0

The rejected:

https://chess.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/19534

https://chess.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/19535

The approved:

https://chess.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/19538

https://chess.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/19539

In particular for the excerpt history, the approved one is

Robert Hübner (born 1948) is a German chess grandmaster, chess writer, and papyrologist. He was one of the world's leading players in the 1970s and early 1980s.

while my rejected one is

Robert Hübner (born November 6, 1948) is a German chess grandmaster, chess writer, and papyrologist. He was one of the world's leading players in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Note re tag wiki bio's: I've also been approved for similar edits for the ff tags i created: , , ,

  • I guess I'm about to be rejected for

https://chess.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/19545

1
8
  1. Have you read why I rejected those edits, in particular the useful links about what tag excerpts and wikis should contain?

  2. Why do you insist on submitting similarly worded texts, instead of taking the advice in those rejections into account?

  3. I'm not even sure every grandmaster needs his or her own tag. Tags should indicate what a question is about (i.e. analysis of an endgame), not what a question contains (i.e. a game by Robert Hübner). To clean up rarely used (and therefore not useful tags), there is an automated process and adding tag wikis/excerpts actually prevents that process from working properly.

  4. Not every user is strictly applying the review rules for tag wikis and excerpts. Many will think: "this looks good, and it's better to have a tag wiki/excerpt than none". This is not true, see the above. In perhaps similar spirit, I sometimes improve existing tag wikis/excerpts by fixing spelling mistakes or broken links.

9
  • do you disagree with Brian Towers♦ ? i mean is it possible you are both correct/in agreement? the only difference i see is the november thing. i don't see how it's possible that you are both correct/in agreement. i think there has to be a disagreement/that someone is incorrect.
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 9:59
  • Re 3, you're a mod, so why don't you just remove all the tags robert-hubner, wesley-so, carlsen, botez ?
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 10:00
  • Note my question is not 'Why did Glorfindel♦ reject my edit for the robert-hubner tag?' my question is 'Why did Glorfindel♦ reject my edit for the robert-hubner tag but Brian Towers♦ approved a similar edit?'
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 10:01
  • 2
    I think that's not the right question to ask. It doesn't matter that we're both moderators. It could have equally been "Why did userA and userB reject this edit, while userC and userD approved it?".
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Aug 18 '21 at 10:33
  • are you refusing to answer the questions? (1- disagree with Brian Towers♦ 2 - 'Re 3, you're a mod...')
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 19:34
  • 'Why do you insist on submitting similarly worded texts, instead of taking the advice in those rejections into account?' --> because of my previous approved stuff eg see my edit to include: Note re tag wiki bio's: I've also been approved for similar edits for the ff tags i created: akiba-rubinstein, botez, wesley-so, waitzkin --> are any of these tags wrong to have on the site? or are any of their descriptions currently wrong even though they were not only approved but also approved by a moderator?
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 19:35
  • 3
    The title of your question and the first sentence suggests that it's important that we're both moderators. I've answered it as far as I could; I do not have a crystal ball and cannot know what others' reasons are to make certain review decisions. I can only explain mine.
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Aug 18 '21 at 19:51
  • wait are you seriously still refusing to answer the questions? 1- disagree with Brian Towers♦ 2 - 'Re 3, you're a mod...' 3 - 'are any of these tags wrong...' 4 - and now another. re 'It doesn't matter that we're both moderators.' --> afaik moderators get to make the rules. the approval of brian towers yet your subsequent rejection sounds like a contradiction in the rules. one of you has violated a rule of permissibility/forbiddenness that another follows/creates. am i wrong?
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 21:46
  • 2
    I'm trying to give you information so that you can find out the answer yourself (teaching you to fish). Moderators don't make the rules; communities do, moderators just enforce them (together with the rest of the community; we simply have more/better tools). We don't disagree; see Brian's honest answer. And there's absolutely no hurry to remove/revert things immediately, it's not like the world is going to break from this. It's better to clarify things first.
    – Glorfindel Mod
    Aug 19 '21 at 6:11
5

Why did ... Brian Towers approve a similar edit?

We all make mistakes.

3
  • so why aren't you now reverting the edit or something?
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 19:25
  • also how come you've approved similar edits of mine before? eg akiba rubinstein
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 19:26
  • wait do you mean it was a mistake at the time you made the approval? eg like you were not checking so carefully and mistakenly pressed approve or approved the wrong thing? or you realise now it was a mistake to have approved? (not that i consider it a mistake)
    – BCLC
    Aug 18 '21 at 19:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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