I had my edits rejected, which to me at least, clearly showed the questioner's intent at: https://superuser.com/review/suggested-edits/389619
The edits were rejected with the boilerplate, "This edit deviates from the original intent of the post ...", and "... actively harm readability." Seemingly this implies to me that the questioner should continue look stupid for asking a stupid question with an obvious answer, (which is why this nonsensical question has and deserves a -1 rating).
The literal meaning of this question is, [paraphrased]: "If I 'Completely Restore System to Factory Defaults', (which I already know will delete everything on my hard drive), [quoted from link provided], will it also delete my winsxs folder?" Isn't this answer, "yes", obvious to every reader, and also implied in the question iteslf?
His rant from his previous sentence reveals that his real intent is to solve, [paraphrased]: "My SSD is out of space because of my winsxs folder is much larger than it should be."
My guess was that he wanted to relieve the pain that his rant revealed--'recover that wasted space from his winsxs folder'. The answer to his literal question, (which did contain his proposed solution), could not possibly help anyone, since the answer is obvious to anyone.
He simply wanted to know if reformatting via a factory reset, would fix his wasted winsxs space problem. So I restated his question, "If I run the Acer factory reset ( http://acer.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/12869/~/how-do-i-restore-my-computer-using-the-erecovery-management-program%3F), this will this delete my winsxs folder and all applications are also deleted. Will this substantially reduce the size of my winsxs folder so I can regain this space?"
Since most often, I can't be an expert or will have done extensive research required to really understand many questions in depth, I don't intend to fix questions, provide or edit answers, or add comments if I don't know the subject matter. So I'll never show very many edits.
What I'm really asking is this: Is the purpose of this site to both help the questioner, and especially inform any other readers? I think it is, or certainly should be. If so, it seems that peer review or at least appeal, should be done by peers that are extremely knowledgeable in their very narrow field addressed by the real questions, rather than a generalists that copy and paste the rejection reasons.
In this instance, I'd rather know specifically what the question should have been, rather than the obvious nonsensical question such as, 'are my files deleted when I reformat my drive', which to me is drivel that is a complete waste of everyone's time, and should be deleted, if not improved.
I suggest that the reasons for rejection must contain relevant critique that shows that the rejector thoroughly understands the subject. As an alternative or in an additional feature request, there should be an "appeal button" on that editor's rejections page, which would then escalate the edits to someone knowledgeable on that subject.
Is there an appeal process I not aware of? In any case, I'd really like better guidance before spending more time clarifying and educating readers.