Clarifications on rejected edits

Question

I'd like to understand why two edits I made were rejected to understand better when, what and how to edit.

1. Added to an answer a clarification from one of the comments to that answer
   • What should be the behavior about such things? In that case, it was a short explanation I copied from the comments, on how to do what the OP asked about.
2. Added a notice that the site referenced to in the answer ceased to exist
   • Was this notice redundant in general, or the way it was done?
   • What should be done if an answer is no longer relevant since the service no longer exists? I know that on question it means that they probably should be deleted.

Answer 1

I wasn't involved with either, but I'll offer my observations.

For the first, by and large, preambles like "Clarification from the comments" aren't necessary. If you'd made the text look like it was built into the original post, and made clear the text was from the comments in the edit summary it should have been sufficient. Oddly, the rejection reasons were "replying to author" which makes no sense. Worse, the original comment is now gone, presumably because there was a suggested edit to add it.

This seems useful to me, and I've added the text (slightly modified).

As for the second, that shouldn't have been an edit to the post. That should have been a comment and, probably, a moderator flag explaining that the site no longer exists and this the answer (accepted) should be deleted. A downvote, since the answer is no longer useful, would also be appropriate.

I see there's already a comment to that affect on the answer, so downvoting and flagging for moderator attention is the thing to do here.