Was I wrong in this reviews?
I think for this three I was banned for reviews.
Review banning happens for 2 reasons
It is impossible for me to say for certain why you were banned from review but if you did not fail an audit just prior to being banned, I'd say it was a moderator who took this action, so he/she will have to chime in and say exactly why they took that action.
If you were manually review banned, it is virtually impossible you were banned based on only 3 suggest edits. You would have been banned based your entire recent review history.
NOTE: A moderator later chimed in via comments and indicated you were review banned by failing an audit in another review queue (Late Answers), however much of the following are still applicable suggestions for improving your suggested edit history
Looking through your suggested edit reviews, your recent edit is very heavy handed with rejects. You have reviewed 35 suggested edits and only approved 2 in the last 2 days. You have run into some pretty awful edits, but you rejected several that were good (or at least good in my opinion):
You also have a few of posts where you are the only reject vote, usually as "Too Minor". Since there are a lot of bad reviewers, this doesn't mean much on its own, but if your history has significant number of these (which I'm not going to go through to check), it could also be a red flag that you need to re-evaluate your review criteria.
I'm not suggesting any of the above edits where you were the only reject need to be accepted, but I am showing them as a pattern of history that you need to consider. If there are more beyond the last 2 days, then that is something worth looking into to see why you are rejecting that many that other reviewers agree with.
Ultimately, I think this might be a misunderstanding as to what constitutes a good edit. A good edit is not based on length, but it is based on what it fixes. There are 2 overall criteria I think you need to consider:
Now there are some additional criteria that you need to think about, such as changing too much of the post or vandalizing a post, but the above 2 are a good guideline in evaluating edits.
Tag edits are one that I think needs special mention. Just based on the brief review history I've seen, you think that any tag only edit is too minor. That is definitely not true. Some tag edits aren't necessary, but just because it is a tag only edit, you shouldn't reject it automatically. You have to look at the current tags, then look at the proposed tags and ask yourself "Is it better to have these"? Tag are key to how people find posts so if they are wrong, have extra tags that aren't relevant, or are missing key tags than the someone might have trouble finding a post. The tags also contribute to SEO (At least the most important tag on the post does) so it impact not only local searches, but people coming in via Google.