A nice user suggested  to . The edit, though very good and desirable, was rejected. I do not understand the reasons, and I did not find a way to contact those people who rejected it. What can I do to re-approve the edit?
80908
When new users edit a post, the review is posted to a review queue and other reputable users can review the edit and choose to approve or reject it. However, I feel that a lot of people do it pretty quickly.    to . He was fixing broken links in the answer, and as soon as I saw it I knew it would have been a good edit. However, only one reviewer found so, and three others rejected it. I ended up manually doing the edit, and poor Onato didn't get any credit for it (in fact, he got an undeserved 'rejected' for it).  The point I want to bring is that, first and foremost, the person who wrote the answer probably knows best if an edit is acceptable or not. Could there be a time frame where the author of the answer (or question) can overturn a review decision?    EDIT: one more  was rejected by overeager reviewers as well. I absolutely disagree with the notion that the community knows better. The community repeatedly proves that it only wants Internet points.    EDIT: I told a commenter to fix something himself in one of my posts, but . I went back and applied the changes myself. It's not credited to him and his stats got a rejected edit now (which really should be an approved edit). The reason ("This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post") is blatantly wrong and shows once more that the community has much less insight into edit quality than the people who wrote the answers in the first place. It's true that the UI didn't make it easy for them, but those guys clearly didn't read the comment thread; I did, because as the author, I was notified.    EDIT: This time around, a user fixed a blatant (though small) mistake in one of my accepted answers. One hour later, another, unrelated 10k user , even though it had been approved by the community. I went back to undo his undo.  This goes on again to show that an active user is the best judge for the quality of an edit, and that since I can have the last word on edits on my own posts, I should be allowed to retroactively overturn a community edit vote and accordingly credit the person who proposed the change.    EDIT I wrote a  years ago. Some guy found it and tried to fix it but the community thought that it wasn't worth it. I think that the changes are great and once more I'll integrate them by myself into my post. Unfortunately for this user, he won't be credited for it. I still don't understand why I can't have a binding vote on edits on my posts.
84570
Currently, once an edit by a user without full edit privilege is suggested, it can be either approved or rejected.  There is a known edge case that cause suggested edits to get auto rejected: (aka edit conflict)   User with full edit privilege click "edit" and start typing. Let's name this user Joe. Since the user from previous step did not yet send the edit, users without full edit privilege can still click the "edit" as well, oblivious to the fact someone else is editing the same post in those very seconds. Such user click "edit" too and start typing. Let's name this user Kenny. Kenny is faster than Joe: he send his edit first, creating new suggested edit. Joe is still typing. Joe finally done typing. He send his edit to its merry way oblivious to the consequences. As result of the full edit made by Joe, Kenny's suggested edit is kicked away and rejected. Boom.   This is all known and reported many times.  where the user got it hard with at least two auto rejections in short period of time. Some concrete examples: , , .  For edge case, it became pretty thick edge. This is not just minor hassle: enough rejections, and the user is banned from suggesting for a whole week: and remember we're talking here about good edits made by good users. The above used to count for the ban, but . Thanks Gilles for requesting such a change!   I know it was already suggested to lock edits and similar solutions, but I suggest whole different approach: instead of auto rejecting the suggested edit, dismiss it, i.e. cancel it like it never existed same way a bounty can be revoked by moderator.  In the edit suggestion page it will show "Dismissed" instead of Approved or Rejected maybe with a tooltip explaining what caused this. This will soften the blow from those edge cases, taking the edge out of them. :)
4822
First time I've got the following message on SO:     Too many of your edits were rejected,   try again in 7 days.   Although, I have made ~50 accepted edits this day.  I'm sure that should outweigh the ~5 rejected edits, right?    My suggestion:  bool allowEdit(USER u) {     if(u.rejected * 5 &gt; u.accepted)         return(false);     else         return(true); }   Think of it this way: if I do a 1000 accepted edits, and mess up on 5 [rejected], does that mean I should get banned for 7 days?    Hmmm... There seems to be a bug; the message only appears when clicking edit from review.  But otherwise, I can't edit , even when going to it from the homepage.
41649
suggested edit made one change to the question -- changing the title to ALL CAPS.  I rejected it with a custom note and was pleased to see that the review was rejected by other reviewers as well.  However, out of curiosity, I looked at the  made by the user and ran into .  It is evident that the user has removed all the import statements from the code and the review was happily approved by three reviewers.  I don't quite agree that the review should have been approved.  Of course, I can rollback and make revision to the post in order to fix it but have some questions:   Does a mechanism exist for flagging such reviews? Shouldn't reviewers be given a break for permitting such changes?
68331
EDIT:  It seems that I've also had edits that stacked well, so I'm not sure if I had a timing problem, or was just delusional.  The one thing that can be fixed, that I'll turn this question into, is a feature request so that when I go to re-edit (either within the 5-minute grace period, or before a suggested edit is approved), it brings up the old edit summary text.  Right now, it brings up a blank edit summary, and this replaced the first one I did.  This isn't really intuitive, and even knowing that's what it's doing, I still forget to put everything in.  Original Question:  It has happened a few times now, when on a site where I don't have edit privileges, that I make an edit.  I then see that the edit didn't work quite right, so I go back in to re-edit it.  This creates a brand new edit review, with an additional useless summary. How about we have the same grace period to re-edit your up-for-review edit, as there is for a normal edit? Of course, it wouldn't be possible once it's been approved.
107265
I've just been presented with a suggested edit to an  - but the edit was proposed by the OP himself, in which he clarified that the answer was right, but with a few tweaks/revisions which he wanted to communicate to viewers. He didn't amend the answer, but appended clearly-labelled comment and code.  I hovered over the accept button, but wanted to check and couldn't find any specific guidance.  In the meantime, ironically, the suggested edit has been rejected by another user...  Is there any accepted guidance for OP comments in an accepted answer? Or is it purely down to judgement?   In my opinion, what was being proposed as an edit was valuable, but I questioned whether it was the right place for such an edit.
34750
Have a look at  which was suggested by . He suggested  tag. I approved because I can see he is an SE employee. So I have two doubts:   Why doesn't he have some required privileges? (as he is suggesting instead of direct editing) If he doesn't have required privileges, how can a normal user suggest an edit for  tags?   Is there any special case here? Just curious to know.
32723
A user  which added useful information to one of my answers. However, because it was a substantial edit, it was rejected by the reviewers. That's fine. However, as the owner of the post I would like to be able to overrule their decision after reviewing the edit myself (as I was encouraged to do by the notification in my inbox).  Currently, I had to open the edit suggestion in a different tab and manually copy and paste over the changes from the markdown diff to apply the changes. This seems laborious and doesn't give credit to the user who suggested the edit.  Request:  I would like a button on the suggested edit page, visible to the owner of the post, which applies the suggested changes, preferably just as if it had been accepted by the reviewers (i.e. giving credit to the editor and the +2 reputation for editing, if applicable).  Related discussions: (note that since this is a feature request, these are not duplicates)
118748
I noticed something strange in the reputation of one of my accounts today:        Never saw "reverted" event before, so went to  and realized what happened: the user who approved my suggested edit has been removed/deleted their account.  The edit is still there. The post is still there. The effort spent in editing is still there, untouched. I really can't see any reason to take the reputation away in such a case.  Can this please be changed so that the reputation won't be lost? Personally I don't care that much, and got lots of reputation from other sources, but many people have low reputation and each point matters to them.  P.S.  This might be a bug introduced when implementing this recent change about "", so tagging as a bug too.
12231
As I was browsing earlier today, I really happened to like an answer to a question. The question didn't interest me so much, and the answer was actually a tangential reply to some of the comments in the post, and was by far more valuable than the original question or the accepted answer. Now, my only options to favorite that answer are   Favorite the question. Add the link to the answer to my browser's bookmarks.   I was pretty sure others have had the need for this, and sure enough, I found a  and a , both nearly two years ago and a , nearly a year ago.  Now, there might have been several reasons why it (and several other old feature-requests) was denied. SO was pretty young back then, there probably weren't enough developers on board, perhaps they didn't have the resources to track favorite answers. But SO has grown since then from 1-3 sites to 30+ sites. Requests that might have at one point been too demanding, might now be easily implementable, which could greatly enhance user experience.  So, my question is: "Can we re-request features that were previously declined, provided the request and the denial are sufficiently old, so that the team can reconsider their decision?"  After how long is sufficient enough needs to be decided by the community and is only to prevent re-requesting a feature that was only declined say a week ago.
31259
I don't need further approvers for my edits on Stack&nbsp;Overflow, but if I approve another person's edit (which is often the edit I wanted to make), the edit needs to wait for more approvers.  Can it be changed so that if someone who can make edits without further approvers, approves an edit, it doesn't need further approvers ether?    It appears that in the interest of better quality reviews, you have to at least notionally improve the edit as an extra step. Is there a way this could be more obvious as I might not be the only one who didn't know this?
80782
The suggested edits count at top is incorrect. Multiple browser refreshes did not clear it. Approving/Rejecting review decreases the count, but as you can see the count is incorrect.
51851
Issue 1: I find it a bit irritating that when I click the Improve button and further edit it, even if I mark it as helpful, only Community takes the credit for the approval. I know the topic itself will contain the link to the suggested edit, but my activity history only says that I made an edit, and not approved a suggested edit. The same holds true for marking one as unhelpful. The activity history should say I rejected an edit, and then made an additional edit. I know it's not often, but sometimes I do try to go back to a suggested edit I've rejected, but when I improved and rejected, it's not traceable for me as it doesn't show in my history or in the question's revision history. So if I don't remember what user suggested it, it's lost to me.  This issue also plagues the  which are awarded for approving and rejecting suggested edits, which essentially you have done, you're just not receiving credit for it. I suggest that when I mark an edit as helpful or not helpful, both me and Community be listed as the approvers or rejecters, unless another user is already listed in the appropriate place.  Update: Here is  of the confusion this causes.  Update 2: Also, when improving a post and marking it as "not helpful", it would be nice to be able to  along with it.    Issue 2: Expanding off the idea that users need more notice for suggested edits that get rejected, the activity history page is much too useless when it comes to listing the suggested edits a user has made. Literally all it does is list them. A user still has to click through to each one in order to find out if it was approved or rejected, or even if it's still pending. Take, for example, this screen shot of the suggested edit history:    Is it really necessary to say I suggested a suggested edit? Really? Of course I suggested it, it's a suggested edit. This isn't !  A good way to fix this would be to change the second "suggested" word into one of: pending, approved, or rejected. This would be a quick way to tell which edits have been approved or rejected and which ones are still pending. Users would be able to target out rejected edits and review them for the reasons. Something like this:
107590
When reviewing suggested edits, it often happens that I'd like to say something to the edit suggester, but I can't. The ability to reply to them would be a way to solve edit problems much more amicably, rather than rejecting possibly approvable edits without giving them a reason. Commenting on unrelated posts is clearly not okay. Rejecting the edit with a custom &quot;causes harm&quot; reasoning is also not a good solution, because:  This doesn't notify the edit suggester; they would need to dig out the review for that, which rarely happens. It can only happen when rejecting the suggestion, which is often not my intent.  Besides that:  past approved and binding editors of posts are already reply-able1, there is already an ongoing  to allow replying to rejected editors in comments it's possible for users with pending edit suggestions to edit their edit proposals, so that those edits are also incorporated into the same review (i.e. an unlimited grace period while the edit is still pending) the &quot;Improve Edit&quot; option may not be the right option, as the reviewer may not be entirely aware of what the edit proposer is on to in some cases, or they may need further clarification of the edit before making a decision  I am asking to allow @reply-ing to users who have a pending suggested edit on the post. Note, this does not mean the overloading of their inbox - they won't be notified of all comments, only ones that @-mention their name. Only the post owner would get a notification from all the comments on their post, as normal. Another use case of this feature would be in case someone who has accidentally created a second account or has lost access to their original account suggests an edit to one of their own posts; since the user won't (be able to) see notifications on the first account, one can mention to their second account with the fact that they have another account and instructions to have their account merged. 1As @Glorfindel mentions, they are already pingable. But pending and rejected suggested editors are still not.
94903
How can someone make an appeal to un-delete an answer that was deleted by a moderator?    There should at least be an appeal/vote process, if the deletion was unfair. Moderators are humans like rest of us, and they can be unjust.
101740
Happened on , fwiw. In particular I voted to reject it, then visited to add comment and vote to close, and wanted to add a  tag, but couldn't because had to wait to see the fate of the edit.
59289
At present a low rep user (under 2k) can only make an edit suggestion of more than 6 chars, however when someone has taken the time to find to correct link it is a real shame the correction can help other users!  So I think link fixing should be special cased somehow.  (Also the checkering of a changed link need to be better than other edits, so a page that showed what both the old a new links point to (in frames) could help with the approving processes.)