I ran across the question while looking for something else and noticed the extraneous text. Since there didn't seem to be anything else wrong with the post that's all I changed.
Believe me, I am long past the time when I get reputation points for (suggested) edits. When I edit it's to improve the site.
(To clarify, you can gain a maximum of 1000 reputation ...
Until yesterday, the Gravatar icons for both the original Asker and the editor were the same, indicating they were unregistered accounts with the same email address.
Since the author of a post can cast a binding "accept" of any edits, they're obviously using multiple accounts to get around the warnings about poor contributions and now post bans.
This is by design and is a recent change.
The syntax you see inserts the image and creates a link to the image. This way images that are larger than the column for posts can be scaled down in the post but the full version of the image is easily gotten to.
The syntax to do that has been around for a long time, it's just that the image button was recently ...
Update the question.
Comments are, by their nature, impermanent. They're supposed to be used to ask for clarification from the author and to otherwise coordinate improving the question. (The same goes for answers.) Once they've completed that task comments may (and should) be deleted.
If, of course, someone posts a comment that gives you the solution, you ...
OK - my information is definitely out of date in that case.
The theory was that tag wikis would be pushed out, but as pointed out in this answer on MSO
sometimes the tag wikis we float to the child metas do not properly fit the community.
I can only blame old age for forgetting about this.
Please suggest the edits again and I'll accept them.
This has come up on Meta Stack Exchange before, and been declined.
Once you get to 2,000 reputation, the thought is that you are now well-versed and trustworthy enough in the workings of the site to be able to edit without having your edits reviewed. Virtually all privileges on Stack Exchange are tied to your reputation score, and the Developers seem ...
Your edit summary could have been a bit more detailed, but I think those two reviewers were incorrect.
We often guide people how to indicate that a question isn't a duplicate to another, and part of that guidance is to edit the marked duplicate explaining how it's not a duplicate with a link to what it's supposedly a duplicate of.
Such is the risk of a ...
In the case of tl;dr, I think it's reasonably well-understood online. I don't know that we need to replace its use.
Other, more esoteric, abbreviations should be expanded and/or replaced with standard English phrases.
Assumptions are a 'slippery slope' and if permissible it is predictable that "pretty blatantly obvious" will, over time, slide past "probably" and even "possibly" to "whatever the Q needs to be to fit my A".
Two users considered the Q ambiguous enough to merit a Close vote in this example. And that is out of 17 views, which includes me - and I would quite ...