8

First of all, the edit was approved, but a very high-rep user rejected it because it

Disguises the author's non-fluency in English

While it did (sort of) fix other major flaws with the question (it had no MathJax), I don't really see how Disguising an author's non-fluency in English is a reason to reject an edit, isn't rewording questions to be more clear and easier to read a major reason for editing?

closed as off-topic by Glorfindel, Ward, rene, Werner, ArtOfCode Jan 23 '17 at 1:31

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – Glorfindel, Ward, rene, Werner, ArtOfCode
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Different sites do have different approaches to editing. For example, the rules for editing on English Language Learners are not the same as on Stack Overflow. This question should be raised on the meta of the site where the issue originated. – user315433 Jan 22 '17 at 17:19
7

I don't see any harm done by the edit. Hiding the authors disability to write fluent English isn't a reason to reject an edit since the site is not language-related.

The edit removes fluff, makes the question clear and uses proper formatting. All good stuff.

6

In addition to Patrick's good answer, I would like to add my opinion and suggestion.

In my opinion, the user that rejected the edit is wrong and has misused his review powers.

Taken from the Edit Questions And Answers privilege page:

When should I edit posts?

Any time you feel you can make the post better, and are inclined to do so. Editing is encouraged!

Some common reasons to edit are:

  • to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
  • to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it

In this respect, suggested edits are no different from edits by high rep users. Your edit did fix grammatical or spelling mistakes and clarified the meaning of a post without changing it. The only time when this isn't right to make such edits is when the post can't be salvaged, or is otherwise off topic, neither of those is true in your case.

So I believe the reviewer who rejected it should be contacted somehow (comment, chat, etc) and be alerted to his mistake, better by someone from that site whom he already knows. Since nothing of this is set in stone and there's no official rule against rejecting such edits, there's a good chance he will understand and won't keep rejecting valid edits.

  • 1
    There's at least one other rejection for the same reason from that user (possibly more but I only checked a few). – Cai Jan 22 '17 at 20:50
  • @Cai, I just went through them all, that's the only one. I also posted the question on Math SE's meta and they decided it was a valid edit. – Travis Jan 23 '17 at 13:21
  • @Travis so anyone contacts that reviewer? Or is this too minor to really care? – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard Jan 23 '17 at 13:32
  • I don't think anybody contacted them directly, but Math SE has a pretty small Meta and it got upvotes, it'll probably be on the popular que soon and he'll see it. – Travis Jan 23 '17 at 13:34

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .