-4

I have been getting this warning below:

enter image description here

Some of my previous edits were rejected by a biased user (or a "nitpicker" / "grumpy s*d" as proclaimed) that I wish not to name.

I have provided enough evidence and links on this meta site why the edits I did, were fair.

How can I get rid of this warning that is not rightful?

Also in what circumstances the user should reject the edits (and added his edits) instead of using "improve edits" button/option?

8
  • The "Reject and Edit" button should be (and most likely is) used if the suggested edit leaves a lot of work not done.
    – Avamander
    Feb 25 '16 at 8:24
  • @Avamander what if a reviewer rejects this edit and claims +2 by changing a few bits over what one has changed (and rejected by him)? I can provide examples if you need. Feb 25 '16 at 8:28
  • People who can "Reject and Edit" doubtfully care about the +2 rep. But it'd be nice if someone else chimed in too.
    – Avamander
    Feb 25 '16 at 8:39
  • 1
    I would also like to invite comments from user(s) who cowardly down-voted this post - it wasn't me, I only just spotted it. However a downvote on Meta doesn't mean it is a bad question. It means that they disagree with the proposal.
    – Nick Gammon Mod
    Feb 25 '16 at 20:25
  • @NickGammon In theory, "agree/disagree" voting on Meta questions is intended to be restricted to feature-requests.
    – Air
    Feb 25 '16 at 20:59
  • 2
    @Air - ach, looks like I am wrong! It is hard to keep track of all these conventions at times. Well, the question might have been voted down for referring to a fellow site user as a rather ignorant frog then.
    – Nick Gammon Mod
    Feb 25 '16 at 21:40
  • @Nick Well, in practice, I expect many or most users don't follow that guideline anyway, so you'd be right!
    – Air
    Feb 25 '16 at 21:44
  • @NickGammon I know that it wasn't you as you had been very upfront in our communications. +1 Mar 2 '16 at 22:23
7

First, read my answer here.

Then start making edits that actually make the posts you're editing better: easier to read, easier to understand or easier to find. Treat every edit you make as though you were editing your own work - if you're submitting a post that would embarrass you if it had your name on it, then don't submit it until it wouldn't.

Because, once edited, it does have your name on it - and if it is lacking, then you'll be held accountable, along with whoever dares to approve your edits.

Do this, and you won't have to worry about warnings.

4

This issue seems to be getting a bit out of hand. See Should I remove 'fluff' when editing questions?

A couple of quotes from that page:

Yes, absolutely remove such things.

Anything that is not relevant to the question/post is noise and should be removed.

That includes salutations, signatures, 'thanks' and the kind of content you have highlighted.

However:

  • Should these sort of edits be made if this is the only change?

  • I would not recommend making these changes as the only changes in a suggested edit (as the OP's rep would require.) If you have full editing privileges, that's different.


After talking to other moderators just now the thinking seems to be that removing "Thanks!" and nothing else is a rather trivial change. It would be different if you found spelling and grammar mistakes and fixed those as well.

By making tiny edits you are forcing other people to go through these edits and approve them, which is wasting their time if the edit is trivial, and if they still have to make more substantial edits of their own to get the question into proper order.


While I was typing this Shog9 responded. He is one of the Community Managers at Stack Exchange (a level up from a moderator). I would listen to his advice. :)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .