User talk:Tucker454: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:32, 19 November 2011

Hi, I see that you are out and about vadalizing pages. I have to wonder why. What is your deal dude?

It's called "editing." And you spelled "vandalizing" incorrectly.

When you blank entire sections for no reason other than the subject is something you find distasteful it is vandalism, not editing. The citations clearly support everything that is written. Tucker454 (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words you have written are your opinion, as you have not provided proper attribution. I removed it because it is libelous.

Why don't you start a blog where you can slander anyone you like to your heart's content?

"Police scandal" section is libelous, biased and does not have proper attributes, making it one man's opinion

The attributions the writer has provided do not support the statements of the writer, making this section libelous. It also makes it purely the writer's opinion, and not a proven, verifiable fact. The writer states: "Arvada was home to one of the largest police scandals in Colorado in 2010 ..."

No attribution is given that proves it is "one of the largest police scandals in Colorado" thus making this statement the writer's opinion.

The writer states: "... 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, as the writer accuses the Arvada Police Department of "criminal conduct" when the entire attribution (17) is not about convictions but about charges and allegations. Because no one is convicted in the link the writer provides, it is his opinion, not a fact.

The writer states: "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."

Please show us in Attribution 17 where it says that "several members of the Arvada police" were convicted of "previous criminal conduct."

Please show us in Attribution 17 where it says that it cost the city "close to half a million dollars defending the criminal actions of one police officer alone ... " If you do not have an attribution, it is only YOUR OPINION.

Attribution 17 is below, for your review. Nothing in that attribution supports any of the libelous content you have submitted on the Wiki page.

17--Julie Hayden Investigative Reporter 8:34 p.m. MDT, September 9, 2010

ARVADA, Colo. - Three former Arvada Police officers find themselves on the wrong side of the law, charged with misdemeanor crimes involving a case of excessive force and cover up.

The Jefferson County DA today charged 29-year-old Whitney Bauma and 28-year-old Noah Rolfing with failing to report, official misconduct and false reporting. 31-year-old Charles Whitney was charged with misdemeanor assault as well. All three officers have resigned.

The allegations stem from a January arrest, where police thoroughly documented suspect Kelly Etheridge being combative and spitting on an officer, but none of the officers reported seeing Humphrey allegedly punch Etheridge in the face.

Fox 31 has learned that Hunprhey is involved in at least two other cases of alleged brutality that resulted in lawsuits being filed against Arvada. Those lawsuits cost Arvada taxpayers $430,000.

The first case involved a call on a noise complaint at an Arvada home. The family says it turned into a "police riot" with a cell phone taping officers tasing and beating one of the family members. A Jefferson County Judge said the Arvada officers illegally entered the home and illegally took family members into custody.

The third case involves a man who filed a lawsuit against Arvada Police, claiming they illegally entered the home where he was a guest and transported him to a hospital and medically treated him against his will.

Police say a larger internal investigation continues into other issues and officers within the department. The Chief has said he will not tolerate misconduct and will take appropriate disciplinary action if necessary after the investigation is complete.

These are just the first few sentences of your "contribution." The entire section is poorly written and not supported by facts or attribution. That makes it the writer's opinion, and it is libelous.

--Reality--

So, which one are you? I lack the energy right now to go and get more refernces, but I will - and I WILL repost this as it is fact and relevant to Arvada. Your section blanking shows clear personal involvement in my opinion, and I wonder why you then edit this page. This section has more references that support the text than any other section in the entire Arvada page, and more than most pages in general. I am sorry you don't like your name up on the page, but it belongs there. Law breaking police officers are below slugs or pond scum. Tucker454 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________

You said: "So, which one are you?"

I don't understand the question.

You said: "I lack the energy right now to go and get more refernces, but I will - and I WILL repost this as it is fact and relevant to Arvada."

Fabulous. That's what you're supposed to do in the first place. Otherwise, you're just posting your opinions. I'm sure that parts of your "contribution" were factual, but you did NOT provide attributions to back it up. You must do that, especially when you slander a person or a group of people.

You said: "Your section blanking shows clear personal involvement in my opinion, and I wonder why you then edit this page."

The English language is important to me, so when people who think they are writers add their "contributions" to what should be a credible Internet reference, yeah, I take that personally. Many people in this country today do not understand the difference between fact and opinion, and because the libelous "Police scandal" section had no relevant attributions, it was OPINION, opinion that the "writer" thought of as "fact." The distinction must be made.

You said: "This section has more references that support the text than any other section in the entire Arvada page, and more than most pages in general."

The references do NOT support the accusations you made, and it concerns me that you can't see the difference. In fact, a person who can't see the difference has absolutely NO business contributing to a Wiki page.

You said: "I am sorry you don't like your name up on the page, but it belongs there."

I don't like my name where? What are you even talking about?

You said, "Law breaking police officers are below slugs or pond scum."

I agree completely. Unfortunately, you have not provided attribution that shows any of them broke any laws. Being charged or accused is NOT the same as being convicted.

You clearly have a personal reason to not like law enforcement, and are using this Wiki page to propagate that dislike. That's not for a Wiki page--that's what blogs are for. Take your personal battle with law enforcement somewhere else.

I am not sure that you even understand what the phrase "one mans opinion" means. My text mirrored that on articles from most of the major news outlets in the state.

Tucker454 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________

If your text "mirrored that on articles from most of the major news outlets in the state," then why didn't you use those attributions with your "contribution"? That is your responsibility as a writer.

When you write words and call them facts but can't show that it is, in fact, a fact, then it is only YOUR OPINION. Just because you may share that opinion with others still does not make it a fact.

_________________

YOU SAID: My text is plenty supported by the facts.

Then present the facts through attribution. Your word isn't good enough.

YOU SAID: There was a police scandal in Arvada.

Yes, there was. That's about the only thing your "attribution" shows, that there was, in fact, a scandal.

YOU SAID: It involved the named people and several more.

The scandal involved the named people, but they weren't CONVICTED. If there were "several more" then your obligation as a writer is to present attribution to prove your statement.

YOU SAID: There is no question the events happened,

Yes, there is, because you have provided NO ATTRIBUTION to prove the events happened as you say they did. You actually wrote in the article: "The police officers involved had been routinely breaking and entering into peoples homes." You simply CANNOT make those kind of statements without attribution. Your attribution did NOT say that officers had been "routinely breaking and entering into peoples homes." That is all YOU and your opinion. If it's not just your opinion, then provide a link that shows it is a FACT. You COULD say, "A Jefferson County Judge said the Arvada officers illegally entered the home and illegally took family members into custody," because THAT is actually in the attribution and would be very easy to prove. I question this source however, because judges usually RULE that something illegal took place; they don't just SAY that the officers illegally entered homes unless they have been convicted. They don't say things like that without proof or conviction, because they could be sued for LIBEL, a word you should study up on.

YOU SAID: and that they were quite significant to Arvada and its population.

Again, this is your opinion. It wasn't significant to me, and I live in the city of Arvada.

YOU SAID: This should be obvious.

When writing FACTUAL ARTICLES for a publication like WIKIPEDIA, you cannot just assume that everyone is going to come to the same conclusions you did. Conclusions are not "obvious." That's why you have to provide attributions.

YOU SAID: The police Chief did not consult the city council, because they had proven ineffective previously.

Then present the facts through attribution. Please present an attribution that says the city council "had proven ineffective previously."

YOU SAID: Instead he asked another county to investigate.

This also could be a true statement that was supported by one of your attribution.

YOU SAID: There was a civil suit that paid the victim, as well as the previous victims of this group of "police officers". If you read the articles, you would know they supported those facts.

I read the articles. They DO NOT support those statements you made. A civil suit isn't mentioned in a single one of your attributions. You must show that the words you write are not just what YOU think, but what is known and proven.

YOU SAID: I assume that you have insider knowledge that is not available to the general public.

About what? Editing and writing?

YOU SAID: This is clear from your deep understanding of the issue.

Of what "issue"? That you don't know the difference between fact and opinion? Or that you don't think you have to show attribution when you slander someone?

What you have written both on the wiki page and here is just your opinion. It's very much like an editorial, but even in editorials, the writers provide factual information that can be proven, not just accusations.

YOU SAID: Your seemingly personal attachment to these fools is also a sign.

Attachment? Seriously? And who might the "fools" be? And what does the "sign" say?

YOU SAID: "Allegedly" punching a guy in handcuffs then lying about it is a serious issue.

It most certainly would be a serious "issue," but because it is ALLEGED and no one has been convicted, you can't say "They did it."

YOU SAID: The charges were dropped, as I wrote, but the resignations and firings were supported - as referenced.

The articles you presented as attribution do NOT report why they resigned, or what the conditions were for resignation. The articles did NOT state why the charges were dropped. And you purport that even though we don't have all the information and even though the charges were dropped, that THEY DID IT. You cannot make that statement here and in writing unless they were convicted. Even if YOU were the victim, you couldn't say it here without ATTRIBUTION. You can write on your blog all you like about how you were robbed or beaten by officers. THAT is where your kind of writing belongs, not on the Wiki page.

Let's try an example to help you understand. Let's say that a coworker of yours goes to her boss and says that you have been making sexual remarks to her at work for months and that she has asked you repeatedly to stop.

It is a lie, but she has still ALLEGED that you have been sexually harassing her. Other coworkers might spread her story as though it is a fact, even though you have not been tried or even convicted of this "allegation." This makes things even more difficult for you. Others may come to believe that you DID harass her sexually, even though you know very well you did not. You may even be fired because of the allegations. When you finally get your day in court, you are proven innocent--but the damage is already done.

How would that situation make you feel?

YOU SAID: I get it. You made a mistake and you want to move on. But that period is still a few years away. Having a hard time getting a job as a fired police officer whose name is all up over the place? Boo hoo. Scrub some toilets.

Omg, I really feel sorry for you if you think I"m a police officer. Ahahaha!

Tucker454 (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________

If your text "mirrored that on articles from most of the major news outlets in the state," then why didn't you use those attributions with your "contribution"? That is your responsibility as a writer.

When you write words and call them facts but can't show that it is, in fact, a fact, then it is only YOUR OPINION. Just because you may share that opinion with others still does not make it a fact.

_________________

My text is plenty supported by the facts. There was a police scandal in Arvada. It involved the named people and several more. There is no question the events happened, and that they were quite significant to Arvada and its population. This should be obvious. The police Chief did not consult the city council, because they had proven ineffective previously. Instead he asked another county to investigate. There was a civil suit that paid the victim, as well as the previous victims of this group of "police officers". If you read the articles, you would know they supported those facts.

I assume that you have insider knowledge that is not available to the general public. This is clear from your deep understanding of the issue. Your seemingly personal attachment to these fools is also a sign. "Allegedly" punching a guy in handcuffs then lying about it is a serious issue. The charges were dropped, as I wrote, but the resignations and firings were supported - as referenced.

I get it. You made a mistake and you want to move on. But that period is still a few years away. Having a hard time getting a job as a fired police officer whose name is all up over the place? Boo hoo. Scrub some toilets. Tucker454 (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmetz1 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]