Tag Info

When creating a post, we would recommend that the locale can safely and should be removed so that anyone around the world would default to their preferred locale. The only exception is if you have a question where locale is critical or key to the problem to be solved. For example the localized and delocalized versions of the links you posted, https://...

I've posted the question and the answer below to share my thoughts and get community feedback on the action taken. While there is nothing wrong as such with the edit (it did fix a minor issue in the post) it's worthwhile to keep the following in mind: There are significantly bigger issues with this post than the misspelling of the name of OSX 10.11. As ...

As you've mentioned in the question, the automated suggested edit bans are just that: automatic. I don't know the specific details of why the system chooses a specific amount of time, but this was indeed a 7 day ban. It's probably an appropriate time to mention that as this is basically your third suggested edits ban, 7 days is to allow the reviewers to ...

I agree with that edit being rejected, and while I was not one to make the actual rejection, this would have been my reasoning for rejecting it: The post already contained a link to the official website for the app and a couple of other links to get started, such as a signup link. The app is cross platform and does not need to be purchased from the App ...

I would suggest refraining from any sort of manual cleanup on this. The system cleanup is scripted and unless you are in making a substantive edit and happen to fix http / https you are causing human review effort for something that can / should be automated. If you find breakage systematically - please raise a bug question here on meta - new questions ...

It looks like you've been tripped up again with a ban. If the system doesn't tell you the length of the ban - I would encourage you to ask here and we'll get an official answer why ban length isn't shown to the person being on temporary hold. Going to the source of the hold - here are a few edits I agree should have been rejected and not proposed in the ...

Yes - There have been many anonymous edits that are very high quality. Often it's someone who knows their stuff and doesn't want to log in on a strange computer or possibly compromised network but also wants to fix something that's really wrong. You are certainly correct that the majority of simple edits are bad and should be reviewed and rejected. I ...

Can't lose the information from the site, it's now there, and should I choose to take your edit and include it as an answer by myself, I am within my rights to do so, as the information was freely provided to SE - you cannot ungive it. As it stands, I'm not, but the point stands that this site is collaboratively edited, so while as you know you can happily ...

I've reviewed the post and agree with the reviewers that rejected the edit. For the record, one reviewer approved and two rejected. The content posted by what was excellent, but made a long post even longer and was rejected. I'll see if I can make a way to approve the edit and then fix it so it flows with the prior work in accordance with the idea that ...

Reading the logs as closely as I can, it would appear that two suggested edits were allowed to be submitted to the same question, which the system ordinarily does not permit. Both were approved, but the second edit was applied on top of the first, which made less sense. As far as I can tell, this is a bug. The one thing I about this that does make sense to ...

Two suggested edits can't be submitted on the same post at the same time. The first suggested edit must be approved or rejected before another suggested edit can be submitted. If the user can approve or reject the suggested edit, either because they have the privilege to do so or the suggested edit was on their own post, they see and can approve/reject the ...

You've never been able to single-handedly approve suggested edits (except on your posts). Suggested edits require two approve or reject votes before being committed. If you are the first reviewer (or second if you disagreed with the first) then another review vote is still required. With regard to your last review, you were the first to approve it and you ...

Don't worry, this happens to all of us and therefore it's a good thing that Suggested Edits require two reviewers. You cannot change your decision, the system simply doesn't allow it. Even ♦ moderators cannot change your review, though of course we can review the suggested edits ourselves (just like two regular users would). What you could do is ...

Moderator votes have kind of more power :-) As always, feel free to rollback the edit if you don't agree (or rollback and edit it yourself if part of the edit looks useful to you).

If all else fails there is always the option of flagging a post for mod attention and including a message when flagging.

Hopefully I can provide some further context as the person who rejected the edit. The edit did not substantially improve the post. I understand editing to fix spelling mistakes since Stack Exchange search does not understand mistakes unlike Google and find similar words, and I have more than once been frustrated because a post only contains a misspelt ...

@Glorfindel is going around the tag wikis and moving links to HTTPS. In my opinion, this is mostly fine: the links are tidied in other ways too if necessary the edits are on tag wikis so no bumping occurs Ask Different generally has a low number of items in the review queue so it's not preventing other edits from going through (we're nowhere near the queue ...

The edited characters count for the purposes of the minimum edit count is based on the number of non-whitespace characters that are edited in a post. This means that: example to **example** is an edit of four characters, not 11 (or 7). Prepending four spaces to a line for a code block is an edit of zero characters, as all the characters are whitespace. ...

For simplicity I suggest what the tag wikis currently say. Sever.app for 10.7 and up where you just instal the app on top of normal OSX. OSX-server for 10.6 and below where you need a license key and separate install media to install the sever build instead of the client/workstation build of OSX.

The answer below is intended to provide, as you asked for, guidance on how to go about getting an answer to your question/problem. It's scope goes beyond the stated question itself and hopefully helps you. Nothing below is written with any ill intent; only constructive feedback. Here goes.. Complexity It's very difficult to follow the progression of the ...

But that is not how the site works. Just for completeness I posted the answer as an answer. If you decide to change your mind and post it as an answer I will remove mine.