I understand what the confusion is about. But for clarity, let's clear this out: These are the contentious edits and their summaries:

 "That feels like WP:WEASEL"

 "Inferred by TBA status"

 "To me, this says "they're on the entry list, but we don't really believe it will happen"

 "Same as before"

Crucially you only went to the talk page after making these edits. These edits were then followed 4 hours and 24 minutes later by three edits to correctly format the footnotes after you were again reverted by User:Twirlypen 2 hours 28 minutes later

 "If this is going to be done, it should be done like this (need to make two more edits before changes are fully visible"

Now I have two questions:

1) Can you understand why contributors could consider those first four edits as edit-warring, especially considering those summaries.

2) Why did you not indicate in your edit summary for the last two edits of that contentious set of four that you were reformatting them and thus making consistent with community opinion if that was your goal and why did you remove the content entirely in the first place if you only wanted to reformat?

I still don't think you actually broke WP:3RR because the policy clearly states a series of continuous, uninterrupted edits can be considered to be one revert. I can understand though that this is deemed to be a minor edit war.