The edit itself was good and valid, and the reviewers do need to take much of the blame for not being thorough enough to see what was actually being changed, but I think you need to take some of the blame yourself.
I think the key to the rejection was your edit description was vague.
Your description for both edits was
removed unnecessary information
This tells me very little. Sure it says what you did in a very general sense but neither why you were removing it nor why it was unnecessary info.
Normally you can get away with vague and/or general descriptions because the context of the edit speak for itself, but any time you make a significant change to the post and your don't provide any really description for the edit, you run the risk of getting rejected.
Editors should be taking 20-30 seconds per post, especially one that changes as much as this one, to see what was done, and even clicking through to see the entire post and all of its answers/comments, but often they don't. Some reviewers are just impatient and are looking at quantity as much as quality, some are trying to get through the reviews before the robo-reviewers get to them (not realizing that they are close to becoming robo-reviewers themselves), and many just want to make their vote count (taking more than a few seconds means that someone might come in and approve it before they can reject it).
Since this is occurring, this is why you should try to take an extra few seconds to provide some more detail in the edit description to make it more obvious to the reviewer. Something like:
Removed information pertaining to an answer and excess commentary added by the OP that is just noise
would have been more clear what you were trying to remove and why.