OK, I kinda get it. You consider edits that you evaluate to be superfluous to be annoying or harmful. This is besides the main issue of accessibility or whatever here. So you object if some edit was only editing "soem" to "some" in a long enough post. The opposition to your argument also consists of two points: 1) If an edit in a long answer corrects a simple typo, why is it "annoying" or worse, should be rolled back? If an edit's only improving the post very slightly, why is it bad? and 2) Accessibility.
All blood in the body is red, although the shade of red varies. Blood in veins isn't blue, even though in illustrations of the circulatory system the veins are traditionally colored blue. When we look at the veins close to the surface of our body, such as those in our hands, they do appear to be blue in color. The blue appearance is caused the behavior of light as it enters and leaves the body through the skin and not by the the blood itself.
"White" light from the sun or an artificial light source is a mixture of all of the colors in the visible spectrum. The colo…
I feel like you should really only roll back if the edits made are either damaging (they incorporate incorrect information or deface the existing information) or if they incorporate incorrect information and a rollback fixes that.
An edit that improves the post, even if somewhat superfluous, is honestly fine. Now, if you're suggesting superfluous edits, you should better spend your time suggesting meaningful ones.
Also this is a debate that has raged since the early days of SE (what exactly counts as a constructive/minor/major edit), it's not going to be solved here.
Thou shalt not disturb thine blurred flower. If thine will is to be smote from this platform, you need only continue down this wayward path, unburdened by warnings from your surrounding peers.
I seem to be hearing that a fire at a fireworks warehouse ignited a whole lot of old ammonium nitrate that had been sitting confiscated for several years
