-6
$\begingroup$

These edits were rejected: 1 2

Meanwhile these edits were accepted: 3 4 5 6

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Please, if you have two questions, ask two questions. The singular in "Ask Question" is there for a reason. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Sep 29 '15 at 16:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As said below, all edits should have been rejected. These were simply acts of vandalism. Please stop defacing others' questions simply because you find difficult to grasp the concepts involved. $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 29 '15 at 16:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Did I find this a bit excessive. I do not find the edits appropriate, but it is not an act of vandalism. $\endgroup$ – quid Sep 29 '15 at 16:53
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @quid Context... This OP knows well that their understanding of the subject is at best shaky. Thus, to decide unilaterally that one knows better than several posters what they mean and, consequently, to modify their questions is not defensible (the editing of the quote from a book, mentioned in Lord_Farin's answer below, topping all the rest). (That some of these edits were accepted by reviewers points at another problem the site has.) $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 29 '15 at 16:59
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Did vandalism is an act of deliberate destruction or damage. First it seems pretty clear that OP tried to be helpful (granted, in a misguided way), so any destruction or damage is not deliberate but incidental, and second I cannot get that worked up about the changes either and do not see that much damage. $\endgroup$ – quid Sep 29 '15 at 17:05
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @quid To tell you the truth, how the OP came to the conclusion that they were entitled to mess like that with posts by other, more knowledgeable, users is a mystery to me (and I do not think these users would be very happy to see their posts meddled with for futile, mainly misguided, reasons). But you do have a point, so let me suggest: petty vandalism... :-) $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 29 '15 at 17:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Did I was going to comment on the inconsistency between calling "vandalism" and not rolling back, but I checked the posts only to see the rollbacks in place. So props for practising as you preach -- sadly, a seemingly rare quality these days. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Sep 29 '15 at 17:27
10
$\begingroup$

As I see it, all suggested edits should have been rejected.

There is absolutely zero reason to bump these questions/answers to the front page years after their initial conception because of the minute distinction between "disjoint" and "pairwise disjoint" -- more so because it is often glaringly obvious from the context which one is meant.

This especially holds for the (fortunately rejected) instance where you changed a quote from a book, where the subtle distinction may well have contributed to the confusion.

Please, continue your editing effort, but focus on questions in need of improvement. These are posted by the hundreds every day, so there's more than enough work to do.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As someone who voted to reject one of those edits, I approve of this answer. $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Sep 29 '15 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ Ayt, thanks Lord_Farin ^-^ $\endgroup$ – BCLC Sep 29 '15 at 16:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BCLC Thanks for taking it well; all too often answers like this one are met with raging denial. Your reply instils a glimmer of hope for a better world. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Sep 29 '15 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Lord_Farin I did have a raging denial, at first. :P I don't think you have anything for which to thank me. I'm going to assume you're honoring me, so thanks. Thanks also for a non-judgmental, patient and professional answer, which is more than I can say for the responses of some people. P.S. Good speaking again. $\endgroup$ – BCLC Sep 29 '15 at 17:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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