Go for it! That's what edits are for.
When you reach 2,000 reputation, you get the ability to edit things without needing to get it reviewed.
Editing is a good and important part of the site! Keep it up!
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, ...
As to what you should choose. Vandalism would be the correct choice here, per it's description:
This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.
You can use a custom if you would prefer, but it is best to avoid confrontation with trolls/etc. I would just use vandalism.
As to what you should do. If you see ...
Yes, syntax highlighting of anything more than a couple of lines is a readability improvement. While the software used to apply syntax highlighting isn't all that great, it has rendered obvious some syntax problems in a few cases. Such edits don't fit under the usual reject reasons, certainly not the reason that says the edit doesn't improve the post at all.
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).
I just click Improve edit, edit it to be what I want it to be and then leave the following canned comment:
@WhoeverMadeTheEdit Welcome to Ask Ubuntu! **;-)** Could you please review my [edits]() and also review the [editing help](/editing-help) to improve the readability of your questions/answers/edits in the future... **;-)**
then I copy-paste the link ...
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 ...
Just look at the examples. Does it matter?
If you are used to read syntax highlighting in a specific language:
The other way around, on e.g. a .desktop file, (default bash) highlighting can be seriously distracting:
So yes, correct syntax highlighting is i.m.o. one of the most important tools to improve readability, and I love those edits.
Well, as a general principle, if any question has a bad title that won't lead others to find its answers*, then please try to fix it.
When people search in search engines or within the site, we want them to find what they're looking for. Misleading or vague titles make good answers hard to find, and they make people find things that are not helpful to them.
I clicked Reject and Edit while reviewing the post. Although the rejection is shown as being done by the Community bot, I'm the one who's responsible for your edit being rejected (whether or not that action ends up being considered the correct one).
I rejected the edit because it:
applied incorrect formatting to code-like text.
If paths are to be ...
The difference between our edits is mine didn't have to go through the review queue so the OP couldn't reject it. Yours would have likely passed if it weren't for the OP. It was a good edit.
That said, unless it's deleted or locked, the OP can always immediately push an edit. That might be improving a suggestion, or rolling one back. Ultimately it's their ...
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 ...
I would not characterize that small summer breeze image as "going off the rails" or "uncool." When it comes to that picture, I don't think you need to worry about anything so serious.
In my opinion, it doesn't add much to the post. But it doesn't really take anything away, either. It's small, reasonably unobtrusive, and arguably has the benefit of making ...
Disclaimer: I'm not a mod, so just sharing what I do:
If those edits are the only edits the post needs: Approve
If those are just some minor formatting and the post needs major rework: Reject
In-between these two extremes are: Reject and edit and Improve edit. After the Improve edit, I leave a comment to the original editor on what to improve:
Welcome to ...
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 ...
I try to assess how much thought/work the suggestor has put into the edit.
if there is real improvement but some things have been left out I either approve or improve/approve
if I encounter a suggestion that only corrects the low hanging fruit (like s/ubuntu/Ubuntu/,...) and overlooks several other things I often reject/improve with an appropriate ...
Each of those pages tell you:
This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit.
In practice that means: somebody started editing before you submitted your edit and they didn't require approval for their edit to go through. There are two reasons somebody might not need approval for their edit. It was their post or they have more than 2,000 reputation. A ...
If I had to guess, because the OP liked their pictures. It can sometimes be hard to be objective when somebody comes along and edits your stuff. It's certainly a strange feeling.
Your edit was solid work though, it really improved the post and it should have been accepted.
Should [sip] edits be approved?
You should just "evaluate each edit in isolation. Approve if the edit is good, improve if it can be improved, reject if it's detrimental to the post and reject and edit if you feel that the post needs another kind of work."
If you find that the editor didn't really fixed all issues with a post, then take the actions so it's ...
You're right to be wary. There are some users (usually bots) who are just grinding on the super-minor edits for rep, but of these examples I think I would have let most of those through.
If it leaves significant issues in the post, I'd look to re-edit and uncheck the "helpful edit" box. This is equivalent to rejecting the edit and replacing it with your ...
I have accepted all of the edit he has made to improve Ask Ubuntu. This can change when an edit appears that is wrong, but for now, he has contributed a lot to enhancing the way we read many Q/A. For the small edits like an uppercase letter I simply reject them. For example, when the case involved just changing 1 letter. Of course if he changes 1 letter and ...
Yes it is, and you should definitely do that.
I do things like that all the time, it's common that OP doesn't know exactly what he's asking for when he phrases his question, even more when he writes the title line.1 Often the title doesn't reflect the actual problem in the first place plus it turns out it's an XY problem and the actual question is different ...
As you know, I am one of the reviewers who rejected (both of) your attempts to apply this edit.
I think it is far from obvious that the specific change made here is correct or even safe. There are two issues:
It's not clear that changing the mirror is better than recommending the newer version that is available in the same place. Even in the post's current ...
It is a bit condescending... but that's not against the rules.
It comes as both part of an answer to the question, and in answer to a question from somebody starting out with Bash scripting. Variable scope isn't entirely fundamental (you can womble along for a long time before it kicks you in the face) but it's something you need to eventually learn, along ...
In both cases, it isn't the OP who made the secondary edits you refer to, but another user who was reviewing your suggested edit.
Reviewers other than the OP must have 2000 reputation. At that level, users can make edits:
without having to undergo review,
without having to meet the character limit,
however, without the 2-rep reward.
The help officially ...
The gold standard for editing applies:
Will your edit make it better?
The problem here is you and I seem to have different ideas of what is better. In my worldview, we're here to help. We don't have to provide double-blind studies for every answer and, again, in my view we don't need to provide academic-level bibliographies and citations.
Don't get me wrong, ...
"Proposed by an anonymous user" means the edit was suggested by someone who wasn't signed into an Ask Ubuntu account. It's possible to contribute to Stack Exchange sites without having an account, and it's fairly common to see edits proposed anonymously (I see it at least once a week).
Sometimes, the proposed edit is actually the original post author trying ...
In such situations, I recommend including a more specific explanation in the edit summary when resubmitting the edit. Also, in general, I recommend including specific explanations in edit summaries for code edits or any other edits that must be evaluated primarily on their technical merits. Although you referred to a comment on the post, that comment does ...