I have made an edit to this answer about 'Lissajous pattern simulator' to replace misleading names of two varables
yStart with more appropriate in the context
However two reviewers, Heslacher and Incomputable, rejected my proposal on the pretext of 'deviating from the original intent of the post'. Their comment additionally instructs that changes 'should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner'.
Apparently, they did it without even a second glimpse at proposed changes. My edit was fully compatible with 'the original intent of the post' and precisely followed 'the goals of the post's owner'.
I believe the change should be obvious to anybody who looks where and how these variables are used – namely, they are multiplicative factors to
time, not additive 'reference' or 'starting' point. (The starting point is defined by another variable
xTimeOffset for one direction and implicit zero for another one.) After the rejection I presented my proposal in a comment and the author of the answer admitted I was correct and made the proposed change to the code, just using
TimeScale instead of proposed
So I'd like to hear why exactly my edit was rejected.
What are the rules, allowing rejecting valid edits?
And what is a way to appeal against such rushed rejection?