1
\$\begingroup\$

Normally I can understand why edits were rejected, but in this case I can't. Just out of interest, why was this suggested edit rejected?

Maybe it is a matter of taste, but in my mind the edits improved the post's presentation:

  • Inlined link with the title of the article, rather than a raw URL
  • Use of blockquote formatting for the quote text, of which most of the answer consisted.

Admittedly I could have tidied the units, with non-breaking spaces, but as it was quoted text, then that would have been incorrect, IMHO.

Am I missing something obvious?

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Nope. I would have accepted the edit. If you're quoting a block of text you should use the correct markdown - especially important when the whole answer is a quote. Not only for visibility, but to allow users to customize the style, and allow for screen readers and people with vision impairment to more easily distinguish between quoted and original content.

I sometimes reject mediocre edits for users who go on an edit spree and digs up ancient questions that will just mess up the front page without any real benefits, but this was a new answer so it shouldn't apply.

\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I think it looked funny to me, and so I rejected the edit then continued to edit it. As I continued to look at it, it looked fine, so I canceled the rejection. Apparently the system doesn't like that.

I can't follow what happened because of the changes to the edit stream. I'll be a little more careful next time.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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