Talk:Schenectady City School District

Unverifiable primary sources

I've removed the links to PDFs of the superintendent and teachers' contracts (although only one of these links worked for me). These appear to be photocopies of contracts which were being served from a site owned by neither of the signing parties, which calls into question their authenticity. In addition, the supervisor's contract was being used to source the name of the current supervisor, a fact better sourced to the official Schenectady City Schools site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The source is seethroughny.net, a webiste that posts payrolls and contracts for all state and government (non-federal) workers in New York, including the contracts between school districts and superintendents, and school districts and teachers. The original information is public information, however the state has no real reason to organize it well; this website has done that job for the last few years. You can read more on it here. The site is reliable and reasonably well-known by New Yorkers, especially around the capital, since it led to many state workers spending too much time looking up coworkers' and managers' salaries for a while. The information coming from state government is reliable, and so is the presentation at seethroughny. Sometimes (er, many times) this information isn't covered by the media because it's too small of a story, so you have to get it from somewhere. More specifically, information coming from school districts in NY is definitely reliable because of the transparency necessary to run a school district. They are by far the most transparent government bodies in the state. I'm reinstating the contract links; I'll fix the Sup's contract. These are documents that the public is interested in and has every right to see, and hosting links to them here is more than prudent. upstateNYer 05:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that website provides a valuable service to the local area, but the only reliable source for these documents would be the school district itself. Even then, I can't recall seeing links to contract documents included in any other Wikipedia article. Why do you think they are necessary here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

These documents come from the school district itself. Each district is legally required to file a copy of the teachers' and superintendent's contract (why not the rest, I don't know) with the State. The district is not required to host it online, however. Then seethroughny, through a freedom of information request, hosts the documents online. These are two of the most important documents relating to a school district, after the budget, and the two forms of the district report cards (which I've added; they only came out last week). The details in the teachers' contract, for example, account for roughly 60% of a given year's budget in any school district in NY. These are reliable sources and add immense value to the interested reader. I include them in all the school district articles I work on, and always use them as a source (I just haven't gotten that far yet here). Just because they aren't included in all articles doesn't make them unimportant, it just means that nobody that close to public education in NY has taken a stab at it yet here; trust me, of the WP regulars, I'm probably the leading expert on school districts in New York. upstateNYer 14:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I will add a link to the budget as well (if Schenectady hosts it on their website, which they are not obligated to do), but their site is down right now. upstateNYer 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm sure it's a valuable resource, but I think the only acceptable source for these documents would be a government site. There appears to be something more happening here, though. You had originally used the supervisor's superintendent's contract to reference the simple fact that the current supervisor superintendent is Eric Ely. I replaced that with a citation linking to the district's site, a link that should be valid even if the supervisor superintendent changes. For some reason, you have removed this reference and replaced it with another PDF, which appears to name the supervisor superintendent only once (although your edit summary says "better source"). Given the recent debacle over the Ely BLP, I'm curious about your reasons for this, and I can't help but wonder if you have any particular axe to grind here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely's deleted pseudo-biography was mentioned in the April 20th edition of the Schenectady-based The Daily Gazette, in an article by Carl Strock entitled "To get rid of Ely, just follow his contract". Having a link to his contract in this article facilitates that.

Is the section header, "Notable documents," a Wikipedia argument for inclusion or the best title?

Interestingly, Ely's contract is in the article too:

The [[Superintendent (education)|Superintendent of Schools]] is Eric Ely<ref name = AOR/> who began his tenure in 2005.<ref>{{cite web |title=Employment Agreement: Superintendent of Schools ''(Between the Board of Education of the Averill Park Central School District and Eric D. Ely)'' |publisher=Schenectady City School District |url=http://www.seethroughny.com/Portals/0/Emp72SchoolContracts/Documents/441000010000%20Schenectady%20S.pdf |accessdate=2010-04-11}}</ref>

How common is that to include an external link to a PDF file of a school district's current superintendent, complete with his address?

Do you think we should add a section with instructions on how to get rid of a superintendent?

We could put it in a section called, "Notable instructions." -- Rico 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the two of you are conspiracy theorists extraordinaire. Please see Brittonkill Central School District and note that I'm basing this article on that, which I wrote a couple years ago. DC, a link to a school report card, which is the most important outside document written on any school district in NY, is a more independent, if not more formal source. There is absolutely no axe here. I feel as if I have to keep going back to WP:AGF, and I don't like that. I have created a number of articles on school districts in the Capital District, all of which include a link to the contracts and report cards. These are the most important documents to a school district. I created these articles years before doing anything with Schenectady. The article histories will prove that. Not sure why conspiracies seem to be running wild here. And if you're going to make legitimate arguments here, please note that the term is superintendent, not supervisor. Use of the latter makes me think you're not actually reading the content that I've added and just opposing it on baseless grounds. upstateNYer 21:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I know WP:Other stuff exists, but that is not an indicator of worthiness of inclusion.

I disagree that contracts are so important that links to them are worthy of inclusion.

According to AGF, it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."

Per WP:ELBURDEN, "Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them" -- yet you've restored the external contracts links three times within the last 24 hours, by reverting other editors' edits.[1][2][3]

You were one of the two admins that created a smear file on Eric Ely -- that Jimbo called "a hatchet job" -- by collecting all the dirt on him in one place.

WP:Administrators#Administrator_conduct states, "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities."

You're calling us, "conspiracy theorists extraordinaire," and namecalling violates NPA.

I'd appreciate it if you'd spend more time addressing my concern about "includ[ing] an external link to a PDF file of a school district's current superintendent, complete with his address," than campaigning to influence this discussion.[4] -- Rico 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

UpstateNYer, no one has alleged any conspiracies here. I have given my reasoning for not accepting a third-party site as a reliable source, and for linking to the district's site to establish the simple fact of the name of the superintendent rather than a "report card" PDF. I'll deal with the former issue elsewhere, but I will be re-adding the district's site back. It is a government site and therefore generally considered reliable. If you feel the need to remove it again, please discuss it here first. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you switching the sources. While the school website is "generally considered reliable", the New York State Education Department, which, in its roll in producing the report cards, is much like an auditor, is "definitely considered reliable". This is the most formal source there is to confirm the superintendent of a district (save for the contract, itself). Noting the clout of the report cards in the state, it should definitely replace the district's website as the source for the sup's name. upstateNYer 01:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Any number of news articles could just as easily serve as an adequate reference. We don't need "the most formal source" for this very simple fact. I think the best reference is the one that is likely to be accurate in the future, and that is the district's site, not a static report. I am doing my best to assume good faith, but you seem to be determined not to include the site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

But why not use the best source? The sup's webpage could change any time in the future, especially if a new website design is implemented. Currently most districts get their redesign efforts from the local BOCES, and many are doing so this year and next (not sure about Schen, but it looks like it could use some updating). My district just did this, and all the former html files became asp files. No longer are the old pages linkable, because they are all dead. Newspaper sources are a good idea, but the only one that will probably cover the uncontentious hiring of a superintendent is the Daily Gazette, and they don't post their articles in full. If there is no source that will be indefinitely available, why not use the best source out there? upstateNYer 02:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Ely's salary is in the PDF for his contract. Some might consider that a violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy.

It's used to reference that "[Eric Ely] began his tenure in 2005," but the document is dated November 28, 2007 -- so how is it a reliable source for "[Eric Ely] began his tenure in 2005"? -- Rico 01:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

All government employee pay in New York is public information; there is no debate about that. These people take jobs knowing that anybody anywhere can find out and may want to find out their salary, especially a superintendent. It sometimes appears in newspaper headlines if it's notably high. As for the contract as a source of starting, please see section B on page 1 of his contract. It's only the fifth sentence of the entire contract; I'm surprised you didn't find it. upstateNYer 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding to above, here is the source: [5]; scroll down to the "Do I have a right to know how government spends money?" FAQ. The Committee on Open Government is the State's source for information on New York's Freedom of Information Law. Anybody from the governor to a custodian at a town hall is a public servant in the state and as such, their salaries are 100% public information. upstateNYer 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

An even better source: "payroll records: ...represent important fiscal as well as operation information. The identity of the employees and their salaries are vital statistics kept in the proper recordation of departmental functioning and are the primary sources of protection against employment favortism. They are subject therefore to inspection" Winston v. Mangan, 338 NYS 2d 654, 664 (1972)." And it's even about school district records. upstateNYer 02:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

←(e/c with DC) Alright, well, let's cover this then (and not that I'm assuming bad faith, but please don't pull the TLDR card; you brought up a lot of issues that have legitimate responses and require significant evidence to show the contrary):

1. I have no interest in Ely: First off, I offered absolutely no content additions or subtractions to the Ely article. I strictly copyedited it; the repeated crying of "you should have known better" is obviously not upheld since the first AfD showed not everyone agreed it crossed any line (and the call for policy changes in the 2nd shows that policy was not clear on the issue anyway), especially since it followed the news reports quite accurately (and I've been exposed to them endlessly on the news for probably a month now). But Ely is beside the point because I really had no interest in it to begin with. When I read it out of curiosity, and saw that another friendly, local editor was dealing with an AfD, I helped out by copyediting it, which it needed. Creating Schenectady City School District did come about because the AfD happened to be going on, however it was something I planned on starting anyway. I mainly wanted linkable articles for the Ely article. Plus, Schenectady High School has been around since July 2008 and a school district really should have an article before a high school within that district (a school is just a building; a district is an entire government entity). You should also note that no mention of the Ely issue is made in the district article; again, I have no interest in it. Think of it this way: if I was trying to frame this guy or give the issue undue fame, and all I had was this article, just including his contract as a source, and listing it alongside other important district documents wouldn't get me far; it would be so subtle as to make a negligible impact if any. Don't you think there would be at least some content relating to the "scandal"? You can cite alphabet soup all you want, but this one comes down to common sense.
2. The content of the contract is not our concern: The contracts are two of the most important documents related to a school district in NY (see item 4, below). To repeat myself (at least a couple times), the teachers' contract amounts to at least 60% of a budget in any given school district (btw, when I refer to "any school district in NY", I'm excluding NYC; it has a completely different system). The superintendent's contract is also up there, as it is the employment contract for the CEO - and best paid employee - of the district. The fact that an address is in there is immaterial to an encyclopedia; we aren't hosting the content, only linking to it, and a very small number of people will actually go so far as to read the document (but it's there for anyone that's interested). It is the decision of the board and its attorney (and the agreement of the sup candidate) to include that, but they are well aware that these documents are filed with the state and open to inspection by any resident (that said, a quick whitepages.com search confirms the address, so if you want the info, you needn't come to WP for it). If you read the full Gazette article ("To get rid of Ely, just follow his contract"; I have an electronic copy of the full version, if you'd like me to email it to you), you will see that the content discusses that Ely's contract is a bit odd because it allows for his removal should a supermajority of the board (5 of 7 members) agree it needed. If I had added this contract only and not the others I mention in item 3, below, I could see some minor evidence for an axe to grind, however, the actual content of his contract is immaterial to this article; noting you will probably use that quote against me, I offer you this: the contract is an excellent source on the terms of his employment, the year he started, and the year his contract extends to. Any oddities in the contract are not our concern. And, plus, this is a newspaper article saying, "Hey, if they decide to can him, which could be a possibility, they can actually do so if 5 of the 7 agree to it." It's just a newspaper reporting on one outcome of the situation; common sense again. But this newspaper article is not a source for this encyclopedia article and I never intended it to be.
3. This information is standard in the articles I edit about school districts in the Capital District: First, I apologize for the conspiracy theorists comment; I think we can all be adults about this and I give you my word that I meant no harm and never have (Rico, your use of minor sarcasm [quote below] made me think we could debate this like adults but still do so in an informal manner). However, the comments "and I can't help but wonder if you have any particular axe to grind here," and "Do you think we should add a section with instructions on how to get rid of a superintendent? We could put it in a section called, 'Notable instructions.'" showed that you think there is a backdoor reason for the items I have included here. I've made it clear that I've worked on at least a few other school district articles in the Capital District, some at least a year and a half before this, where the same information was included: Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District (sometime before 11/10/08), Berlin Central School District (4/13/09), Averill Park Central School District (12/29/08), Albany City School District (10/12/08), Guilderland Central School District (10/12/08), Bethlehem Central School District (10/12/08), Middleburgh Central School District (10/12/08), Shenendehowa Central School District (10/12/08), and now Schenectady.
4. Five documents define most of a district; they should be available here: There are five documents that are essential to the anatomy of a school district. They are all available (and must be, legally) publicly. Thanks to the Internet and SeeThroughNY.org, a citizens' transparency group that the Times Union (Albany) (Albany's flagship newspaper) strongly praised when it came out, no single person needs to file a Freedom of Information claim to get access to these documents. The documents are, in order:
   1. The school budget (still looking to see if they post this online); dictates the spending plan of the district (published by the district)
   2. Tie: The school district report cards: the AOR and CIR (see notable documents section); reports on the quality of education of the district, lists student body make up, graduation rate, teacher turnover rate, etc. (published by the New York State Education Department)
   3. Tie: The teachers' contract (constitutes 60+% of meat of budget) and the superintendent's contract (highest paid employee and CEO of district); dictates how much the district must spend to keep the educational system going and details the employment agreements between the largest group of employees and the CEO of the district. These documents (plus the contracts with administrators, management confidential, and CSEA) strongly influence the cost of a contingency budget. (published by the district, filed by NYSED, hosted by seethroughny.org)
5. I'm not canvassing for support: Camelbinky is free to say whatever he wants about me. My ultimate goal it to show you there are other editors out there that know me my edit history much better that you do, and know that I'm not here to ruin someone's life and dismantle an institution or something. Many of us (Bearian and Camelbinky, for instance) work mainly on local articles, typically never being bothered on the articles we work on because of its extreme local flavor. It's not until I bring an article to peer review, GAN, or FAC do I really get much editing going on in articles I work heavily on. Slap my wrist if you still think this is canvassing, but I'm not canvassing for anything. I just want to make it clear that my cohort (those working on locally important articles in the Albany area) support each other and respect the work done by each other. Not one of the major editors at WP:WikiProject Capital District has worked against an entity or person they've written about, as far as I'm aware. We're a good group of editors, if you ask me.
6. Lastly: I don't see contrary evidence for you not to still AGF. I did not create anything regarding Ely; you are incorrect in saying that I did. You disagree that the contracts are worthy of inclusion; noted. I am very involved in the education realm around Albany; I consider myself a resident expert on education and school district issues in NY on WP, since I have yet seen someone else so active in the arena. I hope I've made it clear why the contracts are important, and are definitely something that at least some readers would be interested in seeing. Save for the conspiracy theorists comments, I'm not sure how WP:Administrators#Administrator_conduct is relevant, especially since we're still having a civil debate on the issue here. Anyway, sorry it's so long, but I need to make it clear to the both of you that I am disconnected from the Ely issue (note that my comments, save for a keep vote in the first AfD, mainly revolved around minute details that, while maybe not important to you, are very important to me [e.g. the use of WP:POLITICIAN as an argument, which is not applicable]), and only continuing on the same path of article creation that has been successful for more than 18 months now. upstateNYer 01:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated my case. My views are about the source of the contracts, not the contents or their use here. Any issues not directly relevant to this article are probably better addressed elsewhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your last statement, but I didn't bring up the issues, Rico did. upstateNYer 02:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think the links to the contracts provide the users with information that would be exceptionally interesting to the average reader of the Schenectady City School District article.

Using a link to a PDF file to attribute a claim that a school superintendent has been the superintendent for a certain length of time seems stupid to me. I don't even see why it is so important. Is this school district notable because Ely has been there since 2005 -- not 2004, or 2006, but 2005? If it is so worthy of inclusion, rather than trivia, then it should be attributed to a secondary reliable source -- otherwise, it's WP:OR. It's not been published by an RS. You're just reading something it says in the contract, and infering what may seem obvious -- but what nevertheless, has not been published by an RS. So it's OR.

Furthermore, the site hosting the PDF files isn't a reliable source.

Finally, external links in the body are supposed to be avoided.

The documents aren't the most important just because you say they are, any more than sources are reliable just because you say they are.

You seem to like to use superlatives, but they don't carry any weight with me.

Bricks and mortar, students and teachers are the most important elements of a school district, but external links to the construction contract wouldn't lead readers to information they're likely to find interesting.

The fact that they're legally required to be public, has nothing to do with WP:EL.

I see the value of an external link to the school district's website, because that would provide a direct extention to more information. Plus, it's an official site under the district's control.

I really don't care if WP:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia's full of problematical content.

The bottom line is that you don't have consensus for the links, because you don't seem to have convinced either one of us. I'd have removed the links again by now, but Delicious carbuncle seems to have something else in mind.

Per WP:EL, "The burden of providing [...] justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

Per WP:ELBURDEN, even "the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. [...] Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them."

Your revert war was to violate WP:EL.

One thing is for sure. You really want the external links to the contracts there.

You have no interest in Ely, but you have an electronic copy of the full version of "To get rid of Ely, just follow his contract"? -- Rico 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was hoping for a less suggestive and more mature type of response. I think it's time for dispute resolution. Other minds need to consider this outside the three of us. "Consensus" doesn't exist when there's fewer people involved than I have fingers on one hand; it's the Achilles heel of one of WP's greatest policies (and one reason why a quorum or something similar are always necessary at WP:FPC and WP:FAC to promote). I also don't feel that the two of you are qualified to make this choice (not insulting, just being practical); not that I'm saying more laymen in the mix is better, I would just like to see the reaction of others because this is pretty clear cut to anyone involved in public education in NY. Holding back what is already readily available public information for qualitative reasons is detrimental to the project and just a backwards idea to me, especially when we aren't listing the information, but just sourcing to it. This, as I've iterated multiple times, is why I want the links to the contracts there (whether it's Schenectady, or some other district, it doesn't matter in the slightest). upstateNYer 05:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw, what are you trying to imply with "I'd have removed the links again by now, but Delicious carbuncle seems to have something else in mind."? I don't see how that fits in here. upstateNYer 05:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a little like forum shopping to me. You didn't get the answer you wanted, so you're going to ask for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like?

Re: Holding back what is already readily available public information for qualitative reasons is detrimental to the project and just a backwards idea to me:

This is a mischaracterization. It's not about "holding back"; it's about providing justification. Per WP:ELBURDEN, "Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article" -- not whatever partisan allies you can send a biased message to (or email), that have never edited or discussed this article, to influence the outcome of this discussion.[6]

Stop calling on your friends or allies to come here and agree with you for the purpose of supporting your side of this discussion, as proxies to sway consensus.

The contracts may be public information, but that is not a reason to include the external links. It's a rebuttal to an argument for not including the links.

I'm not saying we should "hold back." I'm saying your claim that these documents are the most important ones isn't a good reason to include external links to them. It just doesn't seem like the place most users would like to go, to get additional information about Schenectady City School District. It's not the kind of information most people would be looking for.

The most important or integral aspects of a sewing machine might be its gears or needles -- but readers about sewing machines aren't likely to find links to Singer's gears and needles contracts to be the information they're most likely to be wanting to go to, to get more information about Singer sewing machines.

To be honest, most of what readers of this article would likely be looking for, would probably be at the school district's website.

External links to PDF files aren't the most typical kind of Wikipedia external links. They're just ones that you really, really want. I'd almost say the revert war you engaged in[7][8][9], to insist on including external links in violation of WP:EL, qualifies for WP:LAME -- but it seems unusually important to you.

People don't usually fight this hard for the inclusion of external links.

It's not Wikipedia's function to provide a section full of external links. The article doesn't have to have one at all.

And the website isn't a reliable source -- even if you write that it is extra especially, amazingly, stupendously reliable.

I'm not even convinced that what makes Schenectady City School District what it is, or special, or unique, is that its superintendent has been there since 2005. I don't think it contributes to its notability at all. -- Rico 20:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, are you saying that WP:DR is not the next step? My interpretation of policy is that dispute resolution is always the next step after a significant disagreement. Do enlighten me with your interpretation. And please stay on task; you're still making subtle accusations that I'm trying to do something bad here. I think I've proven my point that I'm not. These documents, to your lay experience, may not seem that important. I'm telling you, from professional experience, that they are. Since you like to make non-compatible arguments (e.g. sewing machine and gears in the last post), would you question Einstein on special theory? upstateNYer 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"The bottom line is that you don't have consensus for the links, because you don't seem to have convinced either one of us." Who chose you two as "consensus"? UpstateNYer has given perfectly reasonable explanations for why the two documents should be included. It seems to me that, regardless of any argument he makes, the both of you are determined to revert it. And I doubt that it's actually about the documents either. Silverseren^C 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren, your comments are inflammatory and unhelpful here. The is no reversion happening and I, at least, have no objection to the documents themselves, just that there is no way of ensuring that they are legitimate since they come from a third-party site. The very basic concerns here seem to be getting twisted into something other than what they are - please step away from this unless you have something constructive and relevant to add. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Silver. Delicious and Rico, it seems you two have a serious lack of AGF in Upstater. Please refrain from assuming ulterior motives in Upstaters actions thinking he has something personal against Ely. As you two have suddenly found an interest in NYCD related articles I hope you both join our Wikiproject, if you truly want to help we have a long list of things you can. We're a small out of the way corner of Wikipedia and have done just fine on making articles better, one mistake should not permanently tarnish a great contributor's reputation nor cause others to start in with interest in "policing" them as I believe Silver was hinting that it may be your reason for being here, I however am much blunter. If your main reason for coming here is to "make sure Upstater is behaving himself" I suggest you rethink and find something better to do. Many different wikiprojects, including our own, watch articles he works on, we are very capable to police him ourselves. Thanks for your concern though, but if he does something wrong, there are already at least 3 or 4 admins in the NYCD wikiproject alone, and more I'm sure in the schools Wikiproject and others that help out on topics he works on.Camelbinky (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I have no general interest in New York state issues, so I will be ignoring your disingenuous invitation to join the Wikiproject. I watchlisted this article during the Eric Ely AfD, to ensure that misguided users did not attempt to introduce the material here. While removing backlinks to the deleted Ely BLP, I noted the links to the contracts and stated my concerns by starting this discussion. Can we please keep this discussion to those issues? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you not call other users "misguided"? And please, at least when addressing ME, dont end your posts with "thanks", you doing THAT is disingenuous; my invitation however was not. I'd LOVE it if you kept this discussion to the links, however your constant snipping and veiled insults are not helpful and obviously I'm not the ONLY one who noticed! Silver as far as I know has no reason to defend Upstater and yet noticed you seem to be out of line on your motives. And I'll continue to point this out. It's no secret I've argued with you before at various locations disagreeing your point of view on Wikipedia policy and frankly I dont like your method or tone in discussions.Camelbinky (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your comment about it, Camel, so I came over and looked and read through everything. Though I must admit, Delicious, I am partially biased against you in the sense that I have seen a lot of the other stuff you have been involved in and incidents that got brought up at AN, which makes me feel that you are vindictive toward people you don't like, actively so. Especially after you make comments, which you've made before, saying that people should be desysopped for rather minor things, if they are things at all. Silverseren^C 20:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are both welcome to leave your comments about me on my user page, but can we please stick to the article issues here? If you have nothing to contribute to that specific discussion, please don't post here. I'm going to start removing off-topic comments like the ones above per WP:TALK. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, any particular reason you're deleting my posts on this page? After citing so much policy, I would think you'd know that you can't just delete others' posts willy-nilly. upstateNYer 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico and Delicious cant go around deleting comments and if they continue they can find themselves at AN/I, and not for the first time.Camelbinky (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't removed any comments as yet and given your response here I don't intend to. I had hoped to keep this discussion from getting out of hand but people seem unable to stay focused on the article issues. I have no interest in continuing the discussion if this is the form it is going to take, so I'll take my concerns elsewhere. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That was much quicker than I thought. Was prepared to go off on more tangents if need be. Bye. Thanks.Camelbinky (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You inserted your posts into the middle of a post of mine,[10][11] but then, you knew that. You've linked to my edit. Did you read the edit summary, "Delete text inserted into the middle of my post, something I object to, per WP:REFACTOR, Wikipedia:Be_bold#User_namespace and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments"?

• WP:Be_bold policy states, "It is generally recommended that you do not edit another Wikipedian's [...] comments left on talk pages (other than your own, and even then do not be reckless)."
• "Refactoring talk pages states, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Another editor did, me.
• "Talk page guidelines: Others' comments states, "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."

I objected. -- Rico 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Inserting comments into sections of a user's post may make things more confusing, but that does not count as editing that user's post. None of the wording of your post was changed whatsoever, so it was not edited. If you object to it being there, when you could have just added your signature onto the new sections that were created, a much simpler solution, then you should have just moved his comments below your post. Removing them was not warrented. Silverseren^C 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Inserting comments inside another user's post is disruptive. I disagree with your opinion that it does not "count" as editing that user's post. Inserting text into the middle of another user's post is editing it.

I didn't let UpstateNYer chop up my post and reply to individual parts of it.

My post was more than the sum if its parts. It was a coherent whole, and it lost something when UpstateNYer shattered it.

UpstateNYer can post his own posts below my post -- or wherever he wants -- and it's not for me to decide where, only that UpstateNYer not post posts inside mine.

Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays do not support your argument -- as I made clear (above).

All I did was restore my post to its original form. All text that had been inserted into the middle of it was, as a consequence, deleted.

You conclude, "Removing them was not warrented" (sic).

You and Camelbinky have decided, off in a corner, without alerting us to the fact that the two of you were discussing us, to file a grievance against me at ANI.[12]

Is that the reason for your argument, because it doesn't seem related to improving the Schenectady City School District article.

We should focus on that here. -- Rico 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You have every right to bring your comments back together, but you don't have the right to remove mine in the process. Objecting is one thing, removal is another. You should have just moved my comments, which would have literally been 3 copy+paste actions. If you're really here to make things better, you would have left my content visible to read, albeit in a different spot. Now, if you want to actually stick to the topic at hand, Quantpole and I welcome your input below, where we are actually making progress. Let's end this part of the thread, now. upstateNYer 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just went back into the history to where my post was intact, copied it, and pasted it over my shattered post.

If you're really here to make things better, you wouldn't have audaciously inserted your posts into the middle of one of mine in the first place.

I don't see why you think your disruptive editing entitles you to expect me to do more work than is necessary to restore my post to what it was like before you chopped it up.

I would also note that all you would have to do is post your own posts in whatever spot you want -- except for inside a post of mine -- rather than spark and then prolong a huge debate that has nothing to do with improving the Schenectady City School District article.

Why didn't you just do that?

One way to end this part of the thread, in good faith, would be to not reply and accuse me of wrongdoing. -- Rico 21:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't pull WP:LASTWORD when you also pipe to WP:DE in the same statement and demand good faith only sentences later. My goal was not to be disruptive, it was to respond clearly to each of your posts. You tend to bring up a number of issues in each of your posts and responding to each in a large paragraph is not helpful to anyone (plus, your later posts go line by line and don't flow in paragraphs, which offers an ample opportunity to respond to each one as if it were a bullet - there's no bad faith here). So, since you cited it, it would be nice if good faith were given for such a marginal, no, negligible issue. So, will you be joining us in progressland, or no? upstateNYer 21:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ample opportunity to" chop up someone's post and insert replies to each part of it, into the middle of it, isn't justification for doing that. -- Rico 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how many different ways I can say it: I didn't do this to inflame you. My goal was simply to keep things organized by cleanly responding to each separate issue. Can you please just accept that and not keep trying to imply that there is some negative endgame that I am after? No matter what happened in this issue, I'm not the one that removed the other's comments. You could have nicely asked me to move my comments, or at least informed me that you don't like the way I did things; you didn't. You unilaterally made a decision that wasn't yours to make and then flooded the page with too many blue letters, when all you had to say was, "Hey, can you move your last comments? I don't like them breaking up mine. Thanks." That's a total of 15 words. That's all that you needed to do and should have done. I'm really not that upset that you removed my words, otherwise, I probably would have reinstated them. I just see such hypocrisy when you toss such accusations out about simple formatting I did on this page and then ignore the fact that you broke rule #1 about talk pages. Can we please just move on from this? Please? upstateNYer 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see this discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of superintendent start date

Well there seems to be a more basic problem in that Ely states that he started his job as superintendent in January 2006. Any reason for the difference here? Also, why is it remotely relevant when he started his job? Quantpole (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Must be the difference between being appointed to the role (i.e. signed the contract) and starting in the position. Good find. As for the relevancy, I don't see why it's not relevant? It's a small detail, for sure, but it shows how long he's been there. And this has nothing to do with Schenectady; this is done routinely on other school district articles. It's like including in articles when David Paterson took over office, or when Barack Obama was elected. You can live without that information, but it offers perspective. (But to throw it out there - and this is more for everyone else involved in this discussion - even if the contract isn't used as an in-line source, that doesn't change my feelings on it being listed as an external link.) upstateNYer 09:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if other stuff exists, that doesn't make this "small detail" worthy of inclusion. -- Rico 22:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why when he started his job is remotely relevant, either. It's not what makes Schenectady City School District what it is, or special, or unique, or noteworthy. -- Rico 22:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment on the noteworthiness of including a start date for David Paterson, or an election date for Barack Obama and then explain how this is significantly different? upstateNYer 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Those have been covered in independent reliable sources, this hasn't. Quantpole (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)