:::B.P.: 
 :::*See Template:NPOV (emphasis added): 
 :::::Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. ... The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. 
 :::::... 
 :::::Remove this template whenever ... it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 
 ::::In light of your repeated and pointed refusal, above, to give specifics I have removed the template. 
 :::*It is perfectly obvious that you have added cite-needed and similar tags with no idea whatsoever whether the cites already present support the material. It looks like every statement in the article (other than the lead  and that's already been explained to you) carries an inline cite at least at the paragraph level. You are welcome to check the sources cited and identify any article content not supported by them. In the meantime, other editors need not scurry about flipping through sources to add refs satisfying your whims about citation specificity. 
 :::*The fact that your opening post began by quoting BLP (which you will agree does not apply here) bodes poorly for you application of policy. 
 :::*Passages such as... 
 :::::Please do not remove those tags unless you are adding citations, or the appropriate who/what/when tag that is used with the appropriate name, thing, or date. If you do, I will set a pack of rabid fucking koalas on you, and those guys are mean. And smell really fucking bad. I mean it. You'll burn whatever pants you're wearing if those pricks climb your leg, that's for sure. That stink never washes off. 
 ::::...make people not want to read further. 
 :::*Lawyerlike bloviation such as "Further removal will be passed immediately to arbitration, as that is a blatant breach" show that, despite your throwaway references to your extensive Wikipedia dispute-resolution experience, you have very little idea of how WP works, and (again) severely reduce the likelihood anyone will make the, um, substantial time investment required to plow through your prolix obfuscatory verbosity. 
 :::*Editor 208.54.90.227's advice was well thought of, and I commend it to your attention 
 :::::BaSH PROMPT, you need to read articles more carefully before you go stomping through them like a bull in a china shop. Next time, pay attention to WP:LEAD, examine the talkpage for similar discussions, and really try to answer your own questions before you start thrashing around. You're embarrassing yourself and wasting a lot of people's time. 
 :::So cut the crap.