I have a question related to a recent discussion: what kind of edits are allowed to questions (with answers) that are, say, more than a year old? During reviews, I come across suggested edits to such questions which do not improve much other than spelling mistakes, grammar, MathJax formatting, or minor corrections (this, for example).

I intuitively reject such suggestions since the questions are already well answered. What is the guideline for such issues?

@an4s I'm not a moderator, but this is really too minor. Probably, such editors are aiming for some shiny editor badge.

Which is, of course, the wrong motivation...

I'm fine with an edit if there is an actual mistake that may lead to confusion, and it is clear what the intended meaning is. For example expert A writes a post but omits a "not" or uses an ambiguous phrasing. Expert B comes along and knows what A wants to say (having seen tons of A's posts in the past), and edits it accordingly. This is beneficial for beginners in that field, who can't necessarily identify what is correct, and may not ask (perhaps thinking "nobody commented in a year")...

MSE is the number one google hit for many mathematical questions, so I see value in polishing existing material. But there is the cost of bumping due to an edit, so I think these kind of edits are valuable but should be substantial. Replacing a lengthy picture of mathematical formulas by MathJax or correcting many typos and grammar mistakes is legitimate, microscopic MathJax formatting changes or single English typos are not. But this is not some official mod team view.

@Asaf I agree with the thinking that it is fine to keep a "thank you!" comment for, say 24 or 48 hours, to make sure that the intended recipient sees it. Later on you can just humor the flagger. Though, if the flagged comment made a nice joke I was reluctant to do anything. Yet a fellow diamond bearer with surname Fischer told me just to shed a quiet tear for the lost piece of humor (when totally unrelated to the post).

Anyway, if such a comment gets flagged "too soon", an option you have is to let the flag sit for x hours. On this side of the sewer grate we won't see if the average flag handling time temporarily exceeds 1hour (or whatever it may currently be).

I like "sewer grate."

@JyrkiLahtonen The case in question the comments were less than an hour old. And even though the answerer had seen the "thank you" and replied, I think that display of kindness are not something to be ignored on this site and just chucked to the sewer...

@MichaelGreinecker: Do you mind unfreezing this room? I would like to add something. Thanks!

@user21820 I can also do that kind of things now, you know... ;P

@AsafKaragila Same. I just need one of you to do it. =)

@user21820 I am pretty sure that Michael and I are not the same person! :P

Oh. I thought I was seeing double for a moment.

@an4s that example seems to fall under none of what you said though. It is about making the title match the question, as explained in the edit summary.

Regarding the "thank you"comments and alike, I delete basically always, I may stop if it is very recent, but also that's not a given.

@AsafKaragila I might start to comment "Sir, we are most grateful for your valuable contribution." on your posts ;D

@quid To be more grating, spell it greatfull.

@DanielFischer a grate idea.

winces

you guys are grrrrreat!

Gr8 Make it simple.

Grrrrr8!

@quid I will simply flag these comments as offensive. :P

@user2646 :D

G(r^n)8, n>1.

Perhaps a moderator would like to have a word with the author of this proposed edit? There is relevant conversation in the "Tagging" chatroom, starting here.

The user is consistently editing tag wiki entries (which is good) by pasting in the descriptions from Wikipedia (which is bad).

@XanderHenderson I can vouch for that, too. Consistently, for some time now.

@XanderHenderson, @amWhy Thanks for the tip. We've sent a message to the user.

In general, how long are mathematics questions (belonging on the main site) allowed to remain in meta? E.g.: this "meta question" has three downvotes, it's been closed, including the xecond decisive close vote by @MichaelGreinecker, and has one delete vote. Do we just wait for more delete votes from regular users, even in the case that the question is clearly not a meta question?

There's no rush I'm insisting on; I just find Math questions belonging, at best, on Math.SE, distracting in the list of "newest" meta questions.

@amWhy Usually, one gives the author some time to notice, and they're quickly deleted (often within a few hours). Sometimes such a question falls off the radar, then it stays until it's roomba'd. Since you brought it to attention, I've deleted this one.

@DanielFischer Yes, I agree there should be time allowed for the author to notice. Just didn't know how long such a span of time typically last. It may have fallen off the radar, especially in light of yesterday's active meta question.

On the light side, Do I keep you and the gang on your toes, or what? ;D

@amWhy In the case you mentioned, I simply made a mistake. I intended to delete the question.

@MichaelGreinecker For mods, is closure required prior to delete? Or did you mean to conduct a "double whammy": vote the decisive closure, then delete (with a decisive delete vote)?

@amWhy no it isn't

I could see how handy a "one size vote that does it all"

@quid Wow... I'm impressed! did I say I'm impressed? Maybe I wasn't clear: I'm impressed!

@amWhy We can just delete stuff.

@amWhy you better are!

@quid Xander reminded me that any edit to a reply post re-pings the recipient!!

Yes I saw that. But you won't get out of your promise of 61 messages in this way.

Ha!

@MichaelGreinecker I learn something every day. How handy (in appropriate circumstances!) Can you lend me a couple of such votes?

@quid Just you wait!

@amWhy I generally refrain from closing questions (unless for migration or clear duplicates) and promised so on the campaign trail. If something is bad enough to be unilaterally closed, it is probably bad enough to be deleted. And things get closed pretty fast anyways.

@amWhy indeed, with impatience even.

@MichaelGreinecker I take it you're trying to distract me from remembering I asked you "Can you lend me a couple of such votes?" :)

@amWhy Your CRUDE army must do for now.

@MichaelGreinecker Aww, shucks! Can't say I didn't try! :)