I don't understand this. Why is an edit made in March 2006 easier to evaulate than one made in December 2004?
Because the people with whome you were edit warring with are under AC restrictions now.
And if my good intentions aren't
obvious to you after 1 1/2 years of intense editing, I don't see what magic you expect in the coming months.
During those 1 1/2 years you were edit warring. No one is doubtimg your good intentions anyway. What we doubt is your ability to not edit war.
No-one is asking you to make uncontroversial edits. We are only
asking you not to cause conflict, which is something everyone should be doing all the time. I will take into account any harassment you get.
"Causing conflict" is one of these things that mean what people decide it does in the moment. (Like, perhaps, "reverting".) And anyway I certainly *could* make nothing but uncontroversial edits for a time, anyone could, so what would that prove? The relevant material is what happened when I was not under these restrictions. In those days I was struggling to defend Wikipedia's credibility and content, as I believe I have shown.
Since you *could* do it then why don't you just do it? What it would prove is that you *can* edit uncontroversially. I would love to be proved wrong on this.
Theresa