Continuing Allow an edit to notify downvoters: "I think I've fixed the issue now - please check", is it consistent with the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange that the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question that the question has been edited? Reason: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening), some close-voters might feel disturbed, whereas some other close-voters wight indeed wish to get a followup message.

(Note that we don't ask here whether such a notification is needed, necessary or expected; we are asking whether it is consistent with or, in other words, in accordance with, or, in other words, *doesn't violate the CoC or other rulings). Since I found out that some folks might have a logical problem with "consistent", let me give examples. Saying "I respecfully disagree" (as a much more polite way of phrasing "f.ck off, you're a moron") is does not contradict the code of conduct. Being a plumber and the ability to drink milk are seemingly unrelated, orthogonal issues, so, they are consistent with each other in general. (However, if you do drink milk, turn off the water in your house, start doing repairs on your WC and wish to go to the john because you drank milk earlier, then you run into problems. So, drinking milk and doing plumbing may not necessarily be consistent with each other in particular.)

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.

Continuing Allow an edit to notify downvoters: "I think I've fixed the issue now - please check", is it a violation of the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange when the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question after the question has been edited? Rationale: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening), but some close-voters might feel annoyed, whereas some other close-voters wight indeed wish to get a followup message.

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.

Continuing Allow an edit to notify downvoters: "I think I've fixed the issue now - please check", is it consistent with the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange that the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question that the question has been edited? Reason: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening)?

(Note that we don't ask here whether such a notification is needed, necessary or expected; we are asking whether it is consistent with or, in other words, in accordance with, or, in other words, *doesn't violate the CoC or other rulings). Since I found out that some folks might have a logical problem with "consistent", let me give examples. Saying "I respecfully disagree" (as a much more polite way of phrasing "f.ck off, you're a moron") is does not contradict the code of conduct. Being a plumber and the ability to drink milk are seemingly unrelated, orthogonal issues, so, they are consistent with each other in general. (However, if you do drink milk, turn off the water in your house, start doing repairs on your WC and wish to go to the john because you drank milk earlier, then you run into problems. So, drinking milk and doing plumbing may not necessarily be consistent with each other in particular.)

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.

Continuing Allow an edit to notify downvoters: "I think I've fixed the issue now - please check", is it consistent with the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange that the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question that the question has been edited? Reason: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening), some close-voters might feel disturbed, whereas some other close-voters wight indeed wish to get a followup message.

(Note that we don't ask here whether such a notification is needed, necessary or expected; we are asking whether it is consistent with or, in other words, in accordance with, or, in other words, *doesn't violate the CoC or other rulings). Since I found out that some folks might have a logical problem with "consistent", let me give examples. Saying "I respecfully disagree" (as a much more polite way of phrasing "f.ck off, you're a moron") is does not contradict the code of conduct. Being a plumber and the ability to drink milk are seemingly unrelated, orthogonal issues, so, they are consistent with each other in general. (However, if you do drink milk, turn off the water in your house, start doing repairs on your WC and wish to go to the john because you drank milk earlier, then you run into problems. So, drinking milk and doing plumbing may not necessarily be consistent with each other in particular.)

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.

Continuing Allow an edit to notify downvoters: "I think I've fixed the issue now - please check", is it consistent with the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange that the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question that the question has been edited? Reason: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening)?

(Note that we don't ask here whether such a notification is needed, necessary or expected; we are asking whether it is consistent or, in other words, in accordance with the CoC or other rulings). Since I found out that some folks might have a logical problem with "consistent", let me give examples. Saying "I respecfully disagree" (as a much more polite way of phrasing "f.ck off, you're a moron") is consistent (on other words, in accordance) with the code of conduct. Being a plumber and the ability to drink milk are seemingly unrelated issues, so, they are consistent with each other in general. (However, if you do drink milk, turn off the water in your house, start doing repairs on your WC and wish to go to the john because you drank milk earlier, then you run into problems. So, drinking milk and doing plumbing may not necessarily be consistent with each other in particular.)

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.

Continuing Allow an edit to notify downvoters: "I think I've fixed the issue now - please check", is it consistent with the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange that the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question that the question has been edited? Reason: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening)?

(Note that we don't ask here whether such a notification is needed, necessary or expected; we are asking whether it is consistent with or, in other words, in accordance with, or, in other words, *doesn't violate the CoC or other rulings). Since I found out that some folks might have a logical problem with "consistent", let me give examples. Saying "I respecfully disagree" (as a much more polite way of phrasing "f.ck off, you're a moron") is does not contradict the code of conduct. Being a plumber and the ability to drink milk are seemingly unrelated, orthogonal issues, so, they are consistent with each other in general. (However, if you do drink milk, turn off the water in your house, start doing repairs on your WC and wish to go to the john because you drank milk earlier, then you run into problems. So, drinking milk and doing plumbing may not necessarily be consistent with each other in particular.)

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.