I have recently tried to engage a high rep superuser user in an attempt to clarify some shortcomings in his/her answer. After there was no attempt to make the answer complete by adding the information from comments into the answer, I suggested an edit to do so myself.

This was rejected, for rather confusing reasons by two 2k users. Since I didn't believe that my suggestion either "defaces the post" or was an "attempt to reply to or comment" I suggested it again.

This time it was rejected by a moderator, so I took the hint. Even so I am confused by the "This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate." rejection, and I am at a loss to understand why.

Without the information from the comment, the answer falls substantially short of the sort of self contained answer I have come to expect on other stack exchange sites. Indeed the answer relies almost entirely on the reader not only reading the linked-to web page but reading right to the end to find the brief mention about how to prevent the resulting VM bluescreening. This lack of substantial information was why I gave up some of my own rep to put a bounty on this question in the first place.

I am confused that people would think that I was trying to deface the answer when I was obviously trying to improve it, allowing the comments to be tidied up (deleted) so as to not distract from the answer. I had already edited my own answer to include this information too, but having such information scattered around the page is never a good option.

Does SuperUser have a less tolerant attitude to suggested edits than I have come across on other stack exchange sites? Was I wrong to suggest this edit? Are SuperUser users less comfortable with the idea of ... contributions being collaboratively edited?

I would really like to understand why an edit which I believe substantially improves an answer with respect to the actual question that was asked would be rejected.

I have recently tried to engage a high rep superuser user in an attempt to clarify some shortcomings in his/her answer. After there was no attempt to make the answer complete by adding the information from comments into the answer, I suggested an edit to do so myself.

This was rejected, for rather confusing reasons by two 2k users. Since I didn't believe that my suggestion either "defaces the post" or was an "attempt to reply to or comment" I suggested it again.

This time it was rejected by a moderator, so I took the hint. Even so I am confused by the "This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate." rejection, and I am at a loss to understand why.

Without the information from the comment, the answer falls substantially short of the sort of self contained answer I have come to expect on other stack exchange sites. Indeed the answer relies almost entirely on the reader not only reading the linked-to web page but reading right to the end to find the brief mention about how to prevent the resulting VM bluescreening. This lack of substantial information was why I gave up some of my own rep to put a bounty on this question in the first place.

I am confused that people would think that I was trying to deface the answer when I was obviously trying to improve it, allowing the comments to be tidied up (deleted) so as to not distract from the answer. I had already edited my own answer to include this information too, but having such information scattered around the page is never a good option.

Does SuperUser have a less tolerant attitude to suggested edits than I have come across on other stack exchange sites? Was I wrong to suggest this edit? Are SuperUser users less comfortable with the idea of ... contributions being collaboratively edited?

I would really like to understand why an edit which I believe substantially improves an answer with respect to the actual question that was asked would be rejected.