Our community isn't a fan of minor edits on Q&A's that have run their course, because this bumps them back to the front page. The definition of "run their course" is subjective, but usually amounts to us rejecting edits that do not *substantially* improve a Q&A that has been inactive for several months. In particular, if it has been more than a year the odds of community regulars declining an edit increases to nearly 100%.

This echoes a recent meta discussion, which you find [here](http://meta.serverfault.com/a/6572/152073).

Picking three examples from the top (since you did not provide examples of your own):

* [Question from 2012](http://serverfault.com/review/suggested-edits/164845). Very minor edits.
* [Question from August.](http://serverfault.com/review/suggested-edits/164843) Passable, might have gotten unnecessarily hammered because the mod was having to chase so many of your edits at this point.
* [**Question from 2009**.](http://serverfault.com/review/suggested-edits/164842]) Extremely minor edits.


I could continue down the list, but I'm reasonably sure that this trend continues and that the mod in question would have been in full-on bulk rejection mode at this point.