1
$\begingroup$

There's currently an unanswered question with typographical and grammatical errors, which I've been prevented from edited in any way, shape, or form.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/254162/red-shift-experiment

So far, between MAFIA36790 and AccidentalFourierTransform, they've rejected any and all of my edits six times. In two of the latter's rejections, his grounds are strangely that the OP "is asking about gravitational redshift," which of course is not the case. In every other instance, it's been the cut & paste reason that my edits "do not make the question easier to understand even a little bit, etc., etc."

What gives? I've now submitted another edit restricting my changes solely to correcting the typographical and grammatical errors in the question, leaving out any attempt to clarify the nature of the question itself. Are there legitimate grounds to reject these edits?

$\endgroup$

locked by dmckee May 7 '16 at 16:47

This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. You may discuss this on meta if you have concerns.

Read more about locked posts here.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the record, mafia&I only rejected it three times. The other times it was rejected by other users, who also think that the edit was irrelevant and didn't really make the post better. IMHO, the grammar of the original post is overall correct and the question is "clear" enough. Superfluous edits are in general rejected, because they waste the time of the reviewers. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform May 7 '16 at 16:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have to say that I found the matter of which redshift the OP wanted to know about very unclear. My guess was that the OP thought he was asking about motional redshift, but his only clarification has been "Astrological [sic]", and he has referred to Hubble. If the question is historical in nature then the interpretation should be motional; but if it involves the modern understanding then the interpretation must include the cosmological red shift. Uhg. Which makes the questions really bad in its current form. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 7 '16 at 16:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've rolled back some edits that tried to put this on a personal footing (and worse named a user who has not been involved in this episode). Keep the focus on the content, not on the characters. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 7 '16 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ Keep the focus on the content, not on the characters. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 7 '16 at 16:48
3
$\begingroup$

You've offered the same edit three time and a substantially similar one an additional time. All have been rejected. You have another one pending. In effect you've been engaging in an edit war which is always discouraged.

When uses have a disagreement about the proper disposition of a post and can't agree on the result then the proper thing for all parties to do is disengage. Leave that question for others to worry about and move on. Or flag for a moderator if you feel strongly about it, but quit arguing. It's not personal and you don't have to fix the internet.

Six different reviews have weighed in on those edits. The count is four against and two for.

At this point it is incumbent on the OP to unambiguously clarify what (s)he means.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Again: we discourage edit wars. We don't care which side is right. Once it is clear that there is a disagreement that won't be resolved we expect people to step back. After the edit was rejected a second time you should have moved on, and you should move on now. This is one tiny post in a huge ocean of posts. Spend your energy where it will generate praise instead of controversy. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 7 '16 at 16:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David I would encourage you not to take this personally, but I will enforce our policy about keeping names out of it. For our purposes I define an edit war as more than two attempts to change the content of a post that are reversed or rejected by other users. At that point both side of the argument need to step back. $\endgroup$ – dmckee May 7 '16 at 16:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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