As the reviewer who rejected: I saw that you replaced the entire quote with a different quote (from a different wiki page to boot). While your updated quote and link may be helpful, by editing someone else's answer you effectively put words in that someone else's mouth. As per the (canned) rejection reason:
This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer
I believed this edit would've been better as it's own answer, and with a comment on the original answer explaining that it was out of date.
And don't worry, you're not alone! this situation is something that comes up occasionally:
Your edit was rejected because it changed too much of the answer... You replaced the original answer with yours.
Why do people destroy helpful edits to answers?
In short, your edit wasn't a matter of style, or fixing typos; you were fundamentally changing the content of the answer. And that's generally not cool. If you think an answer is wrong, you can downvote it, you can comment on it to let the answerer know, or you can post your own answer...
Why was my edit rejected as incorrect?
In your case, what you were addressing is a subset of 'link rot' - where a linked resource is no longer available (or in this case has radically changed). This is why we dislike link-only answers and prefer that a source is summarised/quoted and only used as a reference. In a way we're lucky that the OP even quoted the wiki in the first place!
As for the content itself: Is the old quote wrong, other than no longer existing as a quotable source? If it's still valid, what harm is there in leaving the quote there? If the link is 404'd you could edit it out and simply add something like "originally from the Elder Scrolls Wikia (since removed)".
If the information is invalid then downvote it, leave a comment to say why you downvoted, and potentially add a new answer with the updated information & quote.