I came across Must boot manually after a manual installation of Debian on ZFS root file system on the main site.

The OP had not included the specific error messages in the question (they were posted in a comment about two days later) and I felt the post could use some copy-editing. So I proposed an edit to that effect.

That edit was rejected, because:

  • This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.
  • This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.

Frankly, I don't understand why either of these reject reasons would apply to my proposed edeit.

The edit added the specific errors the OP is seeing to the question itself, which would seem to make it more accurate and/or easier to find.

The edit (IMO) improved formatting, fixed a typo, and cleaned up some of the grammar. I don't see how that should have been written as a comment or an answer.

Can someone please shine some light on why my edit was rejected?

1 Answer 1


Naturally, only the reviewers can tell why they rejected the edit.

However, I see a major problem which might have lead me to reject as well if I didn't take the time to click through to the original question:

You added the text of an error message that what never in the original question and that might or might not have been the one the OP really saw and which was also formualated and formatted in a way that it might be interpreted in way that you adressed the OP with it.

Yes, the error message came from a comment, but the reviewers don't see the commment section, only the edited question (*) so you should have left a better edit description than "copy editing" to make your intentions clearer.

I've now added a slightly improved version of your edit (I can't override the review decision). Anyway, thanks for taking the time for this!

(*) This is one of the reasons I don't review - the whole review system interface sucks and is just to much legwork to get the whole picture of what you are supposed to review...

You must log in to answer this question.

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