1
$\begingroup$

I spent a few hours this morning, attempting an edit of a PSE question (similar to many bearing on those aspects of space that are often described as representing its expansion) that I'd attempted to relate to two cosmological models: Penrose's CCC model and Poplawski's torsion-based model. Although I'd written the edit down, I've misplaced that paper content and am surprised to find that I can't locate the electronic one either. (I'd expected the approval of the edit to be fairly routine, as I'd included references that observationally sustained some of the aspects of those models, as well as references to recent work by a Rutgers professor of philosophy which explicitly bore on both of those models: However, the usual search term algorithms bring up nothing, and neither does the algorithm relating my PSE icon to my "activity" today [MST].) Is there any way I can see my very recently-edited version of a PSE question that had been put on hold (for reasons that I don't recollect exactly, but basically due to its lack of specificity)?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Never trust anything to a web interface. Keep master (or backup) copies locally in text files of anything important. $\endgroup$ Jun 13 at 11:08
8
$\begingroup$

You can just go to "Activity > All actions > Suggestions" on your user profile to see all of your edit suggestions, both approved and rejected.

Assuming your edit in question was this one, your edit pretty clearly just replaces the question wholesale. If you want to ask a new question, just ask a new question.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I appreciate your finding of my edit (which, as I'd stated, was my main purpose in questioning meta), as I hadn't been aware of the procedure, but, as generic expansion alone does not necessarily include subdivision of any volume being expanded, I don't believe that my edit should've been rejected. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jun 13 at 5:12
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @Edouard Your edit wasn't rejected because of the physics content. It was rejected because it's not asking the same thing as the original question, and would invalidate the existing answers on the question. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Mod
    Jun 13 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ Invalidation of the existing answers is what I hadn't recognized. $\endgroup$
    – Edouard
    Jun 13 at 5:18
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @Edouard To be clear, even if there were no existing answers to be invalidated, this big of an edit which completely changes the meaning of the question is not allowed. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Mod
    Jun 13 at 6:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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