I fail to see why you need this explained to the letter. He wants to depict certain wars as war crimes themselves not based upon actual outrageous events that are well defined war crimes, but on ambiguous legal opinions tied to the intentions or rationales used by the belligerents involved in starting them. This is POV forking because it tries to establish a point of view not at all justifiable within the articles concerning war crimes nor the wars themselves' legalities sections. Thus he has a page which- declares the war he dislikes,  a war crime, and simultaneously casts aspersion on the legality of that war, free from having to argue with the editors of the articles that have those topics within them.  What is his POV? Please pay attention and do not waste my time. Feigned ignorance is not a valid position, your understanding of each point of each editor's input is hardly a prerequisite for those points to be valid, particularly when they are not relevant toward your edits.   In fact what you are doing is called "pointless questioning" and when used in debate on many forums and message boards is cause for moderation as trolling. If this commentary was for an editor who I did not share an abrasive history with, was not a person who appears to be of above average intelligence, and did not share the general POV on the issue as the editor I am critical of, I would be out of line with this long winded tirade dripping of pompousity and condescension. Happy F***ing me, it is not.