I would prefer not to say that you have extreme bias, but just to say that you have bias, as do we all.  Sometimes a person's bias and POV make it difficult to understand the arguments which another person has. Bias does not make you a bad person, but each of us has to discuss the perceived bias in the article, and try to find a way which both of us are comfortable with. 

 In my opinion, denying your description of the past is a good attitude, if I followed a bad attitude, I would write up a description of every time you violated my perception of the rules.  I'm avoiding doing this. 

 I'll give you a short version.  I wrote a description of many of by edits in the talk page before I made the edits in the article.  I waited for what I thought was a reasonable amount of time. For most of the rest of the changes, I described them in the talk page after I made the change. Again, there was no objection in the talk page.  You have an explanation for why you didn't respond.  While I understand your reasons somewhat, I don't agree with your actions of the past. However, I don't think we accomplish anything by deciding which of us is the purer wikipedian. 

 You think I violated the rules; I think you violated the rules.  The good news is that we don't have to decide who was worse, if we give it another try. 

 If I really had a bad attitude, I would continue my perceived list of your violations. But I will stop here. 

 Let's continue talking and move forward.  Let's try to discuss the article itself soon.