I apologize beforehand if this seems inappropriate, especially coming from a new user.

Please view this link before I proceed: molecular orbital theory explaining molecular orbitals

[P.S. : I've kept the original title of the question]

Now, as you can see, this question has severe formatting issues and doesn't even have proper grammar as referenced by the comment: Comment (for reference)

I proceeded to edit this to the best I probably could and made it much more readable (in my opinion, views may differ from person to person)

The edit got rejected as seen in the following link: Rejected Edit

The person (Moderator) who commented, suggested that the OP use proper punctuation and spelling. The person further suggested that the question is "really hard to comprehend".

In my editing, I managed to eliminate all of these issues (again, it's my personal view) and the edit got rejected by two people, citing "This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability".

I firmly disagree with this reasoning, as all of the errors pointed out in the comment have largely been corrected. I recognize that these edits are supposed to be edited by the OP itself, as that helps them to understand how one should ask a question on this wonderful site. But, since the OP wasn't editing, I took the liberty and edited it, as I myself was interested in proper answers to this question.

I also realize that quite a few of my previous edits were not upto the standards and I fully and wholeheartedly accept that the edits were simply wrong, or were not required (i.e. were superfluous). Those edits were further edited in a really nice way by other people and I learnt a lot from those edits and how one should go about them.

However, I disagree with the edit rejection this particular time.

This is strictly my view and I'm not calling out anyone. I simply want to understand, in more detail, why my edit was rejected, as the reasons cited are not sufficient, IMO.

Here are some of the edits which I had proposed and the action taken on them: My Activity.

Also, to keep everything transparent, because of my last rejected edit (i.e. the one before this particular edit), I have been temporarily suspended from editing. This is just for reference.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that I really enjoy using this site and I often spend hours reading the answers to some of the questions. This post simply seeks a clarification and I hope I'm not offending anyone.

A huge thanks to anyone who reads this post! And another huge thanks to the community! :D

Any criticism and/or suggestion is welcome!

I also apologize for any inadvertent errors that may have crept up in this post. Please feel free to point them out, and I'll correct them immediately.

| |
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I probably would have approved the edit, but I would also have edited over it. Here are a few hints: element and chemical names are not capitalised, the same goes for bonding, antibonding, and similar words. (I usually reject those edits, too.) It sometimes is just too much work to fix an edit, especially when the question itself is of rather poor quality. Don't use a blockquote, if it is not a quote. Cut down the fluff, try to streamline it down as well as possible. Use markup sparingly, remove overuses. Give it a meaningful title - that is probably most important. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jun 26 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ Hi @Martin-γƒžγƒΌγƒγƒ³ ! I really appreciate your comment! The suggestions are duly noted! I'll keep all of your suggestions in mind (Maybe even bookmark this comment! :D). Thanks for taking some time out and giving these useful points! $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 26 at 13:29

I agree with much of what Martin said. In fact, I don't think it's that much work to edit your edit. (Sadly, I personally don't spend any time in the review queues anymore.) What I would have changed are exactly the things that Martin has already pointed out:

  1. Blockquotes should be used for direct quotations (e.g. quoting from an article/book), not just to make something stand out.

  2. Don't capitalise nouns randomly; they shouldn't be capitalised unless they're names.

  3. You can get to the point: you don't need to write "my question is...", you can just ask it. On Stack Exchange, concise phrasing is a Good Thing. It lets people see quickly whether they can answer it or not. (Of course, this shouldn't come at the expense of actual content.)

  4. Having edited the question and the tags, you could do the title too. That's arguably the most important part of the question, since it's the only part of the question that many people will ever see.

You might also be interested in What are some basic guidelines for good edits on Chem.SE?.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for that @Orthocresol ! I'll keep these things in mind! A great emphasis is placed on titles and I should have understood it earlier. Thank you for your suggestions! $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 26 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ One clarification: In the meta post you have mentioned, someone has said thank you and other salutations are generally not preferred. Does the same apply to Meta as well? $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 26 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ No, meta is much more informal, pretty much anything goes. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Jun 26 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ Okay. I'll keep it in mind! $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 26 at 13:58

I rejected your edit - and others attributed to you recently, specifically - for the following reasons (mostly, your grasp of capitalization and punctuation is lacking):

(1) Your edit

I am a high-school student, and I am confused in Molecular Orbital Theory.

contains superfluous information ("high-school (sic) student", please note the correct spelling is "high school") and improper capitalization;

(2) Your edit

My confusion is:

is a colloquialism and should be avoided here;

(3) Your edit

non bonding

should be "non-bonding," and the rest of the quote contains numerous capitalization errors and at least one more hyphen is missing;

(4) Your edit

For example:

should not have a colon but read "For example,";

(5) Your edit beginning with

when we fill the electrons in an $\ce{O2}$ molecule

is vague and not grammatically correct, and includes incorrect punctuation and does not include necessary hyphens;

(6) Your edit

Please explain this in very simple language without going into the mathematics. Are Bonding and Anti Bonding Orbitals really formed from constructive and destructive interference?

is, again, lacking in proper capitalization and use of hyphens; and finally, most importantly:

(7) The question is terrible anyway, and no amount of editing - including your insufficient contribution - is going to save it from being closed as homework. I especially dislike questions where the OP didn't take the time to even take a swing at posting something that doesn't look like a child's text message, and this example fits that bill.

| |
  • $\begingroup$ Hi @Todd Minehardt! Thanks for your thoughts! Here's what I have to say: (1) You're absolutely right. 'High-school' is an adjective and should have been used instead of 'high school'. My apologies for that! (2) I'm not really sure if it's a colloquialism here. It's definitely not a slang, so I'm unsure about that. I'll still take it positively and avoid using it in future. (3) I fully agree. It should have been 'non-bonding' and not 'non bonding'. Again, regarding the capitalization thing, I have carefully read what Martin, orthocresol and what you have had to say and the only thing I (cont..) $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 27 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ (cont...)(3) can say is that I'll make sure I don't use it in the future. (4) I agree completely - 'For example, ...' is more appropriate and is much better to look at. (5) and (6) Again, same as (3). I won't use improper capitalization again! :D (7) I understand that, but I don't think that this was 'homework' - even in the general sense. The OP (my views, again) was trying to ask a 'conceptual' question regarding the simultaneity of the molecular orbital formation and as I have mentioned, even I was interested in the answer, so, I corrected it. (cont..) $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 27 at 8:25
  • $\begingroup$ (cont...) . Our views may not match and I really respect your opinion and I really will try to incorporate all of the things which you three have mentioned and will try to be a better help to the community in the future. Thanks for taking the time out and actually getting down to the nitty-gritty of my mistakes - I sure learnt a lot from all three of you! Again, this post was not a rant and/or a revenge post - it simply was meant to understand where I went wrong. My apologies if you got offended in any way! $\endgroup$ – Firefox1921 Jun 27 at 8:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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