18

Hellos and thank yous can be deleted even if there's other edits needed. I would approve such suggested edits. From a related answer by RegDwigнt♦: The key thing to remember is that this site is not a traditional forum or a social network; it is all about questions and answers, not "addressing fellow users". When you write an answer, you don't write it ...


12

You can view your history of suggesting edits here: https://english.stackexchange.com/users/37324/persian-cat?tab=activity&sort=suggestions The ban only looks at recent suggested edits - this is to prevent someone from building up a history of good edits and then spamming the queue with a large number of bad ones. Here are your most recent suggested ...


8

There's a longstanding tradition on the Stack Exchange network to discourage "extraneous chatter," including comments such as "Thank you!" at the bottom of a question. (Whether that's the best policy may be up for debate, but that's the way it is.) This issue has been brought up from time to time on MSO; see, for example: Why is saying "Thank you!&...


8

The question has been migrated to ELL and the invalid edit was rolled back. In the future, if you see an invalid edit you should roll it back with a comment detailing the reason and encourage anyone who disagrees to discuss the issue in chat or meta (as you have done here.) In the meantime, thanks for pointing out this excellent example of a common "edit ...


7

Currently the system gives a user a “free” reject for every three approvals less than one week old. In your case, your 54 approvals count as 18 “free” rejects. Currently the system auto-bans when a user has 5 rejects (other than “free” rejects) less than one week old. In your case, apparently the system auto-banned you because you have 23 − 18 = 5 rejects ...


7

@Mari-Lou A wrote: Several links in my posts have been fixed by this user, and I've always given the green light. Fixing a corrupt link is nearly always a good thing, regardless of the post or author's status. I don't think the edits have got out of hand. @Sven wrote: Edits are supposed to make a post significantly better, and correcting a bad link is ...


5

While editing the body of the question does make sense, we are not allowed to have swearing in the title. The title rule is covered here: What words are offensive in titles? What are the rules? The discussion of offensive words, and including those words in the text of the discussion, has been acceptable here for a long while: Referencing the existence of ...


5

The Twentieth Century ran from 1901–2000, not from 1900–1999. :)


5

It's not a bug. It's an autoban. This question and answer on Meta.SO might help you. All high rep users have the ability to vote on suggested edits, so this is unlikely to be a specific mod action. For instance, I don't even get a chance to see most suggested edits because our community processes them first. Also, the autoban is triggered when many ...


4

Even anonymous users can suggest edits. This is what they see: Read more about it here.


4

The subjective line around what is or is not minor is the whole reason the Suggested Edit queue exists. There will always be people who disagree and that is okay. My two cents on the subject is that removing chaff from posts is relatively high on the "not minor" side of the scale. Loosely, from "not minor" to "minor", this is how I personally rank things: ...


4

It would appear in your network profile (under Revisions) if the suggested edit could have been approved. In fact it does appear in your ELU profile under "All actions → suggestions", but the author also edited the post while your suggestion was pending, so your suggestion was automatically rejected, and didn't become a revision. It's not clear whether ...


2

To "improve" edit suggestions, you need the privilege to edit posts, requiring no peer review. For editing questions and answers, the privilege is granted at 2k reputation. But for editing tag wikis, it's different. To approve or reject suggestions from others, 5k is required. To singlehandedly edit tags, or to "improve" suggestions, you need the "trusted ...


1

The most obvious reason is that two different reviewers had different opinions about linking the abbreviations to the meta post. I'd guess in the second case, the reviewer thought you intended to link to a definition of "groggy" or that it was a snarky way of suggesting that the OP look up the word in one of many dictionaries. It's hard to say. In any case, ...


1

I rejected the edit because there was no straight-forward way to verify if the edited quoted text accurately represented the printed article. Therefore, either (1) the edit was improving the grammar of a quoted article, which may not reflect the original article, or (2) the edit is basically challenging the integrity of the OP by declaring the citation to be ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible