Tag Info

It's ok, and even encouraged, to edit questions to clarify them. It is not ok to edit questions to significantly change their meaning. There can be a tolerance for an unanswered question, especially if the question as is would be closed. In particular, invalidating answers should be avoided. Sometimes it cannot be avoided if different answerers interpreted ...

If an edit to a closed question falls far short of giving it a better chance of being reopened, please reject it as “no improvement whatsoever”. And to editors: please don't make such trivial edits. For example, if a question is an off-topic programming question with badly formatted code, don't bother formatting the code. If you like to do this, there are ...

I basically agree. If it's just a one or two capitalization errors in an old post, I agree that an edit that fixes only those is too minor: such edits are better avoided. On the other hand, if there are extensive capitalization errors, such that the fix makes a substantial improvement to the answer, then such an edit could be appropriate. It would be nice ...

This site works differently from others you might be used to. A large part of our mission is to build up an archive of high-quality questions & answers, that will be useful not only to the poster but also to others in the future. To support that goal, we encourage collaborative editing to improve questions and answers, so that they'll be more likely to ...

I agree with you. It's bad practice to make a large change to the question that changes its meaning, particularly when the question has already received an answer and the change invalidates the existing answer. (I consider this to be true regardless of whether it is the original author making the edit or someone else.) In this case I am sympathetic to the ...

It's certainly possible, using the standard LaTeX environments: $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2 & 3 \\ 4 & 5 & 6 \\ 7 & 8 & 9 \end{pmatrix}$ yields: See here for details and variants.

It took me a while to figure out why you thought this sentence had any purpose. Oh, you wanted a better solution than the answer you'd posted? As a general principle, your question should stand on its own: refering to an answer doesn't make sense. In any case, it's obvious that you'd be looking for the best answer (for some value of best that you neglected ...

It can be appropriate to retag a question to use tags that the asker wouldn't have thought of before reading the answers. If the asker's problem is a well-known one and the solution intrinsically calls for concepts that the asker didn't know about, then adding tags corresponding to these concepts is warranted. Fictional example: someone asks whether it's ...

Assuming that your edit did, in fact, correct a bug in an answer, it was welcome and this rejection reason does not make sense. Edits to “correct minor mistakes” are encouraged. Thank you! Without seeing the edit in question and without asking the person who rejected it, it is difficult to know why they picked this rejection reason. They may have made a ...

I apologize: I deleted your answer because it didn't answer the question as it then was, but I hadn't realized that the question had been edited beyond recognition and your answer was perfectly legitimate for the question as it was at the time. It is definitely bad practice to edit a question in such a way that existing answers are invalidated. The only ...

The first thing what I want to mention: correcting grammar makes the things better, it is generally a positive and not a negative deed, even if it is minor. But: despite that it is a positive thing in a general sense, it may be harmful on the current limitations of the SE system. In most cases, highly qualified experts of an area have perfect grammar. If ...