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?