Kyle

I have no idea what you've wanted to accomplish by talking to me, other than making sure that I know that you think I am making too much out of editing. Okay, I know that you feel that way. I don't care either way, but I know how you feel now. Can end this conversation now?

So, I guess according to Rathony, we should get rid of the Meta question feature entirely?

Yes. Some people will read it and learn that they shouldn't do that.

I didn't know that then. I know that now. The whole point of my post was to figure out the best way to approach this.

"I don't think that specific Meta post helps a lot." - Again, your opinion. You've said this several times now.

If I made a tiny, trivial edit that was gratuitous, and I probably have before, I would hope that some fellow user could point that out to me so that I could see the error and learn from it.

Yes, I understand that now.

The point is, after I learned about the guideline, I changed my behavior.

When did I say I never broke a guideline?

"You remember you deleted your answer after I commented "the question is off-topic"." That's not what happened. I answered a question that you deemed was off-topic. You commented on my answer and suggested I post my answer as a comment. So, I posted my answer as a comment to the question and then I deleted my answer. If you made a Meta post pointing this out, and used my specific user name, I would not happy nor sad. I would not care, since I did as you said and posted my answer as a comment.

And judging by the several upvotes on my first post, it seems the community appreciated that question as well.

"You are making a too much issue out of it. As you did with your first Meta post." - Once again, your opinion.

"You are making a too much issue out of it." - That's your opinion!

@Rathony Yes you are. You are saying, "Shut up already, there's nothing you can do about it."

Thanks @snailboat

If I made a tiny, trivial edit that was gratuitous, and I probably have, I would hope that some fellow user could point that out to me (so that I could see the error and learn from it).

You are the one you prompted this chat. If I want to publish a Meta post expressing this issue, that is my right. Considering my question currently has a few upvotes, the community appreciates my post.

Okay. This is going to be my last post in this chat because I don't think we are getting anywhere. My Meta post was not about that one "small and trivial edit." My Meta post was about a type of editing that is not defensible per the community guidelines. The guidelines can be found here: english.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/edit This isn't about my opinion or my style; it is about which edits are and which edits aren't encouraged.

I am not trying to force anyone to think anything.

That is your opinion.

I made one post on the Meta SE. I don't think I am making a "big deal."

I would never do that. Precisely because I don't expect anyone to think exactly like me. It is NVZ who believes everyone thinks like NVZ.

How so? Am I editing NVZ's posts to replace bold with italics?

When did I say that I want anybody to think like me?

Please explain. That means you are constantly editing these questionable edits. The user will never stop making them because the user believes that the edit is helpful.

What's more productive: Editing edits (while the user continues to make the same type of edits)? Or informing users of proper editing so that they are making fewer questionable edits in the first place?

And to end the NVZ discussion—I don't see a value in NVZ's post. You do notice an improvement. But the fact that you can't point me to a guideline or standard that declares "All use-mentions must be bold" proves that the edit did not have the justification to be made.

I see edits like this every day. My point in the post was not about NVZ. It was about making sure users with over 2000 Rep are cautious and thoughtful about making edits, as these users have 100% independent control over other users' posts.

The original text was something like: "I encountered this unfamiliar word in an article." And a user (with over 2000 Rep) edited it to: "I read this new word on a website." This type of edit does not fit into the community's guidelines (which apparently according to you do not exist). Edits are not for "personal style and preferences," but for standards.

Earlier today I read an edit like this (I can't seem to find the post now; this site is like a maze when you're trying to go back in time):

@Rathony You seem to be focused on the NVZ example. Forget about that example for a moment! This is not about NVZ!

*the post

@Rathony Whether someone does this once or more does not matter to me. I am not looking through the user's past edits to evaluate their historical judgement as an editor. I am looking at that one edit, at that one moment, and trying to make sure that that edit improved to post.

@Rathony Actually, false. Dozens of my edits were rejected. And some of them deserved to be rejected. I made an issue out of the edit that was rejected that I had no idea why it was rejected.

@snailboat Exactly!

@Rathony What can we do about it? Talk to the user about it. A friendly comment saying "Hey, what's up with that?" That's all! I am not trying to have NVZ hanged, drawn, quartered!

There is some degree of interpretation in anything. IMO "Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged" is very clear.

@Rathony I am not doubting NVZ. I am not claiming to be a better user than NVZ. And there are guidelines. See the Help Center link I posted earlier.

@snailboat Correct. That is the issue. That is what my post is about. How can we inform users if they veer outside the community's guidelines?

@snailboat Only if the editor's rep is under 2000. My Meta post was about users with over 2000 Rep.

I just said it above. "I was hoping the user would be pinged and see my post so we could start a discussion!"

But what is the benefit of making it anonymous?

I was hoping the user would be pinged and see my post so we could start a discussion!

@Rathony Why not?

My point was supposed to be very simple: If one's edit is in anyway questionable or in the grey area, the edit should not be posted.

@snailboat Will do that shortly.

But back to the discussion. I am sure @NVZ is a very productive member here, and my post was not about him. It was just one example of what I was talking about. I could post other, perhaps more damning examples; NVZ's was just the most recent.

His exact words were: "I remember your first post on Meta and it was also about editing. Don't care too much about editing."

@snailboat Rathony had brought up my first Meta post a few minutes ago (which I posted a while ago); he concluded I was overly focused on edits.

By the way, on my first Meta post, I wasn't trying to embarrass you or chide you. I genuinely wanted to learn about the rules of the site and why my edit was rejected. I would've PMed you if I could've. I totally understand you made a mistake (I am sure I have made wrongful rejections as well) so don't feel like I was trying to make you look bad.