Talk:Pacific Northwest Seismic Network

The claim of being simpler than the California system needs to backed up with some kind of citation, discussion, or explanation or I will delete it. Jazzbox (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Stadium experiments

It's nice to have a hobby but wasting public funds on a silly football stadium shaking "experiments" or whatever flimsy excuse you used (practice setup or whatever)... well Malone? Vidale? Is that you???, or whoever put up this fluff about a football stadium... come back with something relevant to science. Maybe a study of the area around Darrington perhaps? You know, like the public might actually benefit from? Why don't you go over to Husky Stadium for this nonsense, anyway? Jazzbox (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions on its scientific merit, as you can see there are plenty of cites to establish the notability of the stadium shaking experiments. I don't like it isn't a reason to delete. — Brianhe (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"NO SCIENTIFIC MOTIVATION", director PNSN Jazzbox (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Look man, you put a seismometer in any football stadium and you will get about the same response. There isn't anything noteworthy or unusual about this at all, except some Seahawk fans might find it interesting. Now, you could make a case that you were volume testing the system, and that the public can gain some assurance that the system will work under heavy use, I won't delete that. But that's all. Put in information about Marshawn Lynch or other players and I will remove it.Jazzbox (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So you see no value in reporting on a widely talked-about public relations/outreach effort? Because it seems like a worthy addition to the article. — Brianhe (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The public relations/outreach effort seems to consist mostly of bamboozling the public into thinking there is some merit or worth to these seismometer readings (taken at their expense) while promoting Paul Allen's private commercial company. If you include something about the volume test being a motivation, don't forget to mention that it resulted in a memorable system crash. Jazzbox (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As soon as I saw the material being added, I thought that it probably wasn't helping it any. The article isn't lacking anything without it. There's much more appropriate content that would be a better fit. Dawnseeker2000 01:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We live in a dangerous earthquake zone which could go off at any time. Our seismology staff should not be wasting time with football stadium readings. There might be a case again to go to Husky Stadium for this, which shakes like crazy. The Seahawks are a privately owned company. There are a local sports team, yes, but they are also a private for-profit company.Jazzbox (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Football fan material does not belong on an article about a scientific organization. Dawnseeker2000 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. Brian needs to cut out non-relevant information. A volume test of the network, which showed that the system actually crashed, is relevant in my view. There was some discussion of using Azure as a host. — Preceding

The so called "motivations" provided on the link by of the revision (see history of article) appear to be make work type activities designed to support the real motivation, "and will be fun" as is blatantly stated!

http://pnsn.org/blog/2015/01/05/seismology-will-again-watch-help-the-seahawk-s-playoff-run Jazzbox (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC) unsigned comment added by Jazzbox (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What nonsense! The full quote is "a Seahawks game can allow us to test and practice many of the capabilities we will need sometime in the future….. and will be fun, besides." and the rest of the article documents the many network improvements that came from the brief experiments at Century Link field. Realtime software, tests of social media that we use to report earthquakes, public earth science education that reached 2000 news outlets worldwide. If you're going to insult the PNSN, you should pick a complaint that is not flat-out wrong. John (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you are anticipating a playoff run and looking forward to indulging in your hobby again, Vidale. Why don't you give it a rest and cease promoting Paul Allen's company? If you are so interested in this I don't see why you don't just walk over to Husky Stadium.Jazzbox (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Failures Section

These are documented failures. If you want to enhance this you can. There are more failures. Jazzbox (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC) In the next couple of days I will look up the newspaper article for the 2009 failure. Please don't delete it in the meantime again. Also I have been remiss. After last year's Cal game, there was an earthquake and the system failed to produce graphs. There was no mention in the article, but the comments section reveals disorganization behind the scenes. Jazzbox (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think this is a representative summary of 50 years of network operations and hundreds of newspaper articles? The goal of Wikipedia is objectivity, and posting only a few unrepresentative snarky remarks are an abject failure for Wikipedia. John (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant because it needs to work. Obviously it is not "unrepresentative and snarky" as there is no opinion. These are just facts. Do you dispute facts? If you don't want to see this kind of thing then hire and retain talented staff that will produce systems that don't fail. You can expand the upper sections with more detail. You would know. Jazzbox (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Diverting the PNSN to maintain a comprehensive history on Wikipedia would be a much bigger waste of time than monitoring a couple of football games. A large part of the history of the PNSN entitled failures? That's simply grossly incorrect.John (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about your opinion that it is a waste of time monitoring football games, obviously... as far as the failures go, it is not out of proportion because the public relies on the system working. If the emergency notification fails, the early warning is too slow, the seismographs fail, these are important for the public to know because it is funding the population. If you want we could roll some of the failures off after a period of time. But the more or less current system failures are important. Jazzbox (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I meant "operation" not "population." Jazzbox (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I did NOT say the Seahawk exercise was a waste of time, some waste of time > no waste of time. None of the minor issues you label failures are "more or less current". This entire conversation is a waste of time, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidale (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Some 10 years ago Vidale boasted to me that "if there is a system failure, I am the one the public comes to." I have no way of verifying if this is the real Vidale. But hypothetically, if so, if this is the real Vidale, which again I cannot know for sure, if that is so: it is indeed a further disappointment to see him attempting to cover up his failures by arguing that they are not relevant, and then declaring the conversation to be "a waste of time." As far as the implication that you said the Seahawk exercise was a waste of time, that is a matter of logic. If you say X is greater than Y you are assuming this is true in some domain, call it Z. If X has no relation to Y there is no domain Z. The domain Z is "waste of time." So if you say X is greater than Y you have to assume some domain Z otherwise there is nothing in the point. I think I got that. What did I miss....? Also I never said anything about a comprehensive expansion of the article. An hour or so of work could add a lot. Jazzbox (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I thought about, I guess I concede the point about the "waste of time" issue, a semantics issue (although I think many would see it my way). Jazzbox (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Jazzbox, these sound like relatively mundane issues in a working seismology lab. Don't you think it's editorializing and hyperbolic to call them "failures". Can you point to another seismological Wikipedia page that documents these kinds of critiques? Ladygreen14 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It befits the topic at hand. You can replace it with "Dyfunctions," "Shortcomings," "not great advertisements," or the like. As far as other seimological wiki pages? What of it? Show me the guide that says you should or shouldn't include failures for seimology stations. Anyway, why don't you expand the whole article. It actually would be interesting to see more information. Jazzbox (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

clearly there are some strong feelings here. I have referred this matter to the third opinion page. If we can't reach a consensus about what is fair and appropriate, I will continue to move this through wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Ladygreen14 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You must be associated with the PNSN, and I suspect the "strong feelings" are on your side. The "failures" section has been in there for a couple of years, by the way. Why suddenly is there such an interest in removing these events? I mean, they did after all happen, correct? Why are you so interested in seeing the failings and shortcomings of the PNSN taken down? Might it be that you are nervous that the funding will dry up? There was a report that the system is slow in some cases, was there not? There was a problem in 2009, right that was an outright failure correct? These statements are merely reporting what happened. An editorial, as you suggest, would be more like "these events show that the Bodin/Vidale management duo waste the public's money on useless Seahawk game readings, but they architect systems for an "early warning" that are too slow to actually be early warnings and thus don't deserve the name," or "in the fall of 2015, after an earthquake, the seismograms failed, and in an online discussion forum it became evident that there is no change control procedure. Therefore the Bodin/Vidale team should be replaced on the grounds that they are not serving the public interest by not knowing basic IT concepts." That would be editorializing. But it doesn't say that. Jazzbox (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Jazzbox (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It was other posters apparently working as a team, I presume connected to the PNSN, that want to see the failures section removed, as they are biased to making the PNSN look good. I don't like the PNSN and have no trouble saying that. So I suppose to be fair you'd have to cut this thing down the middle somewhere. I have not seen any third opinion request. Keep in mind that the requesting poster has previously simply deleted the section, outright, with no compromise at all. I've suggested they just expand the article as they claim the failures overshadow the rest of the article. I want to remind readers that there is nothing in the contentious section that ventures into opinion. These are all prominent events picked up by legit news sources. You could make the claim, "move it to wikinews," and i've heard that before, but remember events are a crucial part of the totality of any organization. If the system fails to report earthquakes or is too slow THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW. Jazzbox (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

To qualify that statement I don't like the PNSN leadership, the rank and file employees are fine. Jazzbox (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Technically, this issue does not qualify for a 3rd opinion. "If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." There seem to be more than 2 editors involved here. Nevertheless, this isn't too complicated and the 3O is an informal process, so I'll give my opinion regardless. The issue as I understand it is whether or not the section on failures is appropriate or it represents editorializing or (if I read between the lines) undue weight. @Jazzbox: has stated that the "failures mentioned are documented facts". I found his first source to be a reliable secondary sources, however the Komo news report was on the same day and should be considered breaking news, which tends to be less reliable. Also it is local news not "national news" as stated in the sentence. An additional source to support the second sentence would be required. @Vidale: aka "John", has argued that these 2 sentences are not representative of 50 years of operations, essentially an undue weight argument. I don't see this as a valid argument, seeing that it is only 2 sentences and considering the article is still in it's early development (stub). He also mentions how the remarks are "snarky", essentially an editorializing arguement. I do not see editorializing language in the 2 sentences, it appears to be written in a neautral point of view so this is not a valid argument. Vidale's comments about abject failure of Wikipedia is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is a work in progress. We don't delete everything that isn't perfectly objective (one exception being biographies of living persons). Similarly a comprehensive history is not required or expected here. A few well sourced sentences perhaps giving some statistics of sucesses and failures would be more than adequate to counter the 2 critical sentences. Jazzbox's argument "...the public relies on the system working. If the emergency notification fails, the early warning is too slow, the seismographs fail, these are important for the public to know because it is funding the population." While not eloquantly stated, it is a valid argument. This counters the undue weight argument. @Ladygreen14: argued that no other Wikipedia page documents this. This is not really a valid argument. Even if it were true, any comparison would need to be from quality reviewed articles such as a featured article, good article, WikiProject A class rating. As such we have to be careful drawing conclusions about what is the norm/acceptable based on other articles. See WP:OTHERCONTENT for more info on the flaws of making a comparison argument rather than an argument based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also the burden of proof to find such an article is on Ladygreen14 (not Jazzbox). Having seen many articles which do present some critique of organizations, I think this would not be a good use of anyone's time. Nevertheless, see Cracker Barrel for one example (featured article). Jazzbox, please be very careful about identifying users (also known as outing, a form of harassment on Wikipedia). Best to avoid those identity conversations altogether, regardless of their username and regardless of potential conflict of interest. See alsohow to handle conflict of interest. I'm not an administrator, but consider yourself warned/informed. If Vidale has a conflict of interest, he should disclose it on the relevant article talk pages. I'm not an administrator, but consider yourself warned/informed. Regarding the last few paragraphs, strong feelings and editors working as a team are not relevant. Part of having a neutral point of view means writing in an impartial tone impartial tone and backing up your statements with reliable secondary sources. Aside from the phrase "national news", I think the 2 sentences are accurate and impartial. I don't see any "weasel words" or other red flags here. For example the word "ostensibly " found in the previous paragraph would be considered a weasel word, and should be removed. As I stated earlier, the first source is reliable, the second source I would consider less reliable breaking news and should be replaced with a secondary source. If no secondary source can be found it should be deleted. The subheading "Failures" is inappropriate based on the length of the article (overall the article is a stub) as well as the size of the section. From the section on organization in the manual of style (which is authoritative and a component of Wikipedia's guidelines) we read: Articles longer than a stub are generally divided into sections, and sections over a certain length are generally divided into paragraphs; these divisions enhance the readability of the article. --->this article is not longer than a stub Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. --->2 sentences on failures does not warrant a subheading In addition, I belief the addition of the lone subheading places undue weight on failures. So for these 3 reasons, the subheading should disappear. So based on my above comments, my 3rd opinion is that the subheading "failures" be removed, the 2 sentences be moved into the body of the text where they fit chronologically, the phrase "national news" be removed, and the source attached to the second sentence be removed. Also the weasel word "ostensibly" should be removed from the previous paragraph. I will perform these actions to avoid any confusion. Should Jazzbox fail to find a reliable secondary source to support the details in the second sentence within the next 7 days, then the second sentence should be removed at that time. Should Jazzbox find one or more sources that support only a portion of the second sentence, then the second sentence should be adjusted accordingly. Finally, I would recommend all parties go through the Wikipedia adventure, particularly mission 4 onward. This simple tutorial will decrease the likelihood of needing to use 3rd opinion in the future. Studying the Wikipedia policies and guidelines is also very beneficial, not necessarily to know the all the answers, but rather where to find them. Perhaps one day you can "pay it forward" and provide a 3rd opinion to others. Thanks for using 3rd opinion. Have a good day! Dig Deeper (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a fair critique to me. Good officiating.

As far as the "national news" -- the original reference was for ABC news, but the article is no longer on the abc server that I could find in cursory searches. So I picked up the secondary KOMO news source. But if you look in the history you should see the link to the original ABC news article. In the next week I will try to find it. It was on more than one national news network in my recollection.

As far as removing the "ostensibly" managed phrasing, as in the PNSN is ostensibly managed by UW staff: there is a management duo of Bodin/Vidale on the PNSN page, but the fact is that they are funded mostly by the USGS and the USGS has people hanging around and heavily influencing the decision making, although not appearing in any formalized organization chart. There is no formal hierarchy there. So "ostensibly" perfectly captures the situation: "outwardly appearing as such" but indeed is not the de facto situation. Perhaps another choice of words? I'm not going to put ostensibly back in.

Typically I would not identify users, but Vidale is well known as the director, and that is his user name, so it is hard to pretend that isn't him. Even so, I still danced around identifying him. But in future I will avoid unless circumstances clearly warrant.

Jazzbox (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the early warning failure reference. It is an Associated Press article that saw wide publication, including by ABC news which is the original reference, so it was national news. For this, though, I will not press the "national" issue and just leave it "local" and Spokesman-Review article. Jazzbox (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the sentences on the "failures" to make them factual and in perspective. The M4.5 quake is by the definition of magnitude scales "light", the cited article says the network performed flawlessly for 10 years before the glitch during the light earthquake, and the slow early warning was a known network response and in fact the reason we will be upgrading the network for the next few years, not a surprise nor a failure. John (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed the spin regarding the network having worked "flawlessly" for a decade because the source of this information is a senior member of PNSN staff. We need some audited, impartial, objective source to back up such unsubstantiated claims. For the same reason, attributing the failure to a mysterious system change doesn't work either. Don't put in such statements please, even if they do contain a grain of truth, without a reference to an unbiased source. Of course Malone is going to say it worked for the last 10 years. That doesn't it mean it did.... as far as the spin put on the emergency notification problem: all we know is that a system was built for early warnings and it doesn't work, and that is what happened, so that is what is says. I left in your reference to the "upgrade" but changed that to "modification". It appears to me that Vidale/Bodin architected a system knowing well in advance that it would not provide early warnings in all cases, and the "upgrade" is really a pretext to get more funding to get the system to work within the constraints of the pre-existing design, which did not provide comprehensive coverage. In future please just let the facts stay in there, and if you want to editorialize and spin keep in within the constraints of publicized materials from legitimate news outlets. Jazzbox (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, it is impossible to verify these claims, keep out the spins. Jazzbox (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to refer to some objective source for these claims of the system being "flawless" and being back up. You need independently audited proof. Your claims are like a used car dealer saying "all my cars last ten years." Show me the proof, and I don't mean some report from the PNSN or USGS. Jazzbox (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The information about reliability comes from EXACTLY THE SAME NEWS SOURCE as the information about the "failure" that you posted. The implementation plan makes it plain that the VERY REASON FOR THE ENTIRE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN is to improve system performance so that the warnings are timely. There was absolutely no unexpected failure in the delivery of the warning described in the cited news article. Try to write on topics about which you are well informed. John (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess you are shouting in all caps about the 2009 failure? I'm just saying keep the quote from PNSN staff about reliability out which is impossible to verify. If you want to provide an audited indendent report about flawless systems, then you can say that. As far as the delay issue in early warnings, of course it is delayed and that is what the facts say, that is what is said. You said in other posts that the necessary sensors "were not funded." So all the public knows is you built an early warning system that would eventually work, but not yet comprehensively. So that's what it says. Jazzbox (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to say that the PNSN "claims" flawless performance and the the 2009 system failure "was claimed to have been caused by data overload and quickly fixed" then I guess that's OK, just make sure you say who it is that made such claims, and they should not be taken as verified beyond what staff members allege to have happened. And it would be better if you made only one change at a time, so we can argue if necessary, rather than a whole batch at once. Jazzbox (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

"You said in other posts that the necessary sensors were not funded. So all the public knows is you built an early warning system that would eventually work, but not yet comprehensively. So that's what it says." - This is incorrect. We wrote the linked implementation plan, and when it is built, the system will perform as designed. We are currently about halfway through building it. We have not built a system that does not perform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidale (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, we've already had this moderated. Can't we make some kind of a deal? First, can we just make small changes to the article since it is under such contention? I'm reasonable. I was willing to abide by the moderator results. You won something right? You got the failures removed. So could we just deal with the 2009 failure first? If you want to rework that, fine, but make sure you attribute claims of "flawless" system to the source. Anybody can claim their product is flawless, but all the public saw was that it didn't work. Please don't spin it so as to put it in the best possible light. Obviously a director of the PNSN is going to try that, and I'm not saying that is you but if you handle is vidale and that is the same name as the listing of contacts, then what follows? Then, check back tomorrow. We don't need to spend our Sundays like this.Jazzbox (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a waste to devote 6000 words to discussing whether a disgruntled former employee can highlight two picayune glitches and his solitary discontent with our widely admired experiments at Century Link field. Wikipedia needs a better model for defining what matters if it wishes to stay relevant. John (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You are the disgruntled one, if anybody. The essence of what I have here is limited to including two newsworthy articles about issues the public should be aware of, and the moderator agrees giving his/her perspective. I also removed statements about Marshawn Lynch and the Seahawks, yes. I tried to make a deal with you, below. I suspect we have both got better things to do. I propose a truce until next year, OK? Take a holiday. Jazzbox (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Also, I think the irony of your complaint is lost on you as it can easily be reversed: essentially that a solitary PNSN director can devote 6000 words to discussing whether two system problems can be removed. In fact the wikipedia model is working fine. Nobody is truly unbiased on wikipedia. We contribute to articles because we have some motivation. It isn't money. My suggestion is that if you agree to a truce, return when things have calmed down. As long as you stay objective by leaving out things like the assertion of flawless systems and "widely admired" without some kind of proof -- stick to the facts and references, avoid subjective view points, and do not make all sentences into "The PNSN is GREAT although...X happened" they we can work it out. I'm going to be a critic of the PNSN from here on out. Jazzbox (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but you'd spend your time better in the present and future than battling the past.John (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you are going reject my little olive branch and keep up your authoritative, self-righteous stance. The problem with that is it doesn't in itself make for a good argument. In fact nothing is less convincing than arrogance: "I'm right because of the person that I am." Jazzbox (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved additional discussion from my talk page to here

Some background about the PNSN page discussion: Jazzbox, an employee we fired way back in 2007, is still trying to insult us, even though he does not understand the issues he is raising. Yes, one light earthquake out of all our years of operation did not send out a notification, which had no effect. The complaint about the early warning system is entirely specious - that was the expected performance, nothing performed less well than designed. It is why we (and every other similar system in the world) are installing faster equipment, and the major point of our current network upgrade. He is grinding his axe, not trying to inform the public. By the way, nearly everyone agrees instrumenting the Seahawks games has been a great success in educating the public as well as exercising our portable instruments and developing some new software - only Jazzbox disagrees. John (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

One more point. Jazzbox cites an article that describes, quoting Steve Malone, that the system had a problem, yet keeps editing out mention, also by Steve, that the network performed flawlessly for the prior ten years. Either Steve's words are authoritative or they are not, but Jazzbox wants to only quote the negative part of his words and insists on editing out the positive.John (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If "Acme Carpets" claims that their carpets are flawless, that's fine. But if they create a wikipage with a quote from the president saying the carpets are flawless as a fact, does that fly? You could say the president of Acme Carpets was authoritative, fine, but could say he was biased? How is that scenario different markedly from the one presented? As far as the issue of the early warnings system being specious, as you put it... the claim is only limited to the fact that the early warning is slow, that is all since "failure" has been removed and I have no problem with that. The Associated Press says the early warning is slow, basically, because of layout of sensors, in other words, essentially the architecture. This is just a basic fact. It is important for the public to know that it can be slow; that is why they had the article and it appeared widespread in the news. As far as having an axe to grind, let me say that I don't like to see the PNSN wasting taxpayers money on Seahawks games, and will speak out about it. I am not empowered to stop you. But I will complain because I don't like it. For one thing the Seahawks are a private company owned by Paul Allen, but you could use neighboring Husky Stadium. If I log on after last year's Cal game, after an earthquake, and the system doesn't work, a seismogram failure, how is that grinding an axe? I am complaining that the system doesn't work. The system did fail in 2009, and that is all it says in the article. If none of these things happened I would stay silent. that is not grinding an axe; that is being vocal about issues that affect everybody. These are not insults. Jazzbox (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the condescending comment of "an employee we fired way back in 2007": since you elected to go there, let me add some facts which are part of the issue in question and are available as public record in the relevant UW office, or can be provided from documents. The following are only facts, except the last sentence, questions. The employee in question was required to complete a six month probationary period, after which union rules were to protect against summary, sudden firings, and the union contract stipulated various steps to be taken prior to employee dismissals. The employee completed the six month period in absolute months, that is six months were completed -- in fact his employment length extended BEYOND the six months. There was some contention regarding vacation days and holidays figuring into the total probationary period computation that the six month probationary period could be extended by. The union contract was ambiguous and could be interpreted to favor either party -- that is either the UW or the employee. The UW fired the employee claiming a particular interpretation of the clauses in the union contract which could have been interpreted so as to favor the employer's justification of a summary dismissal. That was basically the end of it since there was no lawsuit and no settlement. The reader can make up his/her mind regarding the integrity of such an employer's (correction from employee) decision making, and also if it could be excused if the former employee were critical from time to time in the press of the PNSN, quoting only from outside, news media sources. Jazzbox (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair summary, although the 6-month interpretation was unambiguous. The issue you contested was whether the rules were too difficult for you to be expected to interpret correctly. John (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you were told, and why you feel the need to insult my intelligence since the consensus at the time was indeed that the contract was ambiguous with respect to vacation days and holidays, but if you want I can show you the union contract and the dates, as well as the supporting materials, and the clauses regarding computing the probationary period extension. But I would rather actually drop the issue. I am only going to insist that if there is a system failure it will appear on wikipedia as such. I will shut up Vidale if you just own up to system failures, and stop goofing off at Seahawk games! I want to see these public funds used responsibly. Jazzbox (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I gave my 3rd opinion, I'm not going to referee a dispute. My advice to all is to try to work things out the best you can. Forget about motives. Forget about who the other person is or might be. This is not a forum or a chat room. Focus on the article and on building consensus. What do you specifically want changed in the article, how do you justify the change, etc. We've all been there, it's a little uncomfortable, just do your best to work through it. I need to move on. Sorry. The teahouse is available for more questions on policies and guidelines etc. Dig Deeper (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dig-Deeper, understood. I actually propose we drop the animosity which I find tiresome anyway, and do as is stated and focus on the article. As long as the sentences in contention do not sound like "The PNSN is great" arguments I am fine. Jazzbox (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Dig Deeper, thanks for your time. I don't intend to have a drawn out discussion about this page, and doubt I will have further comments. Sorry my remark above sounded pejorative, my impression is that it is strictly accurate - the probation rule was unambiguous but not simple. John (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No. I will scan up the little yellow union contract booklet in the coming days or weeks, when I get around to it. I still have that along with the rest of the emails. It is trivial to show more than one common sense interpretation of the extension rules regarding weekends, holidays, and vacation days. Jazzbox (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's ancient history, and I doubt the little booklet is the legally binding document (and I'm not a lawyer who understands legalese anyway).John (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

the union contract isn't binding? Attention future job seekers.Jazzbox (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I have no desire at all to dwell on this issue, but any person seeking the particulars of this case can leave a contact email on my talk page and they will be directed to the appropriate documents. Jazzbox (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Not enough sensors for early notification feature

Since the early warning feature was implemented with inadequate sensors for full coverage, as exemplified by the failure in recent years, it appears to me that Vidale/Bodin designed a system knowing in advance that it essentially would not work without future funding. This situation could be argued in different ways, but that is the practical result. Now that Trump is in office funding seems in jeopardy. It seems to me that there should be some discussion in the article as to why they built a system, and thus already invested heavily, on the speculation only that future funding would be available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzbox (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I see some of the funding did come through. Jazzbox (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Still, though, the reliability of the early warning feature is contingent upon uncertain future funding. Jazzbox (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)