The mods here make good points - I too think the question was improved by the edits, stilistically, grammatically and in focus. No problems there.

But if a user insists on their version, and there is nothing fundamentally broken with it (like textspeak or screwed up formatting), why deny them the right to roll it back? Are stylistic changes really worth fighting over? It takes two to start a rollback war.

The mods here make good points - I too think the question was improved by the edits, stilistically, grammatically and in focus. No problems there.

But if a user insists on their version, and there is nothing fundamentally broken with it (like textspeak or screwed up formatting), why deny them the right to roll it back? Let the community vote on it, and decide what it deserves. Are stylistic changes really worth fighting over? It takes two to start a rollback war.

The mods here make good points - I too think the question was improved by the edits, stilistically, grammatically and in focus.

But if a user insists on their version, and there is nothing fundamentally broken with it (like textspeak or screwed up formatting), why deny them the right to roll it back? It takes two to start a rollback war.

The mods here make good points - I too think the question was improved by the edits, stilistically, grammatically and in focus. No problems there.

But if a user insists on their version, and there is nothing fundamentally broken with it (like textspeak or screwed up formatting), why deny them the right to roll it back? Are stylistic changes really worth fighting over? It takes two to start a rollback war.