Timeline for Why was this review (that just corrects grammar) rejected?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2018 at 14:33 | history | edited | Ramhound | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 16, 2018 at 9:49 | comment | added | TRiG | can be append? What's that be doing there? | |
| Jul 14, 2018 at 5:32 | comment | added | robinCTS | @Run5k Once again thanks for your feedback! I will try to limit such edits in future. It did cross my mind whether or not Meta worked differently. As the sentence I removed didn't directly address the quote it fell under, and was essentially repeated two (non-quoted) sentences later, I decided to risk removing it, and take the rap on the knuckles if Ramhound deemed it necessary ;-) | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 19:17 | comment | added | Albin | @Ramhound ok, I think I just got confused because of the deleted comment. So for now never mind. | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 15:56 | comment | added | Run5k | @robinCTS, once again your contributions are truly appreciated. However, I would tend to be much more conservative when it comes to editing recent answers like this one within a Meta question, especially when the author is still actively engaged in the conversation. It's simply a professional courtesy. | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 10:16 | history | edited | robinCTS | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed redundant info
|
| Jul 13, 2018 at 10:15 | comment | added | robinCTS | @Albin I can't see the one (?) deleted comment, but I can't see any repetition by Ramhound in the comments that you didn't correct all the mistakes. Yes there is repetition in the answer, but 1) each one is under a specific point. 2) It is a very important issue. § To be fair, the first one in the answer is probably redundant, so I'll edit it out. | |
| Jul 13, 2018 at 8:05 | comment | added | Albin | @Run5k thanks now I understand the why. Not really sure why Ramhound kept repeating that I didn't correct all the misstakes since I wrote in my first comment that I understood this point, or did I miss s.th.? Thanks Ramhound for pointing out the help center, that helped! | |
| Jul 12, 2018 at 5:25 | comment | added | Run5k | @simpleuser, that probably isn't an ideal comparison. For starters, the original answer had zero up-votes and one down-vote, so it wasn't exactly a high-quality contribution to begin with. Now, what happens if we adopt the method that you have subtly suggested? It could conceivably take seven or eight edits to fix everything within that answer, and while that happens it is getting bumped to the top of the Super User main page over and over again, taking attention away from much better Q&A. If there are just one of two comprehensive edits, that rather large problem is avoided. | |
| Jul 12, 2018 at 5:07 | comment | added | simpleuser | this sounds like some old "war on drugs" anti-arguments: if you can't fix the whole problem, then don't even try to fix or improve a part of it | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 23:06 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @Albin, it's not just that your edit didn't fix everything, it's that the edit didn't make it better. What you did "fix" wasn't what needed fixing, and those changes weren't really substantive improvements. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 21:32 | history | edited | Ramhound | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 54 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2018 at 21:26 | history | answered | Ramhound | CC BY-SA 4.0 |