2
$\begingroup$

I made this rollback of an edit by Cort Ammon, where he removed an (in my eyes) good example that was a way to verify one has understood him correctly in what he was saying. At least another user stated in a comment he was thinking so too.

So I thought it would be a loss to remove that example.

But the reviewers of my edit a) didn't carefully enough check the overall case as they identified my edit just as beeing a comment to the question or a seperate answer (which definitely is not the case).

Or b) I simply missed something about this SE site, where it was not good behaviour of myself to roll back his edit.

So what exactly went wrong in this case?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The rollback should come from the original poster himself and not from others. Some reason must have prompted him to do so and he explicitly mentioned that in his edit summary - I couldn't find a reference for the glass breaking trick, and it may have been confusing, so I removed it. $\endgroup$ – user36790 Jul 27 '16 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ @MAFIA36790: I'm completly aware of this. but he also mentioned it in hsi comments that he is planing to do this, as he isn't finding an example. And other users pleased him to keep it anyway since it is usefull tough without,# $\endgroup$ – Zaibis Jul 27 '16 at 14:54
5
$\begingroup$

The revision history contains CortAmmon's following edit description for the deletion of the example:

I couldn't find a reference for the glass breaking trick, and it may have been confusing, so I removed it.

While posts on StackExchange can and should be edited by anyone who feels they can be improved, non-community-wiki posts are ultimately considered to be written by their original authors, and edits that contradict the intent of the authors should be rejected, there is an explicit rejection reason for this (and I'm a bit puzzled why that wasn't chosen by the reviewers in this case).

So what went wrong is that you proposed an edit that explicitly ran counter to the stated intent of the author, and what went right is that it was rejected.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok so in that regards physics is diferent from, the majority of the stack exchange network? As on many different SE sites so far I had been tought, that if others feel content of mine is worthy, it had been rolled back in. And on stackexchange meta I had even seen discussions where users got suspended for repatedly deleting usefull parts from their own content. Or on sapce exploaration a negative scoring answer had been undeleted by an moderator as he said it is just inapropiate voted and a good question in its core, so I shall not delete it. TL&DR physics is diferent about that? $\endgroup$ – Zaibis Jul 27 '16 at 15:00
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Zaibis: No, physics.SE is not different. Vandalizing your own posts, i.e. removing good content without reason, is frowned upon and will be reverted. But in this case, there is a perfectly valid reason given: "I couldn't find a reference.". This states the author's intent that they do not wish to have that assertion in their answer without legitimate reference. This is not vandalism, it is holding themselves to a high standard - something we encourage. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Jul 27 '16 at 15:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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