Steps to reproduce:   Edit the body of any post. Edit it again immediately, but only modify the edit summary. Check the revisions page.   The original edit summary will be retained. A user has to edit the post body, or saving the edit summary silently fails.
943
It often occurs to me to add an edit summary to a question-edit immediately after submitting the edit, especially if the changes aren't obvious (formatting etc.). So I:   Click "edit" again. Fill in the summary Click on "Save Edits".   The 'edit' (no actual change has been made to the title/body/tags)  is accepted, but the summary doesn't show up, i.e. it is silently rejected.   I don't think it should work this way because the summary has been added by the original editor within the original edit's edit-window. In fact if I remember correctly, it to used to work as expected earlier; so perhaps this is a recent change.
13447
I have now enough reputation points on Stack Overflow to edit every post directly. But sometimes (especially if this is about a field where I'm not savvy, or when I try to edit a question title without having understood the question itself) I might be not totally sure about whether my edit really is an improvement.  For now, I have these options:   Do the edit anyway, hope that someone else will catch it if it is wrong Don't do the edit, and hope that someone else will see this post and edit it in the right way Let a comment and hope that someone will see it (either after editing or instead of it). Flag the post for moderator attention (but will the moderators know it better?) Search the right chat room to find someone who knows more about the topic.   All these are not really optimal, I think.  I would like to have a check box     [_] Submit this edit for approval   which, when checked, would submit the edit into the usual edit approval queue. Then I would get at least one or two other pairs of eyes looking over my edit, and maybe even improving it.  (I don't really care about the +2 reputation for the edit - I think it should be without any reputation difference here.)  There's an  for nearly giving everyone the ability to suggest edits that the post owner can approve, but I'm simply interested in being able to insert them into the general edit queue where anyone can approve them.  Actually, I could do this right now by having a low-reputation sock puppet (or a totally anonymous edit), but I think this is not the intended use for sock puppets, is it? Also, I would like to be able to get feedback for my edit.
88006
Today,  to one of . Before I got to see the notification, the edit already was rejected by other people (three rejections, one approval).  But the edit was actually a good one (like most edit proposals to my post I get to see) – a correction of syntax errors, so I would have definitively approved it.  (The suggested edit didn't change the main point of the answer, which was about the API to use, but it made the code example of my answer actually usable. I didn't compile it when writing my answer, it was late at the evening.)  So I did edit my post to include the proposed change, so the proposal is not fully lost. But the proposer only got the negative feedback from the rejection, and none of the reputation bonus an accepted edit gives.  My suggestion: Could there be added a way a post author can accept edits which were already rejected by other users?  Also, is there some way I can contact the rejectors and teach them not to reject good edits?
24932
Possible Duplicate:            The original poster didn't code-format his crontab. (Oh the pain!)  Another user edited. Very helpful. But he didn't have the reputation to make the edit complete on his own. I tried to confirm his edit. I do have the reputation to make edits on my own. But at least two votes are required to confirm his edit?  Seems silly. If I have the reputation to make edits all on my own, why does anyone else have to look over my shoulder when I'm given a "confirm edits" or "reject edits" button?  Thanks.
28248
I have the edit privilege. If I edit a post which has a pending suggested edit, then:  My edit starts from the version resulting from the suggested edit. I'm not notified of that, or even of the existence of the suggested edit. (There's actually a clue, but it's easy to overlook — the edit summary field is pre-filled with the summary from the suggested edit.) The suggested edit is marked as rejected by Community with the message “This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit.” The suggester is not credited in the edit history, my revision combines the suggested edit with my modifications.  This can happen if an edit is suggested while I have the page open: I click on “edit”, and think I'm editing the version that I was just reading, but in fact I'm editing somebody's suggested edits. It also happens if I deliberately visit /posts/12345/edit, which . Examples: a  that I approved and then wanted to ; a  where I . There are two bugs here, but I'm making a single report because they're very closely linked.  I'm not told about the suggestion, so my edit includes content that I'm not aware of, yet is attributed to me. The suggestion is marked as rejected and the suggester is not credited in the edit history, yet the suggested changes are made.
13610
In a certain case, the user will be asked to confirm if he/she wishes to leave the page, due to editing a post, even when he/she has stopped editing.  To reproduce:   Start editing a post (I've only experienced this with a question) Another user finishes editing the post before you and the message "This post has been edited" appears Clicking on the message bar will take you out of editing mode and will show you the updated post from the other user's edits Trying to navigate away from the page will then ask for your confirmation
15323
I have a question about editing practices:  Does it look good to edit a question you have just answered?  For example: say I had just answered a question, then saw that the question had some minor formatting issues. Should I edit it? Does it turn up voters off when they see that I am answering a question I changed, possibly to better suit my answer?
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.
118968
was originally asked August 9, and received answers. A month later, the OP  the question, invalidating the existing answers. I rolled it back, and left a comment to say that a new question should be opened, but the OP changed it back saying "There is no rule about it, so you can't edit my post."  There is also a bounty on this question, making things more interesting.  What are the guidelines on completely changing a question or rolling back changed questions? Was I out-of-line rolling back the question?  I have no desire to get into an edit war, so I'm not going to touch the question again. If a moderator wants to get involved, great.
52040
I found this , but I am not sure if this is the same issue.  On , I did some reformatting of the indentation in the code block to make it a bit more readable and it was  for peer review. A few minutes later, it appears the OP made an edit that added some additional code. It looks like my suggested edit was applied when the OP saved his/her edit, and it looks like he got the "credit" for the edit.  I'm not really concerned about the 2 rep points; I'm more curious why this happened and if this is a bug (or limitation) in the editing feature, or if this is known/intended behavior?  Note that this is not a suggested edit that's overridden by a concurrent edit: the recorded edit starts from the post-suggested edit state (and in fact can be identical to it, as in  ).
52760
Contradicting Instructions While going through the suggested edits review queue, one sometimes stumbles upon partially useful edits like . Trying to follow the instructions listed in the descriptions doesn't lead to a conclusive answer. Considering our example:   Approve edits that clearly improve the post ↳ No, not *clearly* Improve Edit when you can make additional improvements to the post ↳ I most definitively can Reject and Edit to replace an ineffective edit with your own substantive changes ↳ It is ineffective in the sense that it made the post worse overall (imho) Reject edits that fail to improve the post or that make it worse ↳ Like the last option: yes Skip if you are not sure and want to go to the next suggested edit ↳ Well, yes. But that is really why I am here, asking this question   Reasoning about the remaining Choices This leaves us with three choices: Improve Edit, Reject and Edit and Reject (the last one slightly modified):  Improve Edit  + Acknowledges that some things in the edit where correct - Learning effect for author might vanish, as the improvement might get overlooked - Can't leave a custom message for edit author (except in comments, which pollutes the thread) - Doesn't trigger the system which &quot;punishes&quot; users who repeatedly have their edits rejected - Rewards the edit author with reputation for a poor edit   Reject and Edit  + Clearly shows the author that there were problems with the edit - Still can't leave a custom message explaining the problems of the original post. - One has to partially redo parts of the edit that have just been rejected, which might feel unjust to the original editor   Reject with a custom note and come back immediately to make a good Edit  + Clearly shows the author that there were problems with the edit + Possibility to leave an explanation as to what was wrong with the edit - One still has to redo parts of the edit that has just been rejected - Seems to be a weird workaround for Reject and Edit   Something else?   Each of the three options come with their distinct advantages/disadvantages making it non trivial to decide which one to pick.  Or does the answer simply depend on the quality of the edit? Like:  Improve Edit for subjectively slightly positive edits Reject and Edit (Or Reject and Edit) for subjectively slightly negative edits
96321
I found some questions that are not very well-worded, and I want to clarify them. So, I went, and edited one of the questions.  As I have poor short-term memory, after editing, I wondered what I have edited.  I cannot find any easy way to see the original version, or a diff.  Of course, I could just click "Back" button to see the question, but I risk losing my edit (in case I just happen to navigate away and lost the "Next" button.) It is inconvenient too. I wish I could make a comparison to ensure the original meaning remains unchanged.  Did I miss anything? I looked around and found , but I cannot just submit the (suggested) edit, which defeats the point that I want to review my edit before submitting/suggesting.  It shows the original question when editing answers, but not editing questions themselves.    In short, may the edit question page shows the original, or a link to it? (I don't find it, I do not have edit privilege if that matters.)  This is what I have, can anyone point out how to access the original question?
83887
Have a look at . It was showing "This question was edited after it was closed" as a reason to reopen. But  was not edited after it was closed.   The last edit was on Oct 26 '08 at 21:15.        And it was closed on Nov 28 '11 at 22:44    Also there is no revision in the review page:        Actually it was in the queue because someone voted to reopen. I think this happens due to   See some examples from Meta review queue:
53111
Because of , clicking the "close" link on a question that's been edited (for me usually the edit comes in a half-second before, as I'm reaching for the link) reloads the question instead of opening the Close dialog. Clicking it again to actually open the close dialog says     You may only open the Close dialog every three seconds   I didn't open it, I refreshed the post.  And yes, there are lots of times when the post edit is so trivial it's obvious in less than a second that it doesn't affect the need to close the question.
8294
Yesterday I was pointed at some rejected suggested edits. Some of the corrections were valid, so I edited the posts accordingly, while making several further edits. Looking at the suggested edits now however, it seems that for those posts where only changes to the title were originally suggested, the post mortem suggested edit view now incorporates the body of the latest revision. (Or at least it appears like that to me)  Take for example . If you take a look at  of that post, you will see my later edits. The edited body seems to have been incorporated in the suggested edit view. For edits where originally changes to the body were suggested, there is no such confusion.   Why does this matter? In the case of some post mortem discussions or explanations it might help to see the actual situation as it was when the edit was suggested. Especially in the case of edits that might be considered too minor.   So have I stumbled upon a bug here?
77690
What's the best way to make corrections to a published paper? Should I amend the original paper and mention in a footnote (or similar) what was changed and why or prepare a completely separate document and put that on my website/append it to the original paper?  I'm not so much worried about how to get it to the publishers that handle the paper, but rather about how to go about it. I would especially like to hear from people who have done something like that or know someone who did.
36704
I'd like to have this   by animuson confirmed or refuted:      This is unverified, but I remember reading somewhere that an edit can only bump a question into the Reopen Votes queue once. Further edits would not continue bumping it into review. I could not find a source for that, though.   I could not find a source, either. There is an  of how edits send questions into Reopen queue, but it does not address this point.    My reason for asking: I often see  questions with minor formatting edits (made by someone other than OP) in the Reopen queue. The reviewers decide to Leave Closed, since the reason for closure still applies. Suppose that  OP edits the question later; will the edit send it to be reviewed again? If not, this means that minor  edits to an on-hold question reduce the chance of the question being reopened.