New answers tagged editing
6
The proposal was fine. By now a moderator changed the tag. Also note that there was one positive review too. (It was declined 2 vs 1.)
It's hard to know what exactly happened. Maybe the reviewers disagreed that changing the tag is relevant enough for an edit (in my opinion, it is, at least in clear cases like this). Or maybe they did not realize that ...
7
In addition to the excellent points already mentioned by others, I feel the urge to emphasize that your edits being rejected does not mean that you were wrong in trying to suggest an edit, or that your edit was "wrong". Suggesting an edit only to have it rejected is not a "crime". What it means is that the specific reviewers looking at your edit did not feel ...
4
The specific problem seems to have been resolved by helpful intervention of amWhy.
For future reference, to undo an edit go to the revision history of the post,
this is the link in the middle of the post; it is only visible if there was an edit already. (I'll make sure that there is one for this post.)
Then, scroll to the version you want to restore, ...
11
The question is of course "what is a substantial edit"?
The answer is not absolute. And it has a time-related factor. The longer it's been since the content (question or answers) on the page was edited, the more substantial I'd expect the edit to be.
So if a post was made yesterday, fixing a very minor grammatical error is fine. If a post was made a decade ...
16
Answering your questions in order then:
$1.$ Your edits actually do not follow the guidelines that you've listed because they are not substantial. You added two words and two commas, none of which were required to improve the clarity of the post and none of which make a significant difference to what was written.
That's going to seem a little harsh ...
5
The way I see this: as a "low-rep", the community is not yet confident you know the rules, and your activity is checked in a review queue. The same happens in other communities, such as Wikipedia, and I believe it's a good way to deal with newbies learning the rules. And no, it's not a crime to have to learn.
If there are many small edits in the review ...
9
This has been fixed.
I'm embarrassed to say this was originally my fault. I had refactored post reloading to fix a handful of small bugs in support of moderator tooling, and accidentally dropped the call to styleCode() that kicks off the MathJax rendering.
If you're familiar with browser debugging tools and want to verify for yourself that this is fixed ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
