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