I deleted a lot of content from a post that I thought had nothing to do with the question and was off-topic, but got rejected by the author (it wasn't peer reviewed). I believe my edit should have been approved. What can or should I do?

Here is the rejected edit: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/49821

To clarify: I was hoping for something like the following, if the OP really wanted to keep the content:

  1. It is peer-reviewed
  2. It is perhaps approved
  3. The OP rolls it back

This lets my changes remain in the revision history, and the OP can have his question however he/she likes.

Also, I'm not downvoting it, because I think it's generally a good question. It just has a part that I believe is fluff.

  • 5
    FWIW, the stuff you wanted to remove is context for the question. Adding context generally makes for better questions. Admittedly the backstory for where this specific question came from does eat up a fair amount of vertical space, which isn't ideal.
    – user1027
    Commented Mar 5, 2015 at 19:00
  • 3
    @Keen What you call "context for the question", I would call "something that happened that the OP wanted to share, but ultimately didn't have anything to do with the question, except that it referenced some lore from the same work's universe". Commented Mar 5, 2015 at 22:55
  • If someone thinks that certain information is irrelevant, then they probably should provide an answer which explains that fact. Then, later, the asker may be more amenable to stripping it from their question. On the whole, though, such an approach seems more applicable to a problem–solving site rather than this one which is more limited to scholarly expertise. Commented Mar 27, 2018 at 0:10

2 Answers 2


Not to be too flip about it, but at this point, you can accept it and move on.

You proposed an edit, the OP thought it was a bad edit. It's their question, they get to do that. If you still believe the question is poorly written and cannot convince the author to fix it, downvote it and be done with it. Otherwise, you've exhausted the list of things you can do to change it.

  • 5
    +1 to this. The editor shouldn't try to force unwanted changes onto the OP.
    – Valorum
    Commented Mar 5, 2015 at 8:39
  • 1
    +1 from me too; it's always been the case that authors can reject edits; some of us may add a comment explaining why, but nobody's under any obligation to do so. As a general rule, if an author feels that an edit changes their question (or answer) too much, they're likely going to reject that edit. It happened, there's nothing to dispute, move on.
    – user8719
    Commented Mar 5, 2015 at 17:55
  • @DarthSatan You should know better as a someone with 57K rep. Authors should be respected, but posts ultimately belong to the community. Commented Mar 7, 2015 at 23:23
  • Good answer. Although, I believe I could achieve something I personally would prefer, if I had higher rep (which just dawned on me). E.g. edit without submitting for review. Then the edit would remain in the revision history, even if the OP decides to roll back. Am I correct? Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 4:29
  • 1
    That is true, though I believe the rejected edit is still stored somewhere I don't know who can see it.
    – KutuluMike
    Commented Mar 13, 2015 at 11:38

You can ask here on Meta for the community as a whole to weigh in. No posts, whether questions or answers, strictly belong to their authors alone, they belong to the community as a whole. While the desires of original authors should be respected, the community may reach a consensus decision that an edit should be made to a post against the author's wishes.

For this particular edit it doesn't look like the consensus will side with you. I agree that those lines don't really belong in the question, but they're not particularly problematic either. It would be acceptable to downvote the question, but I don't think it's particularly deserving of that either.

  • Why have three people downvoted this? If you are thinking this is factually wrong, you need to read the page footer: "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required" Commented Mar 7, 2015 at 23:22
  • people downvote meta answers if they don't agree with them, regardless of your facts. and... I'm not sure the CC BY-SA license means exactly what you think it does.
    – KutuluMike
    Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 0:17
  • @MichaelEdenfield Yes I guess it's really the CC BY-SA combined with the contribution licence in the legal page. Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 0:20
  • yes, that is correct. The license itself only covers what you can do with the original text, but is what legally allows us to make "derivative works" from it as well.
    – KutuluMike
    Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 1:03
  • Related: meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/q/5178/21267
    – Möoz
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 21:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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