Here is the Question the got reopened: Eating onions can harm Angels?

The mod was correct when he closed it for being a dup. although it is about Onion, the answer is clearly in this question "Eating garlic before visiting the masjid - ambiguous hadith"

Ok, let's say closing it as a duplicate was not a wise decision. Why was it edited without even consulting with OP nor informing him about the edit?

Please don't do this again. if you insist on doing this, then please read these before trying to edit something not written by you:

| |
  • 2
    Which edit do you mean? The one about angels seems to have been done by the OP and then subsequent edits were just to add tags and fix capitalization/punctuation. – Daniel Jun 17 '14 at 15:24
  • 2
    You even reviewed that edit and approved it. – Daniel Jun 17 '14 at 15:28
  • 2
    @Daniel that edit was mostly done by OP but since it was anonymous I was leaning towards rejecting, instead left it for the community to decide. – Bleeding Fingers Jun 17 '14 at 15:37
  • 1
    @Daniel, as bleeding finger said, the edit is by OP but the OP made a msitake by trying to edit his question without logging in. so I accepted the edit for him. – Sohaeb Jun 17 '14 at 17:01
  • 1
    Here is a chat discussion where @Daniel state his opinion on this chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/16125840#16125840 – Sohaeb Jun 17 '14 at 17:39

Why was this question reopened and then edited without asking the OP?

The question was reopened by the community who judged it not to be a duplicates. After it was opened it needed some appropriate editing and incorrect tag fixes. OP is not supposed to be consulted for every edit. And if they don't feel the edit was right they can roll back or reverse the nuance shifting changes. Alls good. No problem.

Why was it edited by another user without even consulting with OP nor informing him about the edit?

It was anonymously edited, the community (which include you) figured that it was a worthwhile edit plus it seemed to have been edit by OP her/himself. So again no problem with that. Plus the edit didn't put the question off track. It was on the line with the comment and the initial duplicate close down.

In regards to the meta links that you provided to support your statement.

Hence both don't support your assertion.

close it for being unclear

Is this true or can this be a cultural belief ?


can onions harm angels, and how?

ain't unclear I suppose.

| |
  • -1, "OP is not supposed to be consulted for every edit". How would you feel if I go around your questions and change them as I wish to suit my answers? Not to mention the chaos that would happen in Islam.SE if users decide to adopt this style. – Sohaeb Jun 17 '14 at 16:56
  • As for the rest, I didn't see any meta discussion around to know what the community have decided. All I have is the user who edited the question asking you in chat – Sohaeb Jun 17 '14 at 16:57
  • @Sohaeb That's just how it works here. Bleeding Fingers is correct that the OP is not supposed to be consulted for every edit. As it says in the help page, "We believe in the power of community editing. That means once you've generated enough reputation, we trust you to edit anything in the system without it going through peer review. Not just your posts—anyone's posts!" – Daniel Jun 17 '14 at 17:05
  • @Daniel, I agree. But i'm talking about this case in particular. OP added source identification tag because he is looking for a source. you can't just change his question. I once tried to change a questions but bleeding finger himself rejected my edit and said:"we are not allowed to change anything". How come it is acceptable now? – Sohaeb Jun 17 '14 at 17:09
  • @Sohaeb You can ask about the particular change you wanted to make. Perhaps that change wasn't appropriate. But these changes were all just fine. – Daniel Jun 17 '14 at 17:10
  • @Daniel sorry, just updated my comment to include the reason he gave me – Sohaeb Jun 17 '14 at 17:11
  • @Sohaeb Let's continue this in chat if you want. – Daniel Jun 17 '14 at 17:12

This question was closed by the community as a duplicate mainly judged by the fact that it was about source identification. But I thought the tag didn't seem to have a clear reference point in the actual question. If it did, then the decision was right to close it as a duplicate, because there's already an answer to a question with an identical subject.

But it also seemed to me that the OP was actually wondering about the interpretation: how onions can really harm angels. So I decided to edit the question to save it from closure for duplicate and turning it into a useful question which could be uniquely answered. So I made a minor albeit consequential edit and added and removed , and in my answer also linked the previous question that would also cover the source-identification, in case it was necessary.

But now I see that in response to your protest my tag edits are rolled back. But I'd done those specific edits to acquit the question of duplicate nature and closure, and turn it into something of value and usefulness.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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