The edit with approval system requires three people to participate. There was a decision made in the beginning that three people should not get bogged down in small edits that could be easily performed by one person. I.e. it is easier for one person to change "i" to "I" than for two people to review the same change.
Here is an example of one of your edits that was rejected. As best I can tell, what happened is that before the edit suggestion was submitted, someone else started an edit. Since that person had sufficient reputation to make an edit without review, that edit took place immediately and bounced your edit out of the queue.
If your edit suggestion had already been submitted, then when the second person clicked the edit link, it would have gone to the review of your edit. So that person would have either had to improve or reject the edit to make an edit. I suppose it is possible that the second person used some kind of edit method that bypassed that (e.g. starting with the tag edit). That could explain an edit rejection like this one where the time is very different. Or even this where the time is closer. But this one just seems to have been unlucky timing.
Figuring out exactly what happened is complicated by the practice of edit merging. If someone uses "Edit Tags" to make an edit and then uses the regular facility to edit the post, the system merges the two edits into one.
Another example: you added indent to the first line of the code block, which didn't need it. That's a common error. If someone starts a code block and then pastes the code block, it only adds indent to the first line (the recommended workflow is to paste the code, select it, and then put the whole thing in a code block at once). So it is common to have to add indent to every line but the first.
The last part of this edit was just wrong. You should not prettify people's code for them by editing one line into multiple lines. If it's an issue, post an answer explaining why. Personally, I disagree with the indent change as well, but that's more controversial.
This edit was incorrect, as discussed in the comments.