I noticed a suggested edit of mine got rejected by Willeke♦, and he says "The edit does not improve the quality of the post. Changes to the content are unnecessary or make the post more confusing."
The main point of my edit was to fix "once" to "one" (a typo). I also changed "potential" into "potential risk". Doesn't that improve the quality of the post? The change is neither confusing nor unnecessary in my view. Perhaps one could argue about one of the changes, but not about the other.
- Why didn't the person who rejected fixed at least the obvious, clear typo?
- Is it better to have typos in the site you moderate than to fix them?
- If not, why was my edit rejected?
- Are non-established members or editors treated dismissively? Because — I'm sorry to say it — I read that reject message as: "I can't even be bothered to write a proper or minimally cordial rejection message that at least actually explains the reason of the rejection." I would expect more from moderation.