in a way that is counter productive, in terms of Wikiversity and using wikis educationally, to Wikiversity as they aren't embracing the core user base.  By having universities that use Wikiversities, it sells Wikiversity. (In startup circles, it is an early adopter method.  You make the early adopters your sales people.)  There are flaws (ethical practices, methodologies) that until addresses will mean others won't adopt.  Satisfy the adopters first.  (And in this case, a lot of the adopters are in Australia.) --LauraHale 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time (late in 2008), many members of the regular community here were very much afraid that Jimbo had the raw political power to make good on his threat to shut down Wikiversity. But that was then.  This is now.  Today, I don't think anyone seriously worries about Jimbo personally shutting down Wikiversity.  Nor do I think there remains any serious impediment for the academic community here to resume work on a genuine code of ethics, suitable for an authentic learning community.  What threatens Wikiversity today is the excessive internal political drama that arose in the aftermath of the Second Coming of Jimbo, when he tried the same ham-handed tactic again, and was decisively beaten back.  In the process of beating Jimbo back on the occasion of his second appearance here, the site became overly politicized and lost much of its quiet academic demeanor.  What's needed now is for the community here to reassert its academic character by adopting a Community Agreement that includes a scholarly code of ethics, and a self-governance model that includes a functional and dignified dispute resolution process.  To my mind this is the sine qua non without which Wikiversity cannot expect to fulfill its chartered mission.  —Moulton 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As some one who is feels largely like an outsider (I'm here because of institutional investments. I love WMF but I prefer to fork when things don't work for me.  See Fan History.), it feels like there are three populations on Wikiversity: 1) Academics who are busy doing their own thing, trying to adhere to what was probably visualized as Wikiversity's original mission, 2) People who are completely hung up on the WMF and who probably got their butts kicked on Wikipedia and fled to Wikiversity in order to still get the reflected glory of WMF [and who refuse to fork] and who are fundamentally disruptive to Wikiversity's original mission, 3) The admins who followed the banned users from EN-WP or En-WB to EN-WV, who assumed that Wikiversity should be run like Wikipedia.  These three groups have fundamental conflicts.  It feels like most of what we see is a result of groups 2 and 3 being in conflict continually while group 1 tries to ignore it.
 * I think groups 2 and 3 need to be sidelined more, or have their energies channeled towards helping group 1. IF they can't, ban them for lack of good faith.  (And if you say that you are okay with everyone leaving Wikiversity so long as the policy existing is yours or you say that community should be subverted to the goal of creating quality content, the assumption should be you're operating in bad faith.)
 * Long way of saying, I agree. The goals of Wikiversity at this time should be: "reassert its academic character by adopting a Community Agreement that includes a scholarly code of ethics, and a self-governance model that includes a functional and dignified dispute resolution process."  --LauraHale 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 * "Can you stop attacking Jtneill?" Lolwut? That post was from August of 2010. That was over 5 months ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also - "You aren't partaking in the type of conversations I'm referencig offline and working towards bringing offline solutions that will be actualized on Wikiversity." Then you don't know anything at all. I've worked with far more institutions and professors than Jtneill has. And yes, I do use my real name here. I also have quite a bit of work that is hosted here that is used in real classrooms. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * WAS 4.250, those are some interesting questions. "possible set of rules" <-- Here is one possible set of rules: Read Approved Wikiversity project proposal then click the edit button. Of course, some people did click "edit" and made edits that disrupted the Wikiversity Mission. So there needed to be a rule about how to deal with people who misused the "edit" button. Custodianship was created and things worked well for two years. Then a few Wikipedians decided they could ignore Wikiversity's rules and impose a rule from another website and do so in a way that violated Wikiversity policy, and do so as part of a misguided effort to protect people at Wikipedia who had violated Wikipedia policy. We can ask, what was "the best response" to the disruptive Wikipedians? I doubt if what happened in 2008 was the best response, but the problems from 2008 still linger, so we can ask, what is the best response today? I have made some suggestions that follow from identifying a problem and then trying to put in place a system for dealing with the problem. I don't believe in "magical rules", but I prefer a community with rules over one where a few misguided individuals disrupt the community by ignoring the existing rules and imposing destructive rules from another community. --JWSchmidt 13:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A rule isn't a rule if only a few people support the rule. People were already beginning to question rules supported by only one or a few people before people from Wikipedia came to Wikiversity. If you think people should follow the existing rules, you should focus your energy on explaining why the Wikiversity community should consider the existing rules good rules to follow instead of criticizing people for not following them. The Wikiversity community makes the rules, can change the rules, and can ignore them. It is up to the people that believe the existing rules must be followed to explain and justify why when rules are ignored. I believe each time a rule is enforced, questioned, or ignored that a community's commitment and true expectations are put to the test. I think if most people enforce a rule than a community is committed and truly expects a rule to be followed. I think if most people question or ignore a rule than a community is not committed and does not truly expect a rule to be followed. -- dark lama  14:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 * "only a few people support the rule" <-- Darklama, please list your favorite example of such a rule that few people support so we can discuss it. "criticizing people for not following them" <-- Darklama, what I criticize is actions that damage the Wikiversity community and that deflect Wikiversity from its Mission. In many cases that damage is caused by a few misguided people who ignore existing Wikiversity policy and who try to impose destructive methods imported from other websites. Darklama, how do your violations of Wikiversity policy and your disruption of the community chat channel by misuse of channel operator tools promote the Wikiversity Mission? Darklama, why don't you respond to feedback about your performance as a Custodian? --JWSchmidt 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "if most people enforce a rule" <-- Darklama, please list your favorite example of such a rule that has been enforced by most people. Darklama, under conditions where Wikiversity community members are harassed by sockpuppets from Wikipedia, blocked and banned in violation of Wikiversity policy, subjected to emergency desysop in violation of Wikiversity policy, when the very existence of Wikiversity is threatened, when most of the community is driven away by such abuse of power, and when this vast disruption of Wikiversity is perpetuated by a few rogue sysops, under these conditions of threat and intimidation how do you identify community consensus? Can there be consensus for anything that damages the Wikiversity community and deflects Wikiversity from its Mission? --JWSchmidt 15:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have listed before examples of rules that few people support, to keep doing so again distracts from Wikiversity's mission. I believe everyone that has participated so far in discussions with you over the past 2 years is well aware that you think "ignoring rules damages the Wikiversity community" and "the Wikiversity community is damaged by ignoring rules". To continue to bring the same argument up distracts from Wikiversity's mission. You decided by yourself what most of the rules should be that you say damage the Wikiversity community by ignoring them. This has been discussed before over the past 2 years as well and to continue to do so distracts from Wikiversity's mission. Please explain how "the very existence of Wikiversity is threatened" when blocks and bans are used, and when people are desysoped. What statistics do you have to support your claim that "most of the community is driven away"? I don't agree with your claims of bad block and bans, policy violations, and abuse of power, and I have already explained why elsewhere. For me to continue to explain why distracts from Wikiversity's mission. Explaining why you believe certain rules are needed and should be followed would be a change of pace that might actually help to resolve issues. Explaining why you believe certain rules support the Wikiversity mission would also be a change of pace that might actually help to resolve issues. -- dark lama  15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Darklama, I agree with JWS that much, if not most, of the community is driven away, but not by blocks, per se, but by extensive and continued and unresolved controversy over them and other custodial and editorial actions. Further, given what I've seen from before and from recent events, I cannot in good faith recommend Wikiversity to real educators and academics, particularly those involved in "alternative education" or what my fiance -- one of these -- calls "transformative education." If they happened to look at the Colloquium or Community Review or any of a number of other pages, they would simply go away, and I'd have egg all over my face from recommending this place. Because I believe that the participation of these people would be mutually valuable, if disputes can be resolved instead of just making the carpet lumpy by sweeping them under it, if dispute resolution process becomes clear and efficient, then I'd see Wikiversity as experiencing a growth period like it has never seen.
 * I have supported the proposed block of JWS, not because I want to exclude his criticism, but because I actually want to include it, but make it effective for resolving disputes. For that to happen his criticism must become disciplined, focused into designated, and probably facilitated, due process. He is not apparently willing or able to do this on his own (he claims to not understand much of what I write, and what he does think he understands, from his responses, he also doesn't appear to me to understand), and therefore he needs assistance, and a mentor, which could easily be a possible resolution of a block, and someone he trusts could do this. I have explained what you just explained to JWS, over and over, and he either doesn't get it, or his plan is to take the easy path: continue disruption until the community gets tired of it and fixes the problem. That, unfortunately, is a bankrupt approach, and easily becomes almost purely negative, causing his criticisms, some of which are quite spot-on, to be neglected. This is how on-line communities have functioned for as long as I've watched and participated them, which is well over twenty years. What looks like hysterical protest will be radically discounted by most readers, who won't bother to check the evidence. It used to drive me nuts, because people would make snap judgments, completely ignoring actual evidence presented. There are ways to move beyond this, and repeating massive objection, over and over, is not one of them. It never works. --Abd 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think some people are driven away by extensive and continued unresolved disputes. However there is some graphical statistics that suggest that English Wikiversity is still growing, which suggestions most people are not paying attention to the unresolved disputes. I have continued to encourage people to contribute as well, while suggesting they focus on their learning projects and stay away from these disputes. I also agree with you Abd that there are ways to move beyond this, and that repeating objections over and over is not one of them. My support of a block, also has nothing to do with wanting to exclude criticism. I agree JWS's criticism must become disciplined, focused, and help to effectively facilitate a resolution. I have not seen that happen over the past 2 years, and I think JWS cannot find a mentor that he will listen to and can help him, which is why I support a block. -- dark lama  18:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Darklama. There is no conflict between the two positions, as long as the close of a block discussion is by a neutral custodian, or, if too many custodians are involved, by someone at least willing to negotiate in an ongoing fashion on behalf of the community, and not just as a representative of some "block" faction. If JWSchmidt cannot find a mentor, that ices it, doesn't it? With a mentor, he could be subject to a topic ban that would be negotiated between him, the mentor, and the closing custodian, who is there to ensure that the community's concerns are respected. The point would be to negotiate specific rules governing his behavior that he can sign on to, rather than them being unilaterally imposed. If he's not willing to negotiate (or not able to negotiate, say, for personal emotional reasons or some long-term plan or whatever, it doesn't matter what the reason is) that, again, ices it. Again, if he agrees to a ban but is unable to keep within it, the terms can be modified should they prove onerous and harmful, or he would be blocked. There is no loss from trying, other than the waste of time of a mentor, which is voluntary. As is clear, blocked editors can still make contributions to Wikiversity, it cannot be prevented, but they are then subject to reversion in a way that minimizes disruption, while still allowing them to be seen, and I'll be proposing changes to policy that will make this clear, even though it is already true through wiki common law. --Abd 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have listed before examples of rules that few people support" <-- Darklama, that is an interesting claim that needs to be critically examined. If you will not now, here in this discussion, link to an example of a rule that few people support, then we can all safely ignore your claim that such rules exist. "To continue to bring the same argument up distracts from Wikiversity's mission." <-- Darklama, how does discussing problems that damage the Wikiversity community distract from Wikiversity's mission? "You decided by yourself what most of the rules should be" <-- Darklama, please identify one rule that I decided on by myself so that we can discuss it. Please explain how "the very existence of Wikiversity is threatened" when blocks and bans are used, and when people are desysoped. <-- Darklama, I linked to some specific threats to Wikiversity, but there have been others, and I agree that bad blocks disrupt Wikiversity and when people are blocked and desysoped in violation of policy those abuses of power intimidate community members and drive them away from the project. Darklama, have you participated in discussions at a "back channel" (possibly an invite-only IRC chat channel) where threats made against the existence of Wikiversity were discussed in 2008? What statistics do you have to support your claim that "most of the community is driven away"? <-- I have no statistics, but we could easily count the Custodians who have resigned in protest or been desysoped in violation to Wikiversity policy and Wikiversity community members who have been subjected to blocks and bans in violation of Wikiversity policy. I previously proposed a project that could begin to collect data about how people have responded to the disruptions of Wikiversity that began in 2008. "Explaining why you believe certain rules support the Wikiversity mission would also be a change of pace that might actually help to resolve issues." <-- Darklama, identify the rule that you are most puzzled by and we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have supported the proposed block of JWS, not because I want to exclude his criticism, but because I actually want to include it" <-- Abd, maybe you can explain the idea that blocking someone from editing is the way to promote discussion. "he claims to not understand much of what I write" <-- Abd, for example, I don't understand how blocking someone is a way to include their criticisms in community discussions. "what he does think he understands, from his responses, he also doesn't appear to me to understand" <-- Abd, please identify your favorite example of what I don't appear to understand so we can discuss it and compare your understanding to mine. "the easy path: continue disruption" <-- Abd, please identify the best example of what you view as disruption so that we can discuss it. "hysterical protest" <-- Abd, please identify the best example of "hysterical protest" so that we can discuss it. --JWSchmidt 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is analogous to what was once said to me on Wikipedia as an answer to a question like that. Hysterical protests, for the most part.. What did I do? File a complaint for incivility? No, I responded within policy and was able to move on, in some cases having actually converted some of those complaining to a different view, and I was able to accomplish a great deal as to change for the better. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia problem is huge. It might be more manageable here.

 * Seriously, this is absolutely not the place for charges of disruption to be proven. There is Wikiversity/Community Review/JWSchmidt for that. That you would even think that the piles of evidence you request should be given here is, however, just another sign of the problem. The topic here is Community Review process, not JWSchmidt behavior. I'm considering collapsing this whole diversion, it simply confuses the issue. That, again, is an example of the damage done by you, JW. If we do not respond, you complain about lack of response. And if we do respond, Wikiversity discussions go off the rails. --Abd 21:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "must become disciplined" <-- Darklama, please explain what you mean by "become disciplined". "find a mentor" <-- Darklama, who do you suggest as a mentor? Maybe your mentor who said, "Darklama has made it clear to me that he will not be active as a Custodian outside of helping us with technical issues" and who told me, "just go fuck yourself and go away". Darklama, why are your mentor, you and a few others allowed to violate the civility policy? --JWSchmidt 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would you want a mentor who had told you to "just go fuck yourself and go away?" Apparently, rather than considering a very sober and quite open and fair proposal, that would, in fact, leave you free to effectively criticize, eliminating only the useless merry-go-round you have been on for two years, you would rather rehearse endlessly that someone once said some bad words to you. The mentorship would be a free agreement between you and an editor with sufficient respect in the community that a closing custodian would accept the mentorship and unblock. That lack of real consideration is not functional, JWS, and is precisely what could result in a topic ban or block, and, I predict, if you do not change course, it will happen sooner or later. Nobody, should be allowed to violate civility policy, though a violation should generally be on-wiki. People might say anything in a bar, given the mood of the place. IRC, as a hot medium, is not subject to the same restrictions as the wiki. (Which is one reason why I oppose using IRC as if it were part of Wikiversity, it is little more than a local bar where people may informally meet and discuss stuff, no binding decisions should ever be made there.) I think that few here have more credentials in opposing incivility, I lost my probationary custodianship because I warned and blocked my mentor, over clear incivility and a clear and willful disregard of the warning. You opposed that. You'd rather see all disputes handled by "discussion," but incivility poisons discussion, and more discussion, once it has become uncivil, and absent warning/blocking, incivility leads to more incivility, not to resolution, unless there is a massive community participating, and even then it's not likely. We don't have those conditions. You have set up a trap from which you and Wikiversity cannot escape, until someone cuts the Gordian knot. --Abd 21:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did finally look up that "go fuck yourself" comment. JWS has misrepresented it, exaggerating its nature. He was clearly angry at the time, and what he wrote was this:
 * Wikiversity is bigger than you, me, or for that matter anyone else. Stop personalizing things. Stop worrying about people's agendas. Stop worrying about your agenda. If you have something in particular that you'd like to learn/teach/research, do the work. If you have a problem with me, cormaggio, or anyone else, bring it up on Wikiversity:Community Review. If the only thing you have to offer is your vision, offer it, but don't expect everyone to agree with it.

 * You seem to have taken the stance that people are either with you or they're against Wikiversity. No matter how firmly you believe that, it's just not true. Stop demonizing, and start talking. Or don't. You've pretty much lost any credibility with me... I'm not alone in feeling that way, and the more you put your agenda above the good of the project, the more other people will feel the same.

 * You've got a lot of good energy and ideas (or at least you used to). Ditch the hate, embrace the promise. Or just go fuck yourself and go away... at this point I don't care. I really am that disappointed, but I'm starting to get over it now. --SB_Johnny talk 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) (full discussion is at JWSchmidt_go_fuck_yourself, i.e., JWS is memorializing this incivility two years later. --Abd 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC))
 * JWS's response to this is typical of much comment that I've seen from him. He completely ignores the good faith advice that SBJ apparently started to write with, and focuses in on what he mentions at the end, to which he takes great offense, and is still holding on to two years later. SBJ did not tell JWS to "go fuck [himself]," as implied by his comments about it. He offered JWS a choice. It was still uncivil, and Cormaggio properly warned him about that. There was also a discussion of this on SB_Johnny's talk page. I concur with Hillegentleman's comment there, but ... is it more uncivil to say, in effect, "you are trying to wreck Wikiversity" than "stop or go fuck yourself."? Just a question! My opinion is that both would be uncivil, and both, if repeated after warning, would be what HG called "bookable offenses." There was later discussion at . I do not see that SB_Johnny repeated the incivility after being warned, though he waffled a bit about the incivility of it. We don't block people for waffling, nor for even open disagreement with a warning. Just for ignoring one. But as to JWS .... it's still going on, two years later. --Abd 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I also think that we have to cut the Gordian Knot ourselves on our own. Don't rely on JWS to cut it. I think the only solution at this point is to either not respond at all to comments JWS repeats, or respond with a comment like "I will not be repeating this discussion again." -- dark lama  05:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New discussion
I'd like to restart this discussion on the process that is used for CR. I'm not sure if the above suggestions would improve the situtation, but I do think we are a point where we need to revisit how CR is conducted in practive. My main concern is that CR has been become disorganized, difficult to follow and there are discussions on the same topic that are scattered over multiple pages.

For example, Community Review/Jtneill 2 was opened, closed, then reopened and is currently not even linked from the main WV:CR page. The discussion on SB_Johnny has been brought up at Steward requests on meta, and then at Requests for comment/SB Johnny while there is a concurrent discussion going on locally at Community Review/SB Johnny. The Community Review/Abd page contains a subsection on Community_Review/Abd which, while it is related to the situation regarding the probationary custodianship of abd, is not related to abd as a user nor is it related to the stated intent at the top of the review of abd. As a minor nitpick the section numbering at WV:CR confuses the relationship between the subsections and the reviews that they are part of. None of the current reviews are linked from site notice, and quite frankly I don't think they should be until the issues that are the subject of these reviews gets more coherently organized. So many of these reviews have been opened in such a short period of time that it is likely very difficult for the majority of contributers to even keep track of what discussions they should follow.

There is also a great deal of incivility such as: "He is indeed a fucking charlatan", "is a liar, tendentious and vengeful" and name calling such as "Wikiversity Drama Queens"  and I won't even try to count the multiple violations of WV:AGF. These statements are not conducive to resolving the issues that face our community and have no place in a community review.

Please look over the suggestions that have been made previously or propose new ideas on how we can more rationaly discuss and resolve issues through the community review process. Also, focus on ways that we can refine our methods for handling reviews without mentioning specific users. There are already plenty of open discussion threads where that is occuring and I'd like to keep this subsection strictly for policy improvement ideas. --mikeu talk 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. I think the most pressing thing to accomplish is to keep any given discussion confined to one place. That will (1) significantly reduce the confusion, as well as, perhaps more than proportionately, (2) the amount of incivility, as the latter is often accompanying a link from one location to another ('look what they did there!'). It will also (3) limit the dominance of the most verbose participator and thereby further diminish irritation. Guido den Broeder 18:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree that CR could benefit from describing how discussions are to be organized, what needs to happen first before discussions go live so to speak, keeping distinct discussions separate, and keeping other discussions in one place. I think incivility and violations of WV:AGF are best addressed by updating the civility and WV:AGF pages and by having enough people unwilling to allow incivility and violations of WV:AGF to happen without consequences. -- dark lama  20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel the opposite of "without consequences." I see the problem as people are forgetting that you deal with incivility first by ignoring it. Instead, people want to apply the harshest consequences after baiting others into incivility in order to "beat" their opponent instead of discussing. True incivility is using weapons to harm another instead of discussing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Irony.... Dinsdale 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring incivility is not in policy. Specific suggestions like do not answer offensive comments are. I feel the opposite. I think the policy should explicitly say not to ignore incivility. Ignoring incivility is exactly what allows resentment to build up, and with time for resentment to turn into blind hostility. -- dark lama  15:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Darklama. Incivility is an impediment to progress in resolving issues and a distraction from working towards our goals as a learning community. --mikeu talk 15:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The single most egregious act of incivility is to block a fellow scholar whose identity and good faith is not in doubt. This abhorrent practice began here when Jimbo foolishly introjected it into Wikiversity back in 2008, and the community has never fully recovered from that disruptive and unwise exemplar.  —Moulton 16:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least for now, I think it could be a helpful step to list all current reviews at Community_Review (including relevant ones at meta) and to not transclude current reviews at WV:CR. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Community Review of Departures from the Policy on Biographical Characterizations of Living People
The protocols for initiating Community Reviews is a bit up in the air at the moment, so I would like some feedback on initiating one or more such Community Reviews at this time, with respect to possible departures from the official policy regarding the publication of biographical characterizations of identifiable living persons.

Now I would like to take the Privacy Policy on a test drive to find out whether this community is willing to allow me to properly challenge instances of false and defamatory personal characterizations, whether originated here, or on other WMF-sponsored projects, and to hold authors personally responsible and accountable, and not entitled to anonymity, per the language found in the official policy regarding the publication of biographical characterizations of identifiable living persons.

I would also like to address the related problem of individuals operating with multiple identities. Why, for example, should Paul Mitchell have five voices, one as FeloniousMonk, one as Odd nature, one as Centaur of Attention, one as Blogger "Skip" and one as "Jamie F." writing letters to the editor?

What is the current recommended procedure for initiating such reviews?

Moulton 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

 * At the English language Wikipedia, there exists an elected Arbitration Committee ("Arbcom") to make community decisions regarding behavior issues (but is not authorized to make content decisions) when existing community resolution processes fail. Issues that by their nature are best discussed in private fall in this category; so such a question would be handled by a "private" e-mail to Arbcom. The problematic closed nature of such proceedings needs to be weighed against the problematic disclosures necessitated by a fully open proceeding. Wikiversity lacks any such governance model. When Wikipedia was at this stage, it was shepherded by Jimbo while governance rules, processes and organs were organized. It will be interesting to see how Wikiversity handles this stage of organizing governance processes. WAS 4.250 19:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity talk:Community Review


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.bottle.hipps

Hipps FEA page
This should be Jonathan Hipps' page.

Jon, if you can see this message hit the "edit" button next to "Hipps FEA page"

title: User:Eml4500.f08.bottle.hipps


title: File:3truss.JPG


title: File:3truss2.JPG


text:
User:Eml4500.f08.delta 6.guzman/MATLAB Two Bar Truss Example Modified

Two Bar Truss Example (MATLAB)
It is important to understand how to solve a bar truss system employing a finite element MATLAB code in order to compare the resulting matrices with those obtained from hand calculations.

Take this truss example with the following: Data

MATLAB Code Note: this MATLAB code was obtained from Dr. L. Vu-Quoc website http://clesm.mae.ufl.edu/~vql/courses/fead/2008.fall/codes/twoBarTrussEx.txt

In order to run this MATLAB code the following functions are needed:

Note: this MATLAB code was obtained from the MATLAB.zip Chapter 9 folder given by the Student Companion Site Bhatti: Advanced Topics in Finite Element Analysis of Structures: With Mathematica and MATLAB Computations website http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?action=resource&bcsId=3105&itemId=0471648078&resourceId=7629

Note: this MATLAB code was obtained from the MATLAB.zip Common folder given by the Student Companion Site Bhatti: Advanced Topics in Finite Element Analysis of Structures: With Mathematica and MATLAB Computations website http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?action=resource&bcsId=3105&itemId=0471648078&resourceId=7629

Note: this MATLAB code was obtained from the MATLAB.zip Chapter 9 folder given by the Student Companion Site Bhatti: Advanced Topics in Finite Element Analysis of Structures: With Mathematica and MATLAB Computations website http://bcs.wiley.com/he-bcs/Books?action=resource&bcsId=3105&itemId=0471648078&resourceId=7629

Results