This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of tags. No discussion, no tag.

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.

For a variety of my own reasons, one of which being that tag cleanup is a WP task that needs doing, I have been doing some of that work. First off, here are some pastes from WP neutrality policy:

1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future.
2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)
3. If the issues seem to be suitably resolved, remove the tag.
4. Don't get involved in a revert war.

More importantly:

Place {{POV-check}} at the top of the suspect article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the suspect article. To specify the section of the discussion on the talk page, use {{POV-check|talk page section name}}.

And:

Place

at the top of the disputed article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article. To specify the section of the talk page, use

at the top of the disputed article.

Note my Boldfacing

More:

Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

And:

However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.

And to pound the point home, yet again:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic.

And finally:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Having visited at least a couple of hundred pages, I'd say that WP has a huge number of articles that are tagged POV for no reason other than that someone felt like it. IMO, and see above, tagging an article POV without discussion is not editing, it is graffiti. You'd be amazed at how many discussion pages say things like, "Does anybody know why there's a tag on this or where it came from? Seems fine to us." I have also found that a great many editors will not remove tags, because it says not to, even though there are no disputes.

For those of you who think that a "POV check" tag actually means that someone else is going to "check pov", I have news for you, that someone is me, and others like me. Here's how it works: I go to a topic (which is on the pov disputes page), and immediately go to the discussion page. If there is no discussion of the tag on the page, I paste the message at the top of THIS page into a new section and sign it. Then I go back to the article, remove the "pov check" tag, write a message to say "see discussion page", and I move on to the next topic. It takes about 45 seconds, usually. You MUST say what it is that disturbs you - WP editors cannot read your mind, and nobody is going to go sifting through the thousands of articles to try to figure out just what anybody or everybody felt or thought. It's simply preposterous. Many, many pages have valid discussions and concerns going on. I visit them and leave, mostly. If there's no discussion about a tag, I will remove it without even reading the article.....

The bottom line of all this is that if you find a tag is gone, and feel there is reason for it to remain, then just put it back and comment on your reasons why. Do not revert the edit, as the tag will be an old, possibly archaic date. Put in a new tag with a new date that shows reasons for your current issues with the topic - then the tag will be contemporary.

Finally - no, I have no official sanction or capacity in this, I'm just a concerned WP-ian. Don't shoot me.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is there a wider discussion about the removal of old POV tags? Renata (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page with a listing of the backlog of POV tags needing attention is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes Midway down the top paragraph is a link to the cleanup page with more thoughts and guidance on what is needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_Cleanup. For myself, I've been more than a little bugged by some who tag articles for the wrong reasons or petulance - "I disagree or the topic is unpleasant, so I'll just tag it." Anyway, I've been doing it, I hope, sentitively. Many pages I've encountered have editors asking on the discussion page, "Does anybody know anything about a POV dispute?, what's that tag about?" meaning it wasn't the editors of the page who put it to begin with, and they have no knowlege of any issues. Well, a bit of a rant, maybe. I've been finding the service of cleanup is much needed - many tags are long forgotten, but people either won't or don't know how to remove them. Thanks. BTW, if any choose to particpate and wish to copy and use my messages that are here, feel free. A little hint on that - if you simply copy the text, it WP will reference it as being from here, needing to be erased every time. If you click edit (please don't edit them, though), and copy from the edit page, it won't do that. Jjdon (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of those tags really need to removed because somebody just added them for no particular reason or disputes over trivial issue died a long time ago. However, I wanted to make sure that they are not blindly removed just because they are old. Case: Prussian Lithuanians - a long article with some good information, written to defend a fringe opinion... It needs to be re-written from scratch, but nobody did it just yet - no time, sources, or interest. I would support leaving the tags as the problems are still glaring... Renata (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Renata, I remember that article, and it's one I thought carefully about. The point is, as is said on the POV dispute page, that people will simply put them back if they have cause. The real thing is that often the old tags were placed for reasons that don't mean anything anymore. New tags = new reasons. Often there is no apparent reason why they were added at all. And there are quite a few articles that I left the tags alone, or commented to editors that they might remove them, as they seemed to have consensus. The whole point is consensus, and much of tag cleanup is drive-by - "I don't like it, so I'll tag it." That's not editing, that's graffiti. As for your desire to retag the Prussians - you'll get no argument from me. I'm not the tag police, just the cleanup crew, though in my messages I'm trying to get folks to pay attention to why tags are there, too.Jjdon (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

In particular, do not make accusations that a POV tag has been added "frivolously and/or arbitrarily", as you did not Talk:Finbar Wright; if you had stopped to read the article, the problems would be self-evident. Drive-by removal of tags warning of breaches of a basic wikipedia policy can be viewed as disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To stop the comment spreading across multiple talk pages, I've also commented on your (borderline disruptive and certainly uncivil) edits at BHG's talkpage. — iridescent 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jjdon for trying to help my contribution Finbar Wright - I have cleaned it up considerably and referenced content, old and new, as best possible. Fortunately, Wiki users such as yourself are here to help, not harm. Regards, --Walknnirishrain (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I like your wording re: POV tag cleanup - do you mind if I quote it, crediting you? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me - I've only used the text once. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jjdon, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hand engraving has been removed. It was removed by Uncle G with the following edit summary '(Removed notice.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Uncle G before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you cleaning up gratuitous drive-by tagging. HairyWombat 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]