When should I edit posts?
Any time you see a post that needs improvement and are inclined to
suggest an edit, you are welcome to do so. The original author of a
question or answer may always edit their own post, regardless of
Edits are expected to be substantial and to ...
The block that is shown to the users who don't have the privilege of editing every post contains the following points:
Fix grammatical, or spelling errors
Clarify meaning without changing it
Correct minor mistakes
Add related resources or links
Always respect the original author
To this, I would add the following clarifications:
The first point doesn't ...
No you're not going crazy, there's a 5 minute grace period on editing:
In order to prevent a series of tiny edits from showing up in the revision history, a single user who edits a post is given a 5-minute grace period. During this period, any additional edits they make are collapsed into the same edit in the revision history, displaying only ...
@Molot yaa the restriction is removed except Stack Overflow, Server Fault, Ask Ubuntu and Super User.
For more info check here New users and attaching images
We examined this issue and decided that on most sites, the restriction
is doing more harm than good. The restriction has therefore simply
been removed on all sites except Stack Overflow, Server ...
Apart from what said from @MPD, I can see some more cases where editing could be (more) acceptable:
Removing tags from the title
Reverting spamming (done from the user who wrote the post, or other users)
Removing any name-calling (i.e. abusive language or insults) added to the post from any user, including the one who wrote the post
Yes and no.
It's definitely better to make all edits at once. It is forbidden to edit twice on purpose. So try hard to avoid it as mods and other users can't see your purpose.
If you find post needs more changes, and your own edit was incomplete despite your best efforts to make it complete, then edit again. It's not good this happened, but second edit is ...
The only case where URLs should be put in code blocks is when they are absolute URLs, and the domain is localhost, or similar.
In the specific case, I don't see the reason for converting the list into a code block, since there wasn't any character that needed to be escaped, such as in the case of this-is-a-<url>-that-needs-to-be-escaped, which without ...
Users are banned from suggesting edits when they get their suggested edits rejected. In your case, the suggested edits were for tag wikis, and two of them were automatically rejected because the tag the wiki was referring was deleted or merged. The same applies to other suggested edits, if you still don't have the privilege for editing every post.
That ban is for having too many rejected edits. Usually, you get these from trying to edit the tag wiki, as tag wiki edits gets (as a rule) far more rejections than other edits.
The ban will be automatically lifted in a week.
As I say in a comment to this question: Suggesting tag wiki edits is dangerous. They often get rejected, and sometimes for (at ...
No, it is not. All edits should be edits you would be willing to approve, if suggested by low-rep user. True, it leaves us in a bit of void, with no valid thing to do, and doing nothing being invalid on it's own. So think about constructive things you could try:
Style and grammar edits
Narrowing images for readability
Tag edits - invalid use of modules is ...
I agree that the icon shown in the privilege page should be the same icon users see in the site; probably users will find out which icon the privilege page is referring, but that is still confusing.
The reason you see that icon that is the privilege pages you see on every Stack Exchange site are the copy of the master pages visible on Meta Stack Overflow; ...