Hello, mederators. I'm here to complain continuous rejection on my edits by User @Saad. As I flag in question2980602, he reject my edits all the time, which mostly eventually approved. I posted this in meta before, see updates in math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29905 and his abuse behavior of "Reject-and-Edit" in question math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29984

What really angers me is his rejection on this edit (math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1181379) and 2 wiki edits (math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1181373) and (math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1181374).

In that question, the original proposition(commutative complete vector fields ⟺ commutative flows) doesn't hold globally, so I emphasized this with a link attached to, and deleted 2 irrelevant tags geometry and differential-topology, and I don't know why it was rejected.

Updates in math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29905 shows he continuously reject my edits on deleting wrongly used tag mathematical-physics (that's why I edit usage of mathematical-physics later), and answers by @quid in math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29984 says it should be brought to the moderators attention.

Thanks for your time and patience. And welcome suggestions and criticism on my edits.

@Andrews I disagree with your edit of the question. Math SE is not a wiki where you should edit the question to inject your own thoughts or feelings. You should instead post a comment or answer pointing out what is not true, which can be upvoted independently of the question. Concerning the tag edits, I don't have anything to say about them.

@user21820 could you confirm or deny that you mentioned 3167525 to delete before Jack's edit? I guess that's the case based on a chat timestamp but it's pretty close, so it's not clear. Either is fine (for both involved) but it changes the situation a bit.

@quid I am quite sure I did, because I vote before I post in CRUDE, and so indeed based on the chat time-stamp I would have voted before Jack edited.

Thanks. I suppose, except for unlikely coincidences, the alternative would have been you saw it right after the edit because it got bumped. I assume you'd recall this situation.

Indeed I didn't see it due to bumping, and in fact I don't track posts with new activity. I generally just use the existing review queues or the SEDE query for very short posts.

Incidentally, that query also catches a fair bit of self-vandalism (I guess you've seen some of my flags on that too).

Yes. Personally I did less flag handling than usual the last few weeks though.

@user21820 You disagree with my edit, so you just roll back? I believe my edit is crucial, and the OP's account was deleted, so I was trying to improve the proposition since it wasn't originally correct, and it already has an answer.

You have no thoughts about tag edits? Or maybe you have different ideas on what tags should be used correctly?

BTW, I still think it's not appropriate to simply roll back question 2980602, since edit math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1181379 was approved, and rolling back doesn't improve the question at all.

@Andrews Just because an edit was approved does not mean the resulting question or the edit follows site guidelines. There are mistakes. I rolled back because as I said you cannot just insert your own thoughts and feelings into a question. If the question is based on a false premise, it should be pointed out outside the question.

@user21820 Unfortunately, the OP was deleted so it's impossible to mention the mistake in comment to wait for correction from OP. Maybe I should post my and your ideas on meta for further discussion. Thanks.

@quid I consider moderators are busy in more crucial works, so I seldom bother mods. Thank you for your time and patience.

@quid Thank-you for those quid but neither was the one I sought. It had "eventually monotonic" or "eventually monotone" in the title and was related to the chebyshev function. Are there any others in my deleted items that match that criteria?

@user334732 do you know when you asked it (roughly)