`  == Are you really not biased with ABS-CBN? ==     Hey Mr. Howard the Duck... R u really not BIASED? What if somebody has edited the contents about ABS-CBN? And included there facts or acclaims about ABS-CBN that Filipinos could be proud of? And yet you are as what I have discovered and reckoned a ``proud to be a Kapuso`` which technically means that you could have ``ALMOST`` sided with GMA network ubiquitously... for good or fragrant or flourishing articles about them? Huh? Like what you and Mr. Danngarcia who are advantaged and privileged USERS of the Wikipedia particularly with Philippine-related articles, antipathize my contributions about ABS-CBN. Hence, I have included there an article about the acclaim of ABS-CBN, who was the only Philippine Media Company that included in the list of 2008's Top 10 Most Admired Company in the Philippines by the Wall street Journal Asia. And because you and Mr. Danngarcia are chauvinist of 'Kapuso' for who specifically ``SIDES`` with GMA network, have deleted nor rejected my contributions about ABS-CBN's honor which GMA network doesn't get. You must be refuted for what you have been doing. Therefore, if you perceived that the article which i have inscribed doesn't make sense, but for the Filipinos like 'Kapamilya' watchers and ABS-CBN, it is not a gobbledygook.. it is momentous because of an article about honor and acclaim to any Filipino company which was reputed to that list and even to the country and our economy. If you might realize that I make sense, then so.. let me continue my contribution regarding that kind of article about ABS-CBN. Because you even let somebody or maybe 'as is' yourself, to be free on including the TV ratings from AGB Neilsen that GMA network has been getting, that could be theoretically inaccurate and confusing due to its correlative controversy, which can even be more rejected than the FACTS that I have edited about ABS-CBN. If you really are undeniably meek to follow Wikipedia's given privilege to the people which bounded with the freedom of the mass to go-and-edit ``FACTS`` with ``REFERENCES``, but why it seems at some point you are BIASED to this manner? Please dispute on this or clear yourself... and maybe give you ``BENEFIT of THE DOUBT``.   P.S.  I am not whining on you if you are truthfully conscientious, nor I take this comments for you personally.   `