OMG, you are an imbecile.  Seriously.  

Let's go over this one last time on the remote chance you might finally understand the difference between fact and opinion.

I rewrote the contribution using ONLY information that I found on the Internet that supported the contribution.  I did not add anything to the story that could not be verified through a reliable source.  YOU, on the other hand, wrote a contribution that DID add content to the story that could NOT be verified through a reliable source, making it YOUR OPINION.  You said things like  "... when a neighboring police agency was needed and requested by the chief of police to intervene in the criminal conduct of Arvada's police force."

This is libelous, because you accuse the Arvada Police Department of "criminal conduct" when no criminal conduct has been proven in a court of law.  Even the officer who is alleged to have done the hitting has been found "not guilty" by your peers. Because no one is convicted in the link you provide (or ANY link ANYWHERE on the Internet), it is your OPINION.  If you had used the phrase "ALLEGED criminal conduct" you would be more on track.

You also wrote: "Arvada's city council had chosen not to intervene in the previous criminal conduct of several members of the Arvada police, despite a cost to the city of close to half a million dollars defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone, during a period of budget crises."

The "close to half a million dollars" was NOT spent "defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone."  The money was spent settling OUT OF COURT so that the accusations had no opportunity to be proven as fact.  A "criminal" is someone who has been CONVICTED of a crime. So there cannot be "criminal actions" unless someone has been convicted of a crime.  There CAN be "alleged questionable actions," which is what you should have written. 

When you post hateful things about others that is just your opinion, that opens you up to a LIBEL SUIT.  If you do it in a blog, and you make it clear that you are expressing your opinion and not facts, you can say whatever you like there without much fear of libel.  But when you post to a site whose premise is encyclopedic content, you cannot just post what you THINK.  You must post what can be VERIFIED.   Do you understand this very basic principle?  Please read it again if you don't, because I'm done trying to educate you.

Definition of libel (I encourage you to visit the link and read all its contents):  http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-libel.htm

Libel involves false statements knowingly presented as fact. In the United States opinion is protected as a tenant of freedom of speech, falling outside the purview of libel. Citizens retain the right to comment on public figures and entities, including government and officials. Entertainment, parody, editorials and criticisms that may arguably misrepresent facts are not libelous so long as they are presented for amusement or stated as mere opinion. 

From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

How to prove libel:  There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. 

________________________

You are unable to be objective about the content you are writing because you have a personal, emotional feeling or opinion about it.  Because of this, you HAVE NO BUSINESS contributing to Wikipedia, and it's my OPINION that you should be banned from doing so.  I've made several contacts on this issue and am waiting to hear back.
````