Remember that suggested edits require the time of two reviewers to be effective. To avoid wasting people's time, it's important that such edits should be a substantial improvement to the post. The block you've found is an automated one, which is applied to people who have had a lot of edits rejected, to avoid wasting everyone's time: both your time spent suggesting edits that aren't wanted, and the time of reviewers.
Looking through a few of your recent suggested edits, I noticed that they mainly consist of three kinds of change:-
Adding paragraph breaks after every sentence. While a big wall of text is hard to read, most questions are not improved by adding paragraph breaks, especially if you put them between every sentence. I notice that you didn't write in that style in your own question, so why would you think that change would improve everyone else's questions?
Inappropriate use of
code formatting, as in this example. It's called code formatting for a reason. It's not for emphasis, it's not for blockquotes, and it's not for the names of phone models or the name "Android" itself. Using it for text that isn't code makes posts less readable, and it confuses screen-reader software used by visually impaired people to browse the site. It's OK to use it for command-line commands (
adb sideload), and names of things in program code (
SurfaceFlinger), and other things you'd normally see on your screen in a fixed-width font, but many posts on this site shouldn't use it at all.
Replacing a word with another word that means the same, or rephrasing that doesn't add clarity. Here's one example: you've replaced "the bank tried to assist" with "The Respective bank tried to assist". The word "Respective" makes no sense at all in that context. Another one: you've replaced "I use [phone]" with "I am using [phone]". It's a completely pointless change and makes no improvement at all. One last example where you've rephrased the title of a question so that it's a statement instead of a question. The result of that is that the revised question no longer asks the question the OP wanted to ask. That makes it less clear, not more.
We do have a lot of posts on the site that are very hard to read and would benefit from substantial editing, to help the authors of those questions get better answers. In that situation, it's a shame when people start making trivial changes to posts that are already readable and understandable. It would be so much more helpful if you could focus on the posts that have real problems instead.
There are two reasons to edit a post on SE sites: when the post is in a really bad state and needs improvement to bring it up to a minimum standard; and when the post is almost perfect and can be made perfect with a little care. The edits that you've had rejected don't fall into either of those categories. They edit questions that are not perfect but acceptable and clear, and either make no change to the clarity or make the question a little less readable.
As for other sites, I can only say that reviewers are different on different sites. For example, Stack Overflow has a lot of users who are desperate to get to 2000 rep without much effort by simply spamming trivial suggested edits. Some reviewers find it saves time to just accept them rather than spend time thinking about whether the edit was worthwhile. For what it's worth, if I saw the examples I pointed out on any site where I review edits, I'd reject them there as well.
Now that you've triggered the automated block on edits, I hope that it will give you some time to take this advice on board and think about what kind of substantial improvements can be made to posts. After a short time, the block will be temporarily lifted. Suggesting good edits at that time will cause it to be permanently removed. I hope you'll take that opportunity, because we need all the help we can get to fix the posts that are genuinely low-quality.