Yes, these are good edits.
For pretty much exactly the reasons you said: they're not relevant, they don't add anything to the post, and they could be construed as rude. If it's actually relevant to the post (e.g. "why did such-and-such film do badly at the box office"), then of course it's fine to include criticism of the film, provided it's expressed in a ...
Now first of all, I think you are mixing things up a little here. You are adressing too largely different issues in your question.
On the one hand you link to a meta question that concerns the usage of idle chatter in questions and answers, like introducing yourself with "Hi"/"Hello", ending your question with "Thanks in advance" or your answer with "Hope ...
The link was linking specifically to the mobile site version of IMDb (using the prepended m.). This is problematic since those sites are optimized for mobile devices and thus tend to look improperly on desktop devices. This usually results from people writing answers with links on mobile devices and can thus happen now and then.
However, this is easy to fix,...
I'm the one who posted the trailer question.
I understand the SE system and I appreciate that Pale Blue Dot was trying to improve the post to follow the rules as they perceived them, for the benefit of the site. I'm not angry; however, I rejected the edits because I did not feel they improved my post.
I get that SE hates fun. I'm not going to start ...
Use actual HTML.
>! <ul><li> Item One</li>
>! <li> Item Two</li></ul>
Though, please consider that we have pretty open policies for spoilers here, outside of question titles, so be sure you're not putting your entire question or answer in spoiler markup.
As you thought yourself already, when you're summarizing an article in your own words in contrast to quoting it verbatim, putting the text in quote markup is not appropriate, it's not a quote afterall.
This was likely just a mistake on the editor's part but has also been fixed already.
I noticed that the examples you supplied were my edits. So, I feel compelled to explain to some degree.
I find this place really fascinating. As a relatively new user, I find myself compelled to read old questions. I find them fascinating, informative, and a great way to express my satisfaction through voting on them. I DON'T care if they are old, short, or ...
The history shows clear evidence that there was a rollback war, as you already saw. Meanwhile the comments raised several strong objections to the inclusion, ranging from the commentary was baseless to the commentary was unrelated to the actual question (myself included). The original author continually insisted on including the content. ...
I, for one, welcome our new chatroom. (Obviously, since I proposed the idea myself a few weeks ago.)
One fairly minor suggestion: it should have a shorter, snappier name.
"Movies & TV Moderation and Maintenance" is a hell of a mouthful (reminiscent of the rather sillily lengthily named Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Stack Exchange). Including "...
First of all, sure, of course it is encouraged to fix errors in other's posts, so yeah, if someone edits a post, it's great if he fixes any errors he notices. However, this is not required at all. Every edit that improves a post is, well, an improvement.
More often than not people just don't notice every possible error in a post or don't have the time to ...
Rollback is part of the 'edit questions and answers' privilege - which you can gain with 1,000 reputation on this beta site. You are only 21 points away from this already.
I think the logic is that if you can be trusted to make unreviewed edits, you can be trusted to roll back revisions.
to quote a very similar question i answered on another site
this is just me but personally i feel that unless the answer is a Community Wiki edits to answers should be limited to formatting, grammar/spelling correction and/or clarification and the only time time i feel to add new stuff to an answer is when you're quoting relevant parts from exiting links ...
The ban will clear in 6 hours according to the details that I (as a moderator) can see. I don't know what rules are applied to set the ban length - but that is the situation as of now.
The ban length is set automatically I believe, but moderators can unban you.
Since you have noticed why the edits were rejected I will unban you now.
What is the duration of temporary ban on editing or suggesting edits?
Currently, it's 7. From this main meta post,
No, but repeated edit suggestion rejections from multiple users will cause your edit suggestion rights to be suspended for (n) days, where n is currently 7.
Looks like you have suggested 12 edits and half of them were rejected. That's 50-50....