-7

Link to suggested edit: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/964770

I tried to change:

In Windows, you can change that in the settings, there are two thresholds - one to give you a warning, and one to sleep or shut down the computer.

to:

In Windows, you can change that in the settings, there are two thresholds - one to give you a first warning, and one to give you a second warning and then sleep or shut down the computer.

The answer here makes sense (especially?) to Windows XP and Vista, so I suggested the edit to clarify it more.

According to the basic settings, when the battery gets low, Windows XP should issue the first alarm on 10%, and issue the second alarm on 3% then put the laptop into hibernation. Windows Vista should do the same thing except the thresholds are on 25%/10% instead of 10%/3%.

But it was REJECTED with the following responses:

  • 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.

  • The grammatical improves contained in this edit proposal are superfluous. There are no grammatical or clarity issues with the answer.

This reminded me of the time when I was confronted with this on an answer to one of my questions. Based on the revision 1, the answer had said:

XP for your settings above, will give you a warning at 10% (visual and/or sound) and then at 3% it will hibernate. The difference in 10% and 3% normally gives you enough time to plug in the AC Adapter. That is how I did it when I had XP many years ago.

The answer seemed not bad, but when I reflected back after seeing this answer, I felt pretty sure that XP should trigger the final warning before going into hibernation on 3%, although it does not have the "reserve battery level" thing which Windows 7, 8, and 10 have.

Although the user did approve the edit, he/she claimed back via this comment:

It was many years ago that I used this. I recall I would get a low battery warning and I would plug it in. I cannot remember about a second warning.

So XP and Vista does NOT have the second warning? Instead it only issues the "first" low battery warning and then simply hibernates in the critical level?

If they DO issue the second warning, then can my edit please be approved?

| |
  • 2
    I stand by my decision that the edit introduces grammatical edits that are superfluous. The current statement and what you want to edit it to are saying the same exact thing. If you are trying to say there are three warnings, then you have introduced a grammatical error, and that is a reason to reject the edit proposal. I don't believe your edit clarifies the author's statement, in fact I would argue, your edit makes it less clear. – Ramhound Apr 14 at 14:24
  • 1
    If they DO issue the second warning, then can my edit please be approved? It is not our job to verify if your edit is correct. If you cannot guarantee your edit is valid then you shouldn't be submitting an edit in the first place. If you want us to override an edit rejection then it shouldn't be conditional on us first going out to install all the offending (offensive?) operating systems that might exhibit a particular behaviour. – Mokubai Apr 14 at 17:11
3

I tried to change:

In Windows, you can change that in the settings, there are two thresholds - one to give you a warning, and one to sleep or shut down the computer.

to:

In Windows, you can change that in the settings, there are two thresholds - one to give you a first warning, and one to give you a second warning and then sleep or shut down the computer.

Here are the following improvements Grammarly suggested on your sentence.

  1. It appears that the phrase "a first warning" does not contain the correct article usage. Consider making a change

  2. The word give appears repeatedly in this text. Consider using a synonym in it's place

The answer here makes sense (especially?) to Windows XP and Vista, so I suggested the edit to clarify it more.

When reading the author's original statement what they said was clear, after reading the modified sentence, it's unclear what the explanation is trying to convey. I put the original and modified sentence through the same grammatical checks, the original, did not have any grammatical errors.

I stand by my decision that the edit introduces grammatical edits that are superfluous. The current statement and what you want to edit it to are saying the same exact thing. If you are trying to say there are three warnings, then you have introduced a grammatical error, and that is a reason to reject the edit proposal. I don't believe your edit clarifies the author's statement, in fact I would argue, your edit makes it less clear.

So XP and Vista does NOT have the second warning? Instead it only issues the "first" low battery warning and then simply hibernates in the critical level?

It doesn't sound like you actually know the answer to these questions. It is not the job of the users reviewing your edit proposal, to verify your edit proposals are factually correct, only if they substantial to warrant approving.

If they DO issue the second warning, then can my edit please be approved?

I believe your edit proposal to be invalid. Your edit proposal has grammatical mistakes, and while I could fix those grammatical mistakes, I also believe the edit not to be substantial even if it was grammatically correct. I also believe your edit proposal makes the statement more confusing. Based on the explanation you have provided, I am even more convinced, that edit is invalid since you are not clear on what the actual behavior actually is.

| |
  • 1
    Just because your edit was accepted doesn’t mean I agree with it, I stand by my answer, with regards to your first edit. Your edit proposal changed the author’s word substantially of an active user. – Ramhound Apr 27 at 11:34
-2

.

approved

| |

You must log in to answer this question.