4

I edited https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/109808/1924 with the following:

  1. Changed the lyrics to the correct Unicode characters. It's written in ASCII while the original is not.

  2. Changed the translation to the official one as also noted in an upvoted comment and removed a fan translation.

  3. Removed dead YouTube links.

So... why was this refused?

6

The edit rejection reasons were pretty strange, I'll give you that. The reviewers were right to reject, and your edit should have been rejected for the following reason:

This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.

If someone's post is so problematic that you need to essentially rewrite the whole thing from scratch, then you should probably be writing your own alternative answer instead.

  • 2
    It was an attempt to reply As it should have been its own answer as you say yourself so I can’t see how the reject reason I chose was strange. – TheLethalCarrot Dec 25 '18 at 12:58
  • 6
    @TheLethalCarrot The intention of the "attempt to reply" reject reason is for edits which, well, attempt to reply to another post - e.g. by editing a question to an answer or editing an answer to "no, you're wrong, the correct answer is ..." If someone edits an answer to be still a valid answer but too different from the original, then that's a "clearly conflicts with author's intent", not an "attempt to reply". Not that any of this matters: I just provided this text to explain more clearly to the OP why their edit was bad. – Rand al'Thor Dec 25 '18 at 15:55
  • 1
    I think both reasons apply and it’s up to the person to pick which they think is best. Seeing as the editor should really have answered I feel the reason I chose was best as it told them that. You’re welcome to disagree but calling it strange when it matches your own advice is odd. – TheLethalCarrot Dec 25 '18 at 18:58
  • @TheLethalCarrot: Years ago, I had one of my edits rejected on SO with the same reason, and it confused me in exactly the same way as your rejection confused OP here. I think this is a bad practice and you should use the "deviates from intent" reason instead. Not everyone has meticulously read the help center on what is and is not an appropriate edit, so saying "You're trying to communicate with the answerer" when that was not OP's actual subjective intent is just wrong and confusing. – Kevin Jan 1 at 14:49
4

Why was the edit rejected?

This edit was rejected by two reviewers for the following reason;

Chenmunka (Reject): This edit defaces the post in order to promote a product or service, or is deliberately destructive.

TheLethalCarrot (Reject): This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

For the record, I would have also rejected the edit if I'd seen it come up in the queue. You didn't just fix minor problems, in your own words you

"Completely rewrote the answer"

which is contrary to the purpose of editing which is to

to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
to add related resources or hyperlinks


So, what should you have done?

You've got higher value sources and a better translation. You should have written your own answer. Go do that now so I can upvote it.

You must log in to answer this question.

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