As Tom suggested in the comments, what if you gave editors the option to not have their edits (or just their minor edits) bump the post?
There could be a checkbox in the edit window that would let you say that the edits don't make substantive changes to the post and shouldn't bump the post or put it into the reopen queue.
This would let perfectionists make ...
You can't check whether a specific person has read the updated question.
But that isn't necessary; if you edited the question within five days after it was put on hold, it will enter the Reopen Review Queue automatically, where other users can vote to reopen it (or leave it closed, if it's still off-topic). Note: you only have a single chance (for this ...
If you edit an on-hold question, it's placed in the re-open queue automatically. Regardless of who closed it. That queue is moderated not only by moderators, but also by community-members.
So, someone will take a look at it. The reviewing system will take care of that.
I disagree with this. Someone tying up edits to a post would cause more problems that it would solve.
A 10-minute lock is incredibly long given how quickly posts attract attention. We want posts cleaned up quick so they can be made useful to make use of the wave of answerers that view it after posting. Having an edit stuck in limbo because someone's taking ...
That's not OK from the perspective that a user is spending time to reformat source code, improve readability but can't get it saved.
My Proposal would be:
If a user enters the edit mode, the question is locked for another user to edit.
The lock should be limited in time (e.g. 10 minutes) and the automatically released (maybe with an ...
Here is the "rule of thumb" I have used so far:
If the edit won't change the meaning/message of the post, just edit.
If you think the other person would mind the edit, ask first.
If the edit is to remove potentially rude/abusive/harmful language, edit as quickly as possible (this is also stated here).
If you are unsure, it's always possible to edit and ...
What has been really bad about Nancy, is that the community now seems to be consumed by discussions about political correctness, rather than on making Stack Exchange a better community. If even Shog9 feels he needs to edit an anecdotal post to change Nancy to Bob, the battle is lost.
You're free to not-do whatever
You're not free to do whatever. But typically most rules don't force you to do anything. Besides, it makes no sense to punish users for not responding to comments since on busy days I sometimes miss comment notifications because of how many I have.
You are free to write an answer and leave it there. However, consider this: ...
One bit that isn't adressed in the other answers is this quoted bit:
So can I simply add a declaration to my posts stating I reserve the right not to respond to any comments or edits ?
I think adding such statement is considered noise, and should therefore be removed, just the same as with salutations and thank you's.
As others have posted, you may disengage according to the CoC FAQ.
OP Asked: So can I simply add a declaration to my posts stating I reserve the right not to respond to any comments or edits?
tl;dr According to Tim Post ♦, no declaration is necessary. Catija's ♦ explanation of the don't do harm intent is similar: avoid declarations that escalate or ...
You can engage as you wish.
Comments and edits are meant to help improve your post - and help others by improving your post. Technically - SE dosen't get any additional benefit from this. It costs them a few lines in a DB.
If you're so concerned about SE making money off your content, do consider that the very act of posting an answer gives the company ...
Nothing is inherently bad about Nancy!
The sole problem could be that the OP posting that question took the real first name of the real person he was talking about. But only he can know that. So, someone coming in and replacing that name could be motivated by "let's avoid the (very small) chance that a real person feels slandered/defamed".
Beyond that, I ...
The main thing that's bad about "Nancy" is that she appeared to be a real person, and there was enough information that she and anyone who worked with her could easily identify who she was.
Which means that if it's okay for JonH to criticize her, fairly specifically, by name, in public, here on our site about the governance of our Q&A sites, we can't ...
There is a solution to the Nancy/Bob/someone problem, and it's obvious.
Describe the undesirable behavior in specific terms. Add a note to the CoC. Write a FAQ with a dozen or so questions. Then argue some more about each others' motivations.
We can't address this sort of thing with vague principles like "Be nice" or "Be respectful." We need rules. Please ...
I find it quite interesting how many men think they have to protect Nancy and replace her with Bob, who apparently can be blamed for anything.
Has anyone of you asked any woman what she thinks of Nancy? I bet you didn't, so how can you know we are not ok with her and require your assistance?
Do you think you do us here a favor? But you don't. You think we ...
What's concerning here is the apparent lack of ownership JonH has over their own anecdote. From the information given in the post, this was a real memory concerning real people.
Are we now at the point where we have to alter real events to prevent a post from being even possibly, remotely, offensive?