Why was this edit rejected?

Question

I recently asked this question, to which I have gotten three excellent answers. One of them contained somewhat of a spoiler, to which one user wrote a comment that spoilers should be put into the appropriate spoiler tags.

I suggested an edit, which puts the relevant part into spoiler tags and clarifies some phrasing. To my confusion, one person approved this edit, while two rejected them.

The reasons for rejection are unclear to me. One states that it "clearly conflicts with the author's intent", while the other states that "that type of markdown ('<') is reserved for quotations."

I don't understand how putting something that the OP themselves considers a spoiler into a spoiler tag is "going against the author's intent". Furthermore, how is the usage of a spoiler tag (>!) "only reserved for quotations"? Is there any rule that states only spoilers that directly correlate to something spoken or written can be put into spoiler tags?

Answer 1

One of those rejections was mine.
I rejected the edit since - like Unionhawk mentions in the comments - it didn't show up as a spoiler, but as a block quote, and nowhere in the post was mention of a quotation. That's why I added the comment that "that type of markdown ('<') is reserved for quotations" (obviously, it should have been "'>'"...).
Another part of the problem is that I didn't check the comments, which would have elucidated matters.

I beg your pardon for the conflicting signals.

Answer 2

I was one of those who rejected your edit from the review queue. The main reason is: I don't think most of the answer should've been hidden under spoiler markup / formatting. As per the top-voted answer in this meta post: Is editing a question to use the Spoiler format acceptable?:

The question and the answers must make sense and be complete without using spoiler tags. Even if the spoiler is a major one, it should not be protected if that's the very piece of spoiler the question is about.

Aside from that, you've removed this text from the author's original answer. I don't see why removing this text improves the answer:

Boars as a general rule are none aggro and you may want to avoid hitting them as they are a lot tougher in A18

You also reworded many parts of the answer that didn't really need fixing. e.g. I don't see why "The following may be a spoiler, but there is one location which contains a high amount of rotten flesh" is much better than "May be a bit of a spoiler, if you want a fair bit of rotten flesh fairly fast..." Most of your edits to the answer are unnecessary rewording, IMHO. Try to avoid unnecessary rewording when you edit. Do not edit most of a post to be hidden inside spoiler markup.

Answer 3

The edit was correctly rejected as "clearly conflits with author's intent". The directions to follow are changed by the edit, the information about the secret area was changed by the edit, the tips about boars were removed by the edit, and the quest that can be used to reset area was removed by the edit.

Edits are only meant to change formatting, syntax, spelling, most everything that is not actual content, but this edit changed the information provided in several ways.

Answer 4

Sorry for the randomness my little post caused. I would have edited it myself however after registering I no longer owned the post so could not edit. Issue resolved now, thanks galacticninja.

Also for the confusion with directions which I thought were correct, I maybe mistakenly assumed most people would have the same thoughts about road directions as myself, i class the first offshoot as a junction (an intersection of roads especially where one terminates) and the second would be a crossroads (a road that crosses a main road) so can see how the information may be taken in a different context, I should have just stated to turn right at the second junction.

Cheers.