I am referring to this edit to my answer by a moderator. The edit has removed many useful info from the post. Of course I've just copied and pasted most of my answer from the source which I had mentioned there, but all of the info was required.

I wouldn't care about that and would have reverted the edit, but since it was by a moderator, I would like to ask if the edits should remove such info or not?

  • 3
    What specific useful information do you feel the edit removed? The reason I combined the first list with the second was that it was very redundant and kind of overly verbose. Portions of the requirements could be succinctly said in a sentence instead of a list ("You need Windows and your phone needs to be charged"). A couple of steps in the second list simply said things like "Do what the list says above". I didn't see the point in that, but the information is still there, just not in the same exact order. Admittedly, another reason was to help mitigate potential copyright issues. Mar 24, 2014 at 2:32
  • 2
    I think you're lucky eldarerathis chose to spend his time editing your post instead of just deleting it. You can't just paste other people's work wholesale: you'll get the site into trouble.
    – Dan Hulme
    Mar 24, 2014 at 9:03
  • I did not think about copyright issue and I think if I've mentioned the source it should be sufficient. Anyways my point here is to just understand the invalid edits properly. I have no problem in admitting that the new answer looks better. But is it allowed to modify the answer to remove points you think are redundant or not required. I thought the process was to ask the op to correct it themselves in comments. I just need answer to fulfill my curiosity :-)
    – noob
    Mar 24, 2014 at 10:37
  • 3
    It looks like a good edit to me. "Redundant" means that it's not necessary. Removing redundant information won't change the meaning of a post.
    – ale
    Mar 24, 2014 at 15:06

1 Answer 1


Just so you have an answer: Dan and Al are correct. Unfortunately, simply linking the source isn't enough any more than a movie torrent is legal if you list the publisher's name.

Anything repeated or not useful is certainly game for removal by an edit. We have edits much for that reason — fixing typos and such is nice, but substantial edits are even better. Removing useful information is bad, but you seem to be agreed now that that did not in fact happen.

  • This explains the things very well. I was just plain unaware about this issue. The reason I've posted the copied content is to not just post the URL which I've found out that it'll be counted as a low quality post. Thanks for the answer, it's really helpful.
    – noob
    Mar 25, 2014 at 10:36
  • @proGamer No problem! Mar 25, 2014 at 12:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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