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 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 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