I recommend crediting the author of the edit in your own edit summary, and maybe even including a link to the rejected edit. In future similar situations, the edit summary could be:
applied author's edit I accidentally rejected: URL
(Replace author with the actual username of the author, or with an anonymous user, or similar, if it was an anonymously ...
The user in question approved another user's suggested edit to their own post. Anyone can approve or reject suggested edits to their own posts, regardless of reputation. This also happens to complete the associated review task, if one is outstanding, and this causes the user to be awarded the badge.
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 ...
My totally subjective opinion on this matter:
If you make a significant improvement like in your example, it's welcome. For small typo-fixes or cosmetic stuff, I personally would think the work you implicitly create for others due to the necessary review isn't worth it.
And yes, using silly hacks to overcome the systems limitation is perfectly ...
I agree that this edit was fine. Further I disagree with the reviewer using "Reject and edit", as if to say you hadn't done anything useful, whereas his edit had pretty much exactly the same end result. He should have used "Improve edit" instead.
Stack Exchange sites are unique in that all content is entirely editable by the community. Because of this, there is the temptation to make everyone sound chipper and cheery. You need to avoid this for a few reasons.
First of all, there was nothing wrong with Massimo's answer. It might not have been the wording that you would have chosen, but it wasn't ...
I've noticed these over the last month or so - I think (hope) it's just the spam tide coming in and they'll go back out the way they came soon.
The short answer is "Yes, something automated can be done", but it requires a little extra work: If you see that these are from new accounts ping one of the mods and we can nuke the account. Statistics on spam nukes ...
The answer wasn't unfriendly in any way, just a factual hint that you neglected to give the relevant information in your question. Since it wasn't unfriendly or wrong, I rejected it because it was Massimo's decision to answer the way he did and it's not your place or mine to enforce your view on his post.
It's an invalid edit that changes too much of the original without improving it in any way. It'd that simple. The qualifier that you wanted to edit out is also important, as it sets context. Without context the answer loses much.
If that answer seems unfriendly to you I'll ask you to stay well away from what I post. You're young, inexperienced and not a ...
If the edit was truly bad and needs to be reverted entirely, you can view the post's revision history by clicking the text "edited ** min ago" to view the edit history, and then "rollback" on the revision you want to roll back to.
If it just needs minor changes, then edit the post again and make the changes. You can also do this from the review queue by ...
In this situation - the edit was sufficient. I do admit to sometimes asking a higher rep user to fix things like this when they bother me.
In practice, you can always find more to edit. In this case, for example "You'd need the application development options under server roles" would add to searchability (and in theory accessibility), probably meet the ...
The audits do take a little longer to load. If I remember correctly the bad "suggested edit" audits are generated on the fly by inserting junk phrases into otherwise-good posts, and that requires some CPU time to make it happen (in addition to all the other "audit" bookkeeping the system needs to do).
(Good suggested edit audits are pulled from a list of ...
The latter I would reject - the question is old, has (accepted) answers and there is no evidence that the edit is by the OP. I'm not sure if the anonymous user would get an custom reject message but I might add one advising them to ask their own question.
The former ... it's a train wreck. The edit partially answers the original question badly and then re ...
I agree with RobM's comment, the original version doesn't seem unfriendly. I don't think your edit is terrible - if I'd seen it I think I'd probably have approved it - but I think the answer is fine as it is and that's apparently what the two reviewers thought. (And since the reject reason is boilerplate, you can't read too much into it.)
This seems utterly bizarre: if I have rights to edit posts unilaterally without approval, shouldn't I still have rights to approve low-rep users' edits unilaterally as well?
And you do. Just click "Improve" when reviewing the edit, make some minor change (or lots of major changes, if the edit you're approving didn't go far enough), and click Save ...
Based on the comments received on this question I believe we can conclude that:
The particular suggested edit can for some reason only be reviewed by moderators.
There is consensus that the edit should be rejected.
Before I flag the answer in question for moderator attention I will wait for a few days to see if anybody else have anything to add about the ...
Oh, look, one of mine.
The reason why I rejected it is because it was a fairly trivial edit on a very old post, and in general bumping old questions to the top of the home page for nothing more than minor edits is frowned upon. If it's survived for seven years in its current state, you've really got to wonder how bad could it be, really?
That edit suggestion is for an answer to a locked question. Apparently, it was submitted 25 minutes before the question was locked.
Only ♦ mods can edit locked questions or answers to them. I would assume that the review code determined that, since you're not allowed to edit the answer, you should also not be permitted to review edits to it. Which ...
I only jump in since no-one else has included a subtlety I find important (if slightly orthogonal): how old is the post you're editing?
For a case like this, where it's a day old, I thought the edit was helpful, and I would've approved it; in-lining an image is a helpful thing to do. For posts that are only a few minutes old, I'm OK with even less-...
What has recently changed is
2012-10-16: The number of reviews required to accept/reject suggested edits has been increased to two Network wide (versus 1 before) and three on Stack Overflow. (versus 2 before)
Moderators can still cast final vote like before
As I understand it, in particular the edit reviews on SO were appalling with even blatant spam ...
Should we do something about these minor edits?
Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged and should be rejected when you encounter them in the review queue.
Although it is a good thing to edit and improve incorrect and outdated content the main disadvantage is that even a minor edit (on an older Q&A) bumps it to front page. So make your edits count on ...
It appears the answer in my particular case was:
Wait for somebody else to approve the edit.
Then click on edit to correct the mistake I had previously approved.
It might be the particular corner case I ran into is rare enough that it is ok to let mistakes slip through in that case, even though it could have been corrected before it got applied.
Not in regards to the two examples (handling them has been covered well by pauska and Iain).
If the edit is obviously by the OP, I generally approve it and try to merge the accounts if the edit was not by "anonymous".
If there's reasonably doubt that the edit was not by the OP, then I generally reject with a message saying to login first.