5

I recently edited this question: Is it possible travelling Sweden WITHOUT credit or debit card?

The suggested edit can be seen here: https://travel.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/134533

My reasoning was that the aggressive, inflammatory language apparently invited a lot of unnecessary commentary, as evidenced by the presence of the well-known "Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat."

I felt that removing this inflammatory language would improve the question and allow people to focus on the issue rather than on the poster's opinions and their reactions to them.

The rejection reason given was

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.

I don't agree and would like to request a review.

| |
7

I did reject the edit, in hindsight I should have accepted it.

I missed the strong feelings, which could have been kept even without offensive wordings,

The edit has been handled by someone else now, I hope that is good enough for you.

| |
3

Your suggested edit certainly seems reasonable to me. The language it removes had already provoked quite some discussion which didn't go anywhere near the direction of answering the question, but was essentially just an argument about OP's views on apps. Those views may be considered somewhat unusual by many (I certainly don't share them), but there's certainly a legitimate question regardless of whether you agree with OP's motivations for asking it. The original phrasing demonstrably distracted from that question.

Your proposed edit takes the parts of the question which had provoked that digression, and rephrases them in more neutral terms. The actual question remains entirely unchanged, and the opinions even remain in there (just phrased in a way that's less likely to provoke off-topic discussion/arguments). I don't see how the edit could be considered to "deviate from the original intent of the post".

I'd certainly welcome a response (whether as a comment on this answer, or as a separate answer) from the moderator who rejected the edit, to clarify how they consider the intent of the post to have been altered.

| |
  • 1
    I just realised how many times I used “certainly” in this post and I certainly need to get a thesaurus because that is certainly too many times to use “certainly” and certainly does not sound good. Certainly certainly certainly. – Chris H Aug 5 at 18:03
  • 1
    Thanks for your comment on my answer. I went back and looked at the dates of the posts in chat and when the question page comments were moved to chat...and you're exactly right. I just hadn't seen the original question page before the discussion was moved. I've deleted my answer. – DavidSupportsMonica Aug 5 at 22:18
3

I'd looked at this question and considered an edit but got sidetracked by the world around me. I agree that your edits are reasonable. I can't comment on the view taken by the moderator.

I've now edited the phrase with the most pejorative term, but the OPs self-description I have left untouched - it doesn't seem to me to be particularly inflammatory.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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