I asked a question on Skeptics which was edited by two moderators to remove content that I added on purpose for several reasons. Let me first break down my reasons and explain why I did what I did.
- I purposely used the phrase "red giant" in the title because that is a more specific way of referring to the future of our Sun. "collapse of the Sun" can mean many things (example supernova). So that is more misleading in my opinion. Also, whenever any modern astronomer thinks of the future of our Sun, they always use one of two phrases to describe it - "red giant" or "white dwarf". But this latter point is subjective of course.
- My title also did not specifically include the term "predict the future collapse" because I wanted a slightly more general take on what Hinduism's stance was on the Sun becoming a red giant.
- The (har har) at the beginning may be a bit questionable due to it probably being a bit too snarky. I put that there because blogs are usually full of conspiracy theories and usually provide no form of rational analysis. Since the article I was referencing was a blog article, this implied some irony in the situation. But I completely understand why anyone would remove this.
- I purposely extracted the specific sentence of interest to me. If anybody edits this, they are altering reality since, for the scope of the question at hand, my interest lies solely in that sentence I excerpted. Quoting the specific sentence of interest also has the added benefit of being more concise. I was careful to quote the sentence to imply that this was in the middle of another larger sentence. If anyone wants to read the entire thing, the source was right there anyway.
- "Hollow claim" and "false claim" are two different things. I used "hollow claim" to imply that the claim may not have any substance to it in the context used. "False claim" simply means that the claim may not true in the context used.
- The "Why?" at the end was asking for reasons why whoever was reading thought that this is coincidence. While this is more nitpicky, I purposely included this because I do not want people to just call this coincidence without explaining why. Removing this, removes that constraint. But considering that this is Skeptics, this is more or less implied I guess. But I still want it there for the previously mentioned reason.
What really irks me about this whole situation is that the edits included several things that I do not agree with. When I roll it back, I do so for a reason. If further edits are necessary, why not just leave a comment with the intended corrections explaining why?! This goes even further when a mod rolls back my rollback and then locks it. This just seemed like an abuse of power to me. If a comment was left, it would only promote civil discussion on the matter. (But maybe a discussion on meta is more appropriate.)
You may argue that the comments left behind by the editors are a form of these comments. Well, no.
- "Followed obvious link to source." - This is the only one that makes sense to me. This was a pretty stupid oversight on my part.
- "Cited a bit more context to have it make sense." - No. This just adds text that, for the scope of the question, is not of interest to me. For context, the reader can always refer to the article. The context is actually irrelevant to the question since the section is actually referring to the Hiranyagarbha's coalescence due to the Sun expanding to swallow life on Earth. The emphasized part means that the context used the said statement as a priori knowledge to make another point.
- "Made title match claim." - No. The title does not match my claim due to the formerly stated reasons.
Even if you still argue that all/most of this is wrong, why not just leave a comment explaining why and give me a chance to decide whether that is actually the case or not? How can you with 100% certainty predict that your corrected question is actually the question I intended to ask? There is so much subtlety involved that this is impossible. However, I am not claiming that my question is 100% correct. I had many oversights and unclear sections. I welcome comments on what edits to make in the question as long as the reasons are convincing.