The faulty spelling is a part of your assumption that the Google support didn't really know what you were talking about. On the other hand you use it to make a statement that there's no gapless playback on Google Music.
In this particular case it is an integral part of your answer and it shouldn't have been altered. There is an option to rollback edits. ...
Yes, it's fine to reject edits like this.
While removing "Thanks" is generally beneficial, there's probably more that could be done to improve the post so these things should be addressed as well.
Of course, if the post is perfect apart from the "Thanks" then feel free to approve the edit.
The edit summary (shown in the review page as a 'Comment:' above the title) contains an e-mail address - that's what's being spammed. The edit itself is irrelevant; apparently removing a tag is deemed easier / less suspicious by the spammer than editing the body of the post.
Also, the second part of the rejection reason might apply to cases like this:
OK - my information is definitely out of date in that case.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.
The author is also allowed to review suggested edits to their post, and their vote is binding, either for or against.
That's not to say that someone else couldn't come along and edit the post later (especially if they have full edit privileges). But the thinking is that the original author knows more than most whether a suggested edit is a good one or not.
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 ...
There is no time limit. Suggested edits do not age away like votes to close. They'll wait for someone to act on them or for someone to make an edit that invalidates the suggestion.
See: this answer to a similar question on Meta Stack Exchange
An SEDE query shows that suggested edits here are processed, on average, in 2 hours, with the maximum ever being ...
I've rejected the edit.
As it takes two people to approve (or reject) an edit then the danger of an accidental misclick is somewhat reduced.
The only things you can really do to prevent the edit going through are post in here or in chat to get others to review and reject the edit.
The fallback position is to monitor the question and if the edit does get ...
We get these from time to time, and sometimes I wonder if it's just a matter of people not wanting to ask a new question about password recovery (by slapping their email address in there, they perhaps think it will become part of the post).
Glorfindel gave a good explanation as to how spammers not familiar with how the sites work tend to use this method as ...
The issue is now fixed thanks to the reviewers. I believe we should increase the default edit queue size as currently it is only 40 as it's not respectful toward the edit authors to discard their edits.
Generally, I would say not to bother. The first rule of migrations is "don't migrate crap", and the original form of that question certainly applies.
However, after cleaning up this would actually be a decent question, admittedly for Super User. So, for this case, I would say the edit should be approved. (Be sure to also vote to migrate.)
What seems to have happened is that the suggested edit was looked at - the reviewer decided to improve it but also unselected the checkbox for "this edit was helpful", causing the suggested edit to be rejected, but also for your changes to be incorporated into his edit.
This has already been asked and discussed at quite some length on Meta already.
Decision on rejected edits should be displayed as a notification to the editor
I understand the desire to educate, but there is something deeply
wrong about the proposed design.
The net effect is the user seeing this broadcast in their face in the