Timeline for Clarification on rejected edit
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2017 at 22:26 | comment | added | G-Man Says 'Reinstate Monica' | FWIW, IMHO, the "This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit." rejection reason is being grossly over-used. | |
| May 4, 2017 at 7:22 | answer | added | Stephen Rauch | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 2, 2017 at 11:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackUnix/status/859367355201310720 | ||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 0:12 | comment | added | Michael Homer | The bullet-pointed list in the article you link sets out a very good set of suitable edits, for example, with the appropriate caveats in place: "minor", "without changing that meaning", "spelling mistakes", etc. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 0:09 | comment | added | Michael Homer | @Gilles, I'm not rejecting the concept of editing (and you well know it). I just don't think this was a terribly good edit. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 0:04 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @MichaelHomer Editing is a fundamental aspect of Stack Exchange. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 0:04 | answer | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 23:53 | comment | added | Michael Homer | "Scale", though, is a pretty good summary of the major problem with most of those sorts of edits (this one is borderline, but this recent case really was too large-scale - just post an answer!). | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 23:52 | comment | added | Michael Homer | @Gilles And that is precisely why I am uncomfortable with that system. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 23:49 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @MichaelHomer The existing votes have nothing to do with this. As a reviewer, your job is to review correctness, scale and style. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 23:40 | comment | added | Michael Homer | Then the correct button is always skip for those sorts of change. You can't judge what the existing voters think of it and the edit queue is not the place for doing so. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 23:28 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @MichaelHomer If you can't judge if it's right or not, the correct button is Skip, not Reject. Reject is for when you can judge if it's right or not, and you judge that it's not right. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 23:12 | comment | added | Braiam | @MichaelHomer well, how do you believe authors should be able to edit their own posts? | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 20:21 | comment | added | Michael Homer | I am also leery of adding entirely new information to existing accepted or highly-voted answers that then can't be vetted through the voting system as part of the edit queue - as an edit reviewer I'm not positioned to judge if it's right or not. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 20:19 | comment | added | Michael Homer | I would probably have rejected the edit. It's structured in a way that doesn't fit with the existing answer. Either a more refined edit (for example, just the first sentence) or posting your own answer where you can take the space you need to explain the caveats of this special case would be better. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 10:49 | comment | added | Jeff Schaller Mod | I, too, would have approved it, as it's good additional information. | |
| Apr 26, 2017 at 6:26 | comment | added | Chindraba | I think it was a good edit, and I would've approved it. I believe that is the aim for all SE sites, to make the answer the best it can be. Then again, I'm still relatively new here too, and each site does have it's own culture as well. Of the other two options, I'd go with a new answer and rather than copy the other one reference it with a link, typing something like `Huygens' excellent answer then move on to explain your results, and symptoms, and add in your fix to the code. That give more room, and better formatting, than comments. | |
| Apr 25, 2017 at 14:33 | history | asked | jstricker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |