2
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think you should feel free to add the clarification to the question. -- As to "penalties for being argumentative", I don't think there is anything you need to worry about -- penalties for people who would like to be helpful would be strange. Also, as far as I see, you made valuable contributions to the site since its beginnings. $\endgroup$ – Stefan Kohl Feb 12 '16 at 20:24
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl, thanks! I just worried that re-trying the edit would be perceived as stubbornness rather than helpfulness. I'd be happy to accept your comment as an answer, if you'd like to post it. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Feb 12 '16 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ @StefanKohl, oops, I take that back about accepting it. There was another answer in the meantime, so I guess out of fairness I should accept the first. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Feb 12 '16 at 20:30
3
$\begingroup$

Yes, you can, and likely should, try again. It could be seen as problematic to submit the exact same proposal again, yet since it is substantially different and informed by the feedback you got this seems perfectly fine.

Under certain circumstances, rather not in this case, I would even support submitting the exact same proposal; it is not as if reviewers are infallible. Note that one user even approved your original edit, so it was a split decision.

While it is in principle possible to get banned from suggesting edits, quite a bit more is needed for this than trying anew once in case of a rejected edit.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Since there was a moderator flag, I went ahead and performed the edit to the question based on asm's "answer" and evident intentions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I didn't notice, and submitted my in-progress edit, as it turned out, right on top of yours. I guess that it will (properly) get re-rejected. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Feb 12 '16 at 20:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the record: I reviewed @LSpice's edit and chose "improve" to insert the original and to preserve the additional commentary. $\endgroup$ – user9072 Feb 12 '16 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ @LSpice No problem; thanks for trying. (And thanks to quid for the further edit.) It may be somewhat moot as the OP hasn't been seen in almost 6 years, but it's better the way it is now. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Feb 12 '16 at 20:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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