Return to Question

Generating Classical Groups over Finite Local Rings asks a question that, according to the poster's own 'answer' http://mathoverflow.net/a/19098/2383, is not what was actually meant. I edited the question to reflect the stated intention (changing the words "semisimple elements" to "tori").

One rejection said:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I have the impression that this rejection was based on the idea that I was trying to substitute a synonym for "semisimple elements" merely to improve the wording, whereas actually I was (intentionally) changing the meaning (so that it agreed with the poster's stated intentions—5 years' interval suggesting that he or she was not going to make the edit him- or herself).

That brings me to the next rejection, which said:

There is already an answer; rather than edit out the question that was answered, you should add the clarification so answer is not dinged as wrong.

This seems like a very clear action plan to me, and I agree that doing this is better than making my original edit. However, given the first rejection, I am reluctant to try again to make this edit in case there is any penalty for appearing 'argumentative'. Is it reasonable for me to try again?

EDIT: I was too slow, and, in the meantime, the post was edited in a better way, simply inlining asm's clarification. I didn't pay enough attention and submitted my in-progress edit anyway, but I guess that it will (properly) get re-rejected.

Generating Classical Groups over Finite Local Rings asks a question that, according to the poster's own 'answer' https://mathoverflow.net/a/19098/2383, is not what was actually meant. I edited the question to reflect the stated intention (changing the words "semisimple elements" to "tori").

One rejection said:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I have the impression that this rejection was based on the idea that I was trying to substitute a synonym for "semisimple elements" merely to improve the wording, whereas actually I was (intentionally) changing the meaning (so that it agreed with the poster's stated intentions—5 years' interval suggesting that he or she was not going to make the edit him- or herself).

That brings me to the next rejection, which said:

There is already an answer; rather than edit out the question that was answered, you should add the clarification so answer is not dinged as wrong.

This seems like a very clear action plan to me, and I agree that doing this is better than making my original edit. However, given the first rejection, I am reluctant to try again to make this edit in case there is any penalty for appearing 'argumentative'. Is it reasonable for me to try again?

EDIT: I was too slow, and, in the meantime, the post was edited in a better way, simply inlining asm's clarification. I didn't pay enough attention and submitted my in-progress edit anyway, but I guess that it will (properly) get re-rejected.

Generating Classical Groups over Finite Local Rings asks a question that, according to the poster's own 'answer' http://mathoverflow.net/a/19098/2383, is not what was actually meant. I edited the question to reflect the stated intention (changing the words "semisimple elements" to "tori").

One rejection said:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I have the impression that this rejection was based on the idea that I was trying to substitute a synonym for "semisimple elements" merely to improve the wording, whereas actually I was (intentionally) changing the meaning (so that it agreed with the poster's stated intentions—5 years' interval suggesting that he or she was not going to make the edit him- or herself).

That brings me to the next rejection, which said:

There is already an answer; rather than edit out the question that was answered, you should add the clarification so answer is not dinged as wrong.

This seems like a very clear action plan to me, and I agree that doing this is better than making my original edit. However, given the first rejection, I am reluctant to try again to make this edit in case there is any penalty for appearing 'argumentative'. Is it reasonable for me to try again?

Generating Classical Groups over Finite Local Rings asks a question that, according to the poster's own 'answer' http://mathoverflow.net/a/19098/2383, is not what was actually meant. I edited the question to reflect the stated intention (changing the words "semisimple elements" to "tori").

One rejection said:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I have the impression that this rejection was based on the idea that I was trying to substitute a synonym for "semisimple elements" merely to improve the wording, whereas actually I was (intentionally) changing the meaning (so that it agreed with the poster's stated intentions—5 years' interval suggesting that he or she was not going to make the edit him- or herself).

That brings me to the next rejection, which said:

There is already an answer; rather than edit out the question that was answered, you should add the clarification so answer is not dinged as wrong.

This seems like a very clear action plan to me, and I agree that doing this is better than making my original edit. However, given the first rejection, I am reluctant to try again to make this edit in case there is any penalty for appearing 'argumentative'. Is it reasonable for me to try again?

EDIT: I was too slow, and, in the meantime, the post was edited in a better way, simply inlining asm's clarification. I didn't pay enough attention and submitted my in-progress edit anyway, but I guess that it will (properly) get re-rejected.

Generating Classical Groups over Finite Local Rings asks a question that, according to the poster's own 'answer' http://mathoverflow.net/a/19098/2383, is not what was actually meant. I edited the question to reflect the stated intention (changing the words "semisimple elements" to "tori").

One rejection said:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I have the impression that this rejection was based on the idea that I was trying to substitute a synonym for "semisimple elements" merely to improve the wording, whereas actually I was (intentionally) changing the meaning (so that it agreed with the poster's stated intentions—5 years' interval suggesting that he or she was not going to make the edit him- or herself).

That brings me to the next rejection, which said:

There is already an answer; rather than edit out the question that was answered, you should add the clarification so answer is not dinged as wrong.

This seems like a very clear action plan to me, and I agree that doing this is better than making my original edit. However, given the first rejection, I am reluctant to try again to make this edit in case there is any penalty for appearing 'argumentative'. Is it reasonable for me to try again?

Generating Classical Groups over Finite Local Rings asks a question that, according to the poster's own 'answer' http://mathoverflow.net/a/19098/2383, is not what was actually meant. I edited the question to reflect the stated intention (changing the words "semisimple elements" to "tori").

One rejection said:

This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.

I have the impression that this rejection was based on the idea that I was trying to substitute a synonym for "semisimple elements" merely to improve the wording, whereas actually I was (intentionally) changing the meaning (so that it agreed with the poster's stated intentions—5 years' interval suggesting that he or she was not going to make the edit him- or herself).

That brings me to the next rejection, which said:

There is already an answer; rather than edit out the question that was answered, you should add the clarification so answer is not dinged as wrong.

This seems like a very clear action plan to me, and I agree that doing this is better than making my original edit. However, given the first rejection, I am reluctant to try again to make this edit in case there is any penalty for appearing 'argumentative'. Is it reasonable for me to try again?