(a. Took me some time to find this, as the title didn't relate to me)
(b. tl;dr - Short answer to your question here at the end)
First off all, I'm very thankful to you (@CJ Dennis) and several other for all the work on improving spelling and grammar of my posts, as I'm neither native English nor careful enough when typing (blaming it on my lousy tablet keyboard is just a way to avoid responsibility).
Nonetheless I do think before writing (and posting) so sections are there for a reason. And the line between improving grammar and changing meaning is a blurry one.
I feel that Stack Exchange is about answering questions other people have. Not giving a lecture or editing Wikipedia. If I want to do this, I'd spend more time over there. Answering a question means to me going thru whatever has been asked and putting my reply into context. This is reflected by a style to quote separate issues and replying to each, which is BTW a good way too keep third party readers focused. Long texts without referring to the questions will lead to a lesser understanding of why and about an issue.
I also try to answer in a rather informal, conversational style, as it's not a lecture from above, but a reply on peer level. Directly answering the poster of the question(s) also may enhance readability by a third party by not being dry as toast.
I would feel that you, as someone interested in the (English) language as it seems, do understand that human language isn't always simple and logic but includes a lot of redundancy to work properly.
Now, for the answer in question, you (@CJ Dennnis) did not only delete citations of questions of the OP, but also rather relevant answers.
The first part is a classic example of RTFM. He already points to a well written piece about floppy formatting, just to turn around to request other people to spend time for him to answer what already has been said. Sure, that part could have been dropped, although I do not believe that ignoring that is the right way.
But more important, it goes along with the second citation, which points out a common misunderstanding about magnetic media 'young' folks often show. Coming from a world where drivers present nice byte sized views and 'living' in a programming world where everything is handled and properly stored in discrete byte wide cells, they often assume that such cells must also be a property of tapes and disks. I've come across this more than just once, and the question poster seems to have fallen for the same folly.
I did on purpose choose a more direct address to make sure it gets delivered instead of being buried under a cartload of words.
I could think of some fine tuning, but that would still stay true to the stylistic expression used. But when your editing came, I stayed away from further improving the post, as I do not want to fuel an edit war with several concurring versions. Even though some changes are needed for readability.
Now for the editing process you started. I can only thank you again for your work on spelling and grammar, as it's much appreciated. You also inserted some words I wouldn't have used, but I believe that my command of the English language may still need improvement. Your deletion of the two paragraphs made me think about their necessity, but as described before, I still see them as needed part in relation to the question(s) asked. Therefore I accepted your edit and reinserted that part (it was less effort that way than the edit option in accepting).
What's not appreciated is that you tried to force your changes onto my answer afterwards. Again and again. Even after me using the revert option 'does not reflect the intention of the OP'. I would have expected you to understand it. I have used the possible formal ways (editing comment and said option) to communicate my stance. Until that point I thought of the whole process as friendly and felt being part of the community. But when the answer got changed again, this ended and I felt bullied.
Stack Exchange doesn't offer many ways to reach other contributors direct or private at all. But when I discovered the chat I even tried to defuse it with opening a 'special' chat and asking you directly if there's any reason to act like it was perceived by me. Your answer came in a rather bossy and quite passive aggressive way, adding to my unease.
Mind you, that using chat was new even to you (as your question in a comment above shows)? So you should have anticipated, that I didn't know about it either. And maybe wait some time. Well, I found it :)) And at least your defensive chat answer included the words 'asked on Meta' which after some thinking brought me here.
The whole affair makes me feel quite unwelcome at Retrocomputing. I just have been pointed here recently by a friend, since I'm into computers since the 70s and gathered some knowledge afterwards. My intention is to help if I can, but not to waste time on useless games that I already skipped decades ago on usenet et al.
I do invest some valuable time in writing answers (as you do editing my lousy spelling), but there's a feeling looming that it's not worth it, if my answers get damaged in content. If you disagree with something on a factual level, i.e. think I'm writing rubbish, feel free to add a comment and be assured, I will muse about and usually incorporate it. Promised.
Last but not least: I believe Stack Exchange is an international medium. So being aware of and acceptance of different ways to express some topic should be embraced or at least tolerated.
TL;DR: If there is no profanity or clearly off-topic parts, and the original poster already rejected your edit (or parts thereof) as damaging the post, show some respect and go along.
I sincerely wish to end this now and concentrate with on-topic questions as I would love to contribute more to Retrocomputing at Stack Exchange.
