"KARE-TV=== 
 → See also: .  
 Thank you for checking in with this page's issues, I wanted to try to connect with someone as the same user seems bent on spinning (or just plain deleting) neutral cited content in favor of non-cited or non NPOV analysis, kind of getting sick of adjusting it, and an admin has already blocked him but it still continues wondering if you might have time to check it out when you get a chance.  Thanks,      
 : You are welcome, and thank you for your note.  
 : I will look into this further. —    

 → In re: my post on   
 ""I received an email (which has since been deleted) about this... Robinsegg, please provide that explanation here on-wiki. Thank you. —   "" 

 I am replying to your post on my talk page. Regarding KARE edits, the above editor [] has been warring with the ratings information.  He has used selected and questionably accurate references to prove his personal POV that ""KARE has struggled...""  He uses household ratings numbers, which are only considered as bragging rights in the industry.  Clearly, this information seeks to support the competition.  His references bounce back and forth from demographic numbers (those important in the industry) to household ratings from different ratings periods, giving a misleading picture.  He has deleted my offer of compromise to compare the February 2008 HH numbers with those of the February 2008 demographic numbers, ommitting other contested material.  He also continues to downplay the significance of KARE's NPPA awards, which are highly competitive and prized in the industry.  He recently edited ""honored"" with ""was the recipient of..."" and recently deleted a judge's quote referenced from the NPPA website.  Even with the use of references, the editor is spinning the information to downplay KARE, while cleverly supporting the competition.  This shows a strong COI as well as NPOV issues.  I have sought help through the editor's assistance page, as well as directly seeking the help of another moderator.  Robinsegg   —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    
 : Thank you for getting back to me on this.  It's becoming apparent that the issues are not quite what they seemed to be at first.  —    
 : I  re-listed the dispute on the third opinion project page.  —    

 ==="