I added the "backuppc" tag to an old question about a specific BackupPC setting here: https://serverfault.com/suggested-edits/5138

This got rejected by user Chris S. What guideline did I violate with this edit? I'm a bit confused...

2 Answers 2


The Question is over a year and a half old and I didn't feel it needed to be dug up just to add a scarcely used tag. If you really feel it adds value to Server Fault and the Question having that particular tag added, I'll be glad to toss it in there, I just don't see it myself.

Side note: There are no "penalties" or detraction for having a edit rejected. My history shows 422 approved and 81 rejected, so you're not the first by a long shot.

  • 2
    +1. I would have rejected this as "edit is to minor" to avoid pushing this old stuff back to the front page for a mostly irrelevant edit.
    – Sven
    Commented Feb 5, 2012 at 18:05
  • 1
    @SvenW Probably should have done that, but Manchester just tied up the game so I wasn't quite concentrating on SF. =]
    – Chris S
    Commented Feb 5, 2012 at 18:07
  • 2
    Ah, I see. Well, I wouldn't mind even if there was a penalty for rejected edits, I just like to know that sort of stuff when working on community-driven sites :-)
    – jstarek
    Commented Feb 5, 2012 at 18:58

I would have allowed it. I realize that it's old, but the question is specifically about BackupPC. The question itself is a valid one (it hasn't been closed or downvoted) and tags exist as a way of indexing and organizing questions.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .