2

I recently had a suggested edit rejected, which is fine and happens occasionally. When I went to make my next edit, however, it suggested I review why my last one was rejected. The reason was given as "This edit defaces the post in order to promote a product or service, or is deliberately destructive."

I don't mind my edit being rejected in general, but this reason seems so wildly off. I'm promoting nothing, I'm not vandilising the post. Perhaps the reviewer saw that I'd deleted a lot of text and made this assumption, wheras I was actually just deleting duplicated error messages. The edit was accepted by another reviewer.

I'm not worried about the reputation, which is only 2 points, but I just think it genuinely improves the question. Is there any point or way of contesting it, or should I just take it on the chin?

5
  • The best you'll get is someone saying the rejection is incorrect. There is nothing for anyone to do with that information though. – Servy Nov 17 '14 at 16:22
  • Take it on the chin. At first glance I thought the same as the reviewer. Nothing you can do about it. – Bart Nov 17 '14 at 16:22
  • 6
    The only think I can say is that your comment was not descriptive enough of what you had actually done, as you have done much more than spelling and grammar so I wonder if you had explained the delete the reviewer would be more understanding to your edit and not rejected – Stacker-flow Nov 17 '14 at 16:32
  • @Stacker-flow Yeah, that makes sense. – Sinister Beard Nov 17 '14 at 16:37
  • 2
    @Stacker-flow I think you hit the nail on the head. If the text was intentionally being removed for a reason, then you should explain that in the edit comment. Absent an explanation, it just looks like you are removing possibly important text – psubsee2003 Nov 17 '14 at 16:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/277001/reason-given-for-rejecting-an-edit-seems-innapropriate
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-21
124997
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:H7EJKPDFYJ2PLSULHJMA2744KL4ZHMCQ
<urn:uuid:94008c7f-cad1-47ab-9306-99e5d93eb3ba>
2021-05-11T11:50:28Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:VVCJI37JMEOQBECYJQZ2VSASHAXZSR7X
<urn:uuid:53ad7fe8-654c-43e5-802d-f15eb343d7a1>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/277001/reason-given-for-rejecting-an-edit-seems-innapropriate
response
<urn:uuid:265f6353-6b65-464c-b006-e3f19fafbfff>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-81.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/