8

I edited this question to remove two misleading tags - the question has nothing to do with either PowerShell or bash. It was rejected twice, once by a subsequent edit by a high-rep user, and once by PeterH, giving a reason of "This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability."

I disagree that the tag removal was superfluous or harmful; if someone were to search for questions tagged bash or powershell, this question would be irrelevant to them, and really should not come up in such a search.

If this rejection was in fact reasonable and valid, may I have an explanation of the policy regarding such tag edits?

3

This is the suggested edit in question: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/849224

I see that PeterH voted to reject the edit, but one minute later, a subsequent edit caused your edit to be auto-rejected. Nobody else had a chance to review your edit before it was superseded.

If I could restate the reason the edit was rejected, I would say this:

This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit.

The edit still would have been rejected for that reason regardless of PeterH's vote.

  • 1
    Yes; I believe I noted the conflict with subsequent by high-rep user LotPings in the question; I'm not questioning that - my question was specifically with respect to the PeterH rejection. That was phrased not as a 'voted to reject', but as though it were a done deal, and that's why I was questioning it. – Jeff Zeitlin Mar 28 at 13:33
  • @JeffZeitlin: The quote you saw was the opinion of the person who cast the vote, not the consensus. Only PeterH could tell you why he voted to reject. – Deltik Mar 28 at 13:35
  • To address your issue: the line beginning “PeterH” and ending Reject is, in fact, a vote to reject.   See, for example, this randomly chosen recent suggested edit, where one user voted to reject, but the edit was approved because two users voted to approve it. (Note that the votes are listed in reverse chronological order.) FWIW, I probably would have voted to approve your edit.  As Deltik said, only PeterH can explain his thought process. – Scott Mar 31 at 17:29
2

If this rejection was, in fact, reasonable and valid, may I have an explanation of the policy regarding such tag edits?

Your edit was automatically rejected to the fact it conflicted with another edit proposal. The edit was proposed by a user who can make edits without it going through a review process.

I disagree that the tag removal was superfluous or harmful;

The reason for your edit being rejected wasn't that it was harmful to readability but due to the fact it was superfluous due to the fact, no other improvements were made to the question.

The question you modified, is likely going to be closed as a duplicate of an existing question, but it also appears to have several duplicate candidates.

  • 2
    As indicated in the comments to Deltik's answer, I wasn't questioning the subsequent conflict with the edit from high-rep user LotPings; it was PeterH's rejection vote - which I read as not a vote to reject, but as a done deal; the edit was not going to be approved - that I was questioning. I have no problem with the rejection-by-conflicting-edit. – Jeff Zeitlin Mar 28 at 15:33
  • @JeffZeitlin - Your comments do not really change my answer. Since my answer is for everyone in the community. The commentary is designed to be temporary and might not exist in the future. – Ramhound Mar 28 at 15:36
1

To state the obvious, yes, your edit was OK in itself and normally shouldn't have been rejected.

However, there's one thing you should consider when editing - "is the question / answer worth the effort?" Editing a poor question is a complete waste of both your time and the time of reviewers, because when such post is deleted, your edit will be gone (and so will be the 2 rep points you earn). This would not be case here because duplicate questions normally don't get deleted, but in general you shouldn't be very surprised if your otherwise reasonable edit to an off-topic or nonsensical question is rejected.

You must log in to answer this question.

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