It should use the original title containing the word "panties".
The question is clearly motivated by the lyrics in the ERB rap -- otherwise why use 25 stars as the cutoff. It should use the same term as the source of motivation.
As an alternate middleground, I might suggest the word could be placed in quotes.
Justifications of why the quotes are ...
The consensus in the discussion seems clear in that the suggested edit improved the post, hence it should have not be rejected.
One of the reviewers was kind enough to offer their explanation for rejecting the edit: they mistakenly thought that the post was a question, and not an answer; given that, their rationale was to reject the edit because it was not ...
The post in question answered the question in the first line:
Could it be Flowers for Algernon?
So far so good. Anyone interested in stories about intelligent rats has an idea for an interesting story to read. No spoilers so far.
But the rest of the post describes the plot in detail, and that would spoil it for anyone who hasn't read Flowers for ...
I speak only for myself; two other people reviewed this post (one accepted and one other rejected), but this is my thought process.
I rejected because I was on the fence, and erred on the side of the OP's sovereignty.
I can appreciate why you'd suggest the edit; the question is phrased a bit abrasively, and the OP spends (what I feel to be) an excessive ...
Even though it is a made up word, it does not follow the Be Nice policy. This policy also applies to public figures.
In specific I think this hits the nail on the head:
Don't be a jerk. These are just a few examples. If you see them, flag them:
Name-calling. Focus on the post, not the person. That includes terms that feel personal even when they're applied ...
The downvote tooltip states:
This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful
The edit in question was removing:
I've searched both google and the site but looks like this hasn't been asked yet.
Whilst not terribly informative it is telling us what research they have already done and is also hinting at the question not ...
EDIT: I've just completed the retagging of questions about Sanderson and his works. In future, please use the brandon-sanderson tag only for questions about the author, and individual work tags, along with cosmere if the work is part of the Cosmere, as described here.
I recently posted a question here on meta in order to try to pin down what tagging policy ...
Main point can be found here: https://stackoverflow.com/help/editing ("Who makes sure that proposed edits are good?" section)
Any user can propose edits, but not all edits are publicly visible immediately. If a user has less than 2,000 reputation, the suggested edit is placed in a review queue. Two (three on Stack Overflow) accept or reject votes are ...
I would have rejected it outright. The comment is insulting and the edit radically changes the meaning of the original post without adding any discernible value. The editor is attempting to exchange dlanoD's opinion for his own.
Regardless of who the user is, if the suggested edit changes anything about the original intentions of the poster, I reject it. If the edits are things like spelling, grammar, or formatting, I'd let it through.
There is no fool-proof way for me to know that Null2 is really the same person as Null, so I'm not going to assume that they are the same person.
If you look again, you'll see that the edit was approved.
Approved 8 mins ago:
ash_k29 reviewed this 8 mins ago: Approve
jono reviewed this 40 mins ago: Approve
Shevliaskovic reviewed this 1 hour ago: Reject
It takes 2 votes to reject or approve it, so people vote until one of the two options receive two votes.
I was the one that rejected the ...
Whatever the legal requirements, I think there is a moral obligation to attribute the source, even under these circumstances.
That said, I think users should be encouraged to write content in their own words, and, hopefully, enforcing the attribution will encourage them to do so rather than admitting "stolen from [here]".
Yeah, that's inappropriate on the user's part.
I would remove the insulting comment and, given that the other edits are indeed an improvement, go ahead and send them through. Would this be "Improve Edit" or "Reject and Edit" though? Perhaps another user can clarify. Under no circumstances would I approve it as is, though. The body of an answer is an ...
Why was this accepted?
Because not everybody Googles the text of suggested tag wiki edits before hitting the “Approve” button. That doesn’t make it okay; it just means that those reviewers didn’t do due diligence before approving the edit.
I believe this is the sort of problem that review audits are meant to solve, but I don’t know if they’re enabled on ...
I would have rejected this, had I been around. I was gone for over 8 hours, though. I hope no one declared me as having abandoned the site.
Yes, all questions and answers are CC licensed. You are within your rights to edit the answer. However, the accepted policy is to not "substantially" (yes, a subjective term) edit other people's posts. You added 2109 ...
No this is a known caching issue and status-bydesign.
Quoting Shog's answer:
Caching. And some complicated eligibility rules.
Most of the time, the top bar will indicate what's still TO DO for
the site, while the numbers under /review will indicate what's still
TO DO for you. But when reviews are being done quickly, they can
As one of the "Reject" votes, I can give you my perspective, but bear in mind I speak only for myself.
Basically, if the edit had consisted solely of the attribution edits, I would have accepted it. My problem was with the start and end where you changed the OP's text.
"Sound" in place of "audio" and "images" in place ...
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 ...
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 ...
TL;DR, its a story ID answer and it makes no sense to use spoiler markup
The relevant part of that all encompassing reason is:
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.
So to be clear, it was not a bad edit, ...
While I am not one who participated in the voting that ultimately rejected this comment, I agree with the rationale given:
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
An edit of content to that degree is just to large and too far away from the original ...
The general rule of thumb is that an edit should improve the post in some fashion, either by clarifying the answer, adding additional relevant information or improving the readability.
For example, on a story-identification question;
Answer A mentions a book by name. The editor adds a hyperlink to the book's wikipedia page
Answer B also mentions a book. ...
I will answer slightly off-topic, since there's nothing much to add on-topic to existing excellent answers.
Leaving aside the issue of copyright and attribution, if you are literally copy/pasting the content of tag wiki from one site to another, your tag wiki content is likely wrong!
Because tag wiki content is meant to clearly explain not simply what ...
The starting point for any such discussion is always the community rules and guidelines; everything else comes second, and it must not contradict these written rules.
According to our own SFF help page on editing (practically identical to the general SE one):
Common reasons for edits include:
To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
To clarify the ...
While I did not reject the edit, and I probably would have skipped it had I seen it in the review queue, there is a potential argument to be made for rejecting it.
Edits are usually meant to clarify some ambiguity in the text of the post, fix spelling and grammar issues, or add links. Edits are generally not for correcting technical inaccuracies. If a post ...