Step 0. Don't get in an edit war.
The very first time somebody deliberately rolls back your edit (I'm not talking about accidental overwriting), leave them a comment asking what's going on and explain your edit. If the edit is urgent push it again, if it's not, wait.
If they can't be reasoned with, flag it up and we'll take a look and take a firmer approach (...
So, is this a policy on AU? Has the community decided that it prefers images over text?
Of course not. Everything you've said is true in most cases. I'm certain there are some cases where a screenshot does make an amount of sense (illustrations to demonstrate a command's coloured output for example) but when we're talking about things that a user might want ...
We can make this really simple and boil it down to this:
If it doesn't answer the question, it doesn't belong in the answer section. Don't post it there.
However there are some approaches that are legitimate that you can't really stop:
Iterative improvement is something we should encourage but only because it makes the answer better. But deliberately ...
Yes, it is totally fine.
Besides, reputation from edits are capped at 1000. So after your 500th edit suggestions, you will stop getting reputation.
Also you do not get reputation from edits, but from "approved edit suggestions". Knowing this, when you reach 2k rep, you will no longer be able to suggest edits on posts, instead you will be able to edit them ...
According to https://stackoverflow.com/faq#reputation, the edit reputation cap is 1000:
The other way to gain reputation is by suggesting edits to existing posts as a new registered user. Each edit will be peer reviewed, and if it is accepted, you will earn +2 reputation. You can only earn a maximum of +1000 total reputation through suggested edits, ...
The presumption with this answer is the editing of this:
The key parts of the FAQ are these quotes:
Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated.
Treat others with the same respect you’d want them to treat you
because we’re all here to learn, together. Be tolerant of ...
<2k users have to justify their edits to the review queue. Once you cross that and earn the Edit privilege you no longer have to explicitly explain everything you do.
That said, if you're pushing major edits around on other people's posts, be courteous and explain what and why you're doing something. Doesn't need to be a book, just a note so they ...
Flag it. Never let it go that far. And that applies to both parties. This got far sillier than it needed to.
We can hopefully give a reasoned opinion and if you don't care for that, you can come to meta to discuss the contended issue.
"Help me please", "anticipated thanks", "my immortal and cool name", taglines, salutations, etc. are just noise, they don't add anything to the question and should go. Also, check tagging and title when proposing suggested edits, fix as many problems as you can find in the post.
Relevant What should be edited out of the questions/anwers/posts in general?
As a general rule, code should be used exclusively for things that a computer would understand. This includes code, commands, paths, package names etc. URLs don't need it but it's OK to use them to avoid making the URL into a link.
What you should never do is use code for emphasis, to highlight an important part of your post. That is just ugly and makes ...
Features like this are put behind an experience wall because we want experience.
Both technical with the subject matter, and with the system.
150 good edits is equivalent a weekend of contact time for some people. That's not nearly enough time to get everything right, or more importantly, for the system to notice a problem (in appropriate edits, etc).
If it's important (as your example is):
Add an alternative or improve the answer. Especially relevant to command-line questions where things can be refactored to improve how they work. For example I've been going back to my answer for How can I backup my PPAs? and slowly cutting down its length. I'm sure there's an awk waiting to happen. Exciting times.
I think this question is phrased wrong. I don't think the user is trying to game the system to collect rep through making small edits. It seems like a good faith effort to improve the site. As Seth mentions in the comments above, it's up to reviewers to reject the edits and explain why such small edits can be counterproductive. That's the only way anyone ...
Add the line <!-- language: <language_string> --> (where <language_string> is the string identifying the language) before the start of the code, and make sure that the code itself has an empty line before it:
<!-- language: <language_string> -->
Functionally speaking Zanna's answer is good... Although I would beg you avoid rollback wars.
That is to say if they rollback your rollback, don't rollback again. Raise a flag for a moderators on your post. Explain the problem and we'll find the rustiest spoon available to "deal with" the problem. We're good at wet work. Use us.
On a slightly different ...
Hammer it with flags.
The community will auto-nuke it if it gets enough.
Or a real mod will see it and they can do fun stuff, like banning the user.
If you want to edit it, you can, but don't do that at the cost of waiting to flag.
Yes, absolutely edit it to add more information; this is encouraged and is the proper way to get a question answered!
The trick is to just not make trivial edits, add as much information as you can. Keep on editing with as much information as you can.
(You can start by linking your question in your post!)
We are all here to help each-other, so I would say pass on that helpfulness to others.
Also, A lot of older questions for some users may be less than perfect, or have gone unnoticed, So finding a couple of things to edit on some of their older questions would not only be of great help to the user but to the whole site.
This is where the @ replies come in handy.
Users become eligible for an @ reply on a post if they do one of the following things:
Vote to close the post.
Edit the post.
Comment on the post.
So in this case including @username in a comment will ping the user. Write out a nice message explaining what they did wrong and what they should change and ...
Improving poor answers is what typically makes high rep users out of low rep users. I look closely at any and all critical comments and determine a course of action based on what's said. Often this leads to an edit to improve the clarity or cover additional information. Sometimes the comment provides additional info that prompts me to point the one leaving ...
The body of your question doesn't really seem to relate to the title. You also don't really seem to be asking a question in the first place. Are you complaining about how Thomas rolled back your edit or are you complaining about how the CLI method is inferior or are you complaining about the question being too broad? I'll try to address these all.
The question indicates that the OP may have not yet achieved in depth knowledge of Bash programming. The recommendation to read some Bash manual is therefore obvious. But I understand that the wording of
read a basic bash programming manual
especially when bolded is borderline rude. Much better would be to help by adding a link to a Bash guide that we ...
You should absolutely remove irrelevant tags, wrong tags, add missing tags and anything else that makes the question better. Collaborative editing is a big part of the SE model and tags are not special.
So yes, please, correct any tagging issues you see!
So long as there's good reason to think the post is improved by the edit, even if it's only improved a little bit, then the edit makes sense.
However, if you don't yet have enough reputation - so your edits need to be reviewed by others - then you should avoid edits that are small and unimportant (and most edits that are unimportant, even if not small), ...
I see no need for any such rule. There are such things as badge hunters. There are such things as minor editors. There is nothing we can do about this.
Now something to point out is that the second edit was made by a reviewer (guntbert) of the first edit.
Now he decided to approve the edit, but remove the bold and add a tag. A perfectly valid ...
Upvote number 2, also I have edited out the attempt to merge the answers, as this does a disservice to the person who originally answered with answer 2 and gives votes to a mostly old answer that just happens to have the check mark - if answer one dosnt work anymore downvote it, or edit only to fix that method. If you have a new method use a new answer.
When editing posts I try to do as little as possible to clarify the question.
Grammar spelling - go ahead and fix.
Fix quotes or more often code blocks - go for it.
I will delete inappropriate language, email addresses, or personal information (phone numbers).
I flag spam.
If it goes beyond that, I usually add a comment asking the OP for clarification.