":::By my reading, 72.244.64.149 didn't accuse you of defending the content so much as just noting after your explicit denial that you were defending the content that you were, in fact, defending the content. And, I'd have to say that removing a POV tag (one that, by the way, was apparently placed only a couple of days after 72.244.64.149's first post here in talk received no responses) is, in fact, defending the content. There had been a lot of revert warring, beginning with Jayjg's revert of 24.136.98.130's edit, over the very point that 72.244.64.149 was making; 72.244.64.149 seems appropriately to have brought the dispute to the talk page and, having received no response to his concerns, placed the POV tag rather than joining the revert warring. You wrote that a POV tag placement is ""normally only done if no agreement on the neutrality of the article can be reached on the talk page""  isn't this exactly the situation in which 72.244.64.149 placed the tag?
I think you owe 72.244.64.149 another apology for saying that he/she ""accused"" you of defending the content. It would be more accurate to say that 72.244.64.149 fairly mildly disagreed with your impromptu denial of an accusation that was never made.
 

"