I understand where you're coming from, this kind of edit can seem aggressive and impolite. In the defense of this particular user, it is true that on this site we tend to try and make answers as general and applicable to as many *nix flavors as possible.
The specific edit in question changed this:
find . -maxdepth 1 -exec grep foo {} \;
to
find . ! -name . -prune -type f -exec grep /dev/null foo {} +
So, the user in question modified your answer to make it work on systems whose find implementation does not have the -mindepth and -maxdepth parameters. This makes the answer more portable and applicable to a wider range of systems. Granted the syntax is a bit more esoteric and it would have been better had the user actually included an explanation of what the new command does and how it works. I agree that without an explanation, such a radical edit is a bit too much.
The other edits were clearer, there is no reason to use \; to end the -exec command, ending it with + will make find minimize the number of separate commands it will run. From man find:
-exec command {} +
This variant of the -exec action runs the specified command on
the selected files, but the command line is built by appending
each selected file name at the end; the total number of invoca‐
tions of the command will be much less than the number of
matched files. The command line is built in much the same way
that xargs builds its command lines. Only one instance of `{}'
is allowed within the command. The command is executed in the
starting directory.
In most cases actually, + will be preferred over \;.
Adding the /dev/null ensures that the name of the matching file is always shown. This is because when grep is given more than a single file name, it will print the file name as well as the matching line for each match. Without it, and with the original version of your answer, you would only get the matching line with no indication of which file actually matched.
So, the edit actually did improve your answer by the standards of this site. It made it more portable which is generally to be preferred and it made it both faster and lighter on the system because of using +. Most importantly, it made it output the matched files, without which your original answer was incomplete.
So, while I can see why this bothered you and your reaction is perfectly reasonable and while you have every right to rollback to the original version, I would recommend you use at least some of the tricks shown in the edit to improve your answer.
One more thing, because the regulars of this site are very used to this user's edits and long experience has taught us that they always improve our answers, we are not bothered even by such radical changes. I admit that more than once I've had to delve into the man pages to understand why in the world a particular edit was made but there was a valid reason every time. Also, we have established that none of the regulars mind radical edits as long as they improve the answer. Most of us have stated so at one time or another. This means that there is more active editing going on here than on many other SE sites and this can be off-putting if you're not used to it.
I think, however, that your case demonstrates that we might be overdoing it a bit. Perhaps in the future we should make an effort to always add a detailed explanation to our edits, both for the benefit of the OP and for everyone else.
@namenotation.