Talk:Ellenville, New York

Possible copy/paste copyright violation

I have tagged the government section with a {{copypaste}} copyright violation tag, as a significant portion of the section appears to be copied and pasted directly from http://villageofellenville.com/boards.aspx, published by "Simple Web Design FD&P LLC All rights reserved 2009". Below is a table with a side by side comparison of the two versions, which serves as the basis for me tagging the section.

Original page text	Wikipedia article
Note: direct quotes from website	Note: direct quotes from article
	Ellenville is one of three villages in Ulster County, along with New Paltz and Saugerties.
Offices of the Village of Ellenville are housed at the Ellenville Government Center, 2 Elting Court, which, at five-stories, is the tallest building in the village and town.	Ellenville village offices are housed at the Ellenville Government Center, 2 Elting Court, which, at five-stories, is the tallest building in the village.
	Formerly the headquarters of the Ellenville National Bank (ENB), the building was sold to the village after the ENB was acquired by Provident Bank; in 2007, the village transferred its offices and the police department from its location at North Main Street, primarily to address the old village hall's limited space and failure to meet mandated handicapped-accessibility requirements.
The government of Ellenville is headed by a Board of Trustees, composed of an elected mayor and four trustees. As of 2007, all terms were increased from two years to four years, and elections were moved from March to November. Regular meetings of the Board are held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Village Court convenes each Tuesday evening in the same meeting room.	The government of Ellenville is headed by a Board of Trustees, composed of an elected mayor and four trustees. As of 2007, all terms were increased from two years to four years, and elections were moved from March to November. Regular meetings of the Board are held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Village Court convenes each Tuesday evening in the same meeting room.
	The following appointed volunteer boards, committees, and commissions are responsible for various aspects of village maintenance and development: Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, Housing Authority Commission, Local Development Corporation, Historic Preservation Commission, Ellenville Government Study Committee.
Daily administration is supervised by an appointed village manager, an appointed village clerk, an appointed village treasurer, and department heads for each of the following departments: police, street, water, sewer, building and code enforcement. Village offices are open from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday; the police department is open at all times.	Daily administration of Ellenville is supervised by an appointed village manager, an appointed village clerk, an appointed village treasurer, and department heads for each of the following five departments: police, street, building & code enforcement, water, sewer. Village offices are open from 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday; the police department is open at all times.

--JBC3 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what "appears" to be so is simply a false jumping to conclusions, and NOW posting this, AFTER precipitously ACTING as if it WERE so, is no excuse for NOT taking one's own advice and FIRST discussing it HERE before making wild claims that *I'M* lying or mistaken.

The truth is simple: *I* posted THE WORDS first ON Wikipedia; Frank Romanek, the new webmaster for the Ellenville website, COPIED them verbatim, and hasn't kept them up to date, which explains any difference. So, just because the site SAYS "All rights reserved" doesn't change the fact that HE "borrowed" (lifted without credit? STOLE?) MY original words and perhaps HE should be chastised, not me?

JBC3 COULD have checked this out first before making accusations and then calling me a liar.

This is what happens when someone unfamiliar with the specifics that MATTER to those knowledgeable about the subject interfere and get all high-handed and patronizing and become overzealous and fanatical busybodies in areas that don't impact on them but can definitely have impact on those that LIVE in the area the article deals with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryolux (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kryolux's changes

It again appears that someone without direct knowledge of the specifics of Ellenville and its government has made changes to the page. In an attempt, perhaps, to streamline or standardize the language, errors in accuracy were created where none existed. For example, "The government of Ellenville is operated by an elected board" is NOT correct; it does NOT "operate" it, but HEADS it. The MAYOR appoints the named officials, NOT the board. "Sewage" is NOT a department.

I also restored USEFUL information about the location and operation of the government center, and the appointed committees and boards that supplement government operation, and clarified the change in elections, as this arrangement is almost unique in New York State.

I inserted the word "incorporated" to refer to the three villages in Ulster County; not everyone understands the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated villages. For example, Rosendale Village, in Ulster County, once WAS an incorporated village, but dissolved some decades back, yet kept the name to distinguish itself from the surrounding town of Rosendale. Similarly, Bearsville, Boiceville, and Centerville are NOT incorporated villages within the county, in spite of the names.

I removed the brackets from Shawangunk Scenic Byway, as no Wikipedia page for it seems to exist.

I would appreciate if persons refrain from these kind of unhelpful changes before bringing them up in this discussion page, so it can be determined if they are indeed accurate and helpful.

-- Kryolux (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained to you before, your own personal knowledge is not a usable source on Wikipedia. Also, you're asserting ownership of this article in an inappropriate way. You're also including some info that Wikipedia just doesn't use- like office hours. This info is much more suited to the town's own website than to Wikipedia. Please make some effort to learn how Wikipedia works, if you're going to edit here. Friday (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "personal knowledge" as in something private and personal to myself. This is GENERAL knowledge to informed persons in the village (it's NOT a town, as you state... see what I mean? It's those erroneous mistakes I am trying to correct; if my "personal knowledge is not "usable," how much less "usable" is personal LACK of accurate knowledge, as I've corrected?), and all of it can be confirmed by a variety of sources, but some of it is so obvious or general that it wouldn't make it to a newspaper or other "usable" source. The fact is that someone who LACKS any first-hand knowledge of the FACTS here clearly made ERRONEOUS comments based on NO source, personal or otherwise, and I felt obliged to fix them. Am I supposed to let false and ill-informed data stand unchallenged? What "knowledge" did Ashawley or JBC3 have when they posted false data?

On the one hand, we're told "original research" is not allowed, yet only "original content" is! This isn't "original research" but simply the presentation of useful and relevant facts about the village from a variety of sources, which NOBODY in the know would challenge, yet those who DON'T KNOW have removed or changed or disparaged.

Again, I both live here and have decades of acquired knowledge; various others living here could have written the same information, but lack the awareness that this site even exits, or even care. I care. "Ownership" is your opinion, whereas I prefer to say I have a strong interest in how the community is portrayed, and am particularly concerned that the information is accurate and helpful.

The site had been thin and bland before I began adding material to flesh it out. How does one make a superior site that merits honors and such if one doesn't add material and make it interesting and comprehensive? Many of the other municipal sites are barely worth going to, their information is so minimal, so I am trying to make this site as good as is possible. That is not going to be done by someone from elsewhere who neither knows nor cares.

Who decides "what Wikipedia uses"? As I said, the recently improved village website was sorely lacking in useful info, so I included material that those in or outside Ellenville might want to know, and how is THAT a bad thing? It's FACTS, it's useful, it's not readily available to the average person who doesn't know about the village website, but who depends on Wikipedia as the first source to check out.

As I've said, I've seen pages with far less relevant data or way more "not what Wikipedia uses" info, but there THAT stuff sits still. Does this inclusion REALLY bug you that much? Isn't this page supposed to be comprehensive and aspire to being more than just a few dry stats? We're not talking about controversial OPINIONS, or conflicting views, which might plague other pages. Even "reliable sources" are just PEOPLE, capable of bias and error; just getting "published" doesn't ensure accuracy. I correct erroneous reporters' misstatements all the time. My TESTIMONY will hold up in a court of law, and is one of the options for legal "verification." Statistics are compiled by PERSONS, checking is done by PERSONS, FACTS are compiled by PERSONS; all are capable of error, and often are mistaken. Until these are challenged, they are the going concern; why not let what I've posted remain until someone can PROVE them wrong or inappropriate?

-- Kryolux (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The best suggestion I have for you at this point is that you write all this stuff on your own website. There, you can exercise complete editorial control. It seems clear to me that Wikipedia will never give you the level of control over content that you want. Friday (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Friday, the tone of article-ownership and self-authority by an editor is detrimental to this article and Wikipedia, generally. Fortunately, published statistics can be traced to the authors of a study. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify edits made to Wikipedia without sources.

Also, [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY|Wikipedia is not a directory]. A page cannot be a "complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." --Ashawley (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's all just calm down, OK? And show some "good faith." And stop slinging straw. YOU can't know the "level of control over content" I want, but you seem to imply (are you a mindreader?) that it's obsessive, if not absolute. It's neither, but, as I've stated, and seems to be overlooked here by both of you, it's about correcting errors (which both of you have made and neither has copped to), or why you thought it was so necessary to modify pages that weren't serious problems (and making things more erroneous in doing so), and providing useful info. Are you trying to justify simply leaving errors in place? What was critical about changing what I had into something that was WRONG? THAT is what should be the topic of discussion here.

I don't control the Ellenville village website either; that the current webmaster has TAKEN stuff from me only confirms that my material is recognized as authoritative. And even I am capable of oversights, which is why I corrected the item about the village offices being in the tallest building in the town, when it's only the tallest in the village. And any damn fool could step outside on the streets of Ellenville and "verify" that for himself by merely looking around (you can't see the taller Nevele tower from here, hence the oversight), without having to have it published in a peer-reviewed academic opus!

The point is that Wikipedia is often the first and often the only source people use to get general and then detailed info on a subject, and that includes Ellenville.

Tone is in the eye of the beholder, and it seems that some more-jargon-rich editors are wont to cast all kinds of buzzwords and accusations, not acting in good faith, and not taking into account WHY someone like me might take exception to ill-informed outsiders inadvertently degrading the CONTENT of the article, making it WORSE for no good reason, and then getting all hoity-toity on my ass over my fixes. IN YOUR zealousness (I opine) to make WP conform to some arbitrary and impossible standard, I see you swatting at gnats while giving birth to deformed camels.

What's really detrimental to articles and the integrity of Wikipedia is when those who DON'T KNOW the FACTS wind up posting WRONG information in the misconceived notion that their conforming to policies is more important than the final product accuracy and usefulness. Style over substance, anyone?

Were there "sources" for the changes Ashawley made that were ERRONEOUS? Why did you even feel it was necessary to edit what WAS correct? Trace back ANY information and you get back to a primary source who is just a person, which is why ALL posted material is only as good as the "original source" is trustworthy and competent to comment. Had I simply cited an article *I* wrote, edited, or published as publisher (I've been all three), would that have been any different JUST BECAUSE it was in print previously? Has anyone challenged the ACCURACY of my contributions? The "authors of a study" can be just as wrong as anyone else, and all info is subject to correction.

Deciding what SHOULD be included is also arbitrary and subjective, and it's more strawman argument to assume that I want or expect the article on Ellenville to be "a complete exposition of all possible details." Complete? Impossible. Comprehensive and informative? Sure, why not?

"Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." And that is my point: ACCEPTED KNOWLEDGE includes MY KNOWLEDGE and that known to informed persons who live here and are familiar with this "accepted knowledge," which I am trying to collate and present to the world at large. Some of that knowledge IS in "verifiable" published form, but much of it is in the "knowledge base" residing in the heads of thousands of persons who live or lived here.

I have no problem with their contributions, indeed, when a descendant of one of the persons mentioned in the history section improved on the story of how the village got its name, I was more than happy to let the more authoritative person's account stand. Oh, I can go to any of several accounts (including those I've even published in local publications over the years) and cite them, not that you'd be able to find many of them online now, but all of those, in the end, are just the opinions or passings-on of OTHER persons, so who knows what is the absolute truth?

Reality and human fallibility will never let YOU or anyone have the "level of control over content that you want"! We all do the best we can to be accurate and helpful, but some of us simply have more likelihood of BEING more accurate on certain matters, and only those who are deluding themselves that their STYLISTIC meddling is more helpful than CONTENT accuracy are the ones doing real harm to Wikipedia's ultimate integrity.

-- Kryolux (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)