Return to Answer

Easy.

The OP can't edit-war with you if you don't edit-war back.

The OP is more invested than you in the question. If you make an edit and he doesn't like it, then don't engage in an edit war with him.

If there's something that absolutely has to be dealt with, then flag the question.
  the formatting of his question does not qualify, and him making a note about a comment that was posted under his question, probably doesn't really need to be removed either.

Let the op have the (frankly, not even bad) formatting that he wants. It is him who gets the reputation modifications when his question is voted on, and it's him who needs an answer to it.

You should decide whether to flag, comment, or move on after the first time the OP reverts your edit. If you make edits after that point, YOU are the aggressor in the edit war.

• Op posts original question: no edits have been made, there is no edit war.
• You make an edit: Nothing has been reverted, no edit war.
• The OP reverts your edit: The OP decides that he doesn't want your edit in his post. He gets to make this decision, because he has more ownership of the post than you do. The reason he has more ownership is because he's more invested in the post, and he's the one who's held responsible for the post.
• You re-make the same edit: You've decided that the OP really doesn't own the post, and you're trying to take ownership of the post away from him/her. to put this in war terms, you're trying to conquer it.

Easy.

The OP can't edit-war with you if you don't edit-war back.

The OP is more invested than you in the question. If you make an edit and he doesn't like it, then don't engage in an edit war with him.

If there's something that absolutely has to be dealt with, then flag the question. The formatting of his question does not qualify, and him making a note about a comment that was posted under his question, probably doesn't really need to be removed either.

Let the OP have the (frankly, not even bad) formatting that he wants. It is him who gets the reputation modifications when his question is voted on, and it's him who needs an answer to it.

You should decide whether to flag, comment, or move on after the first time the OP reverts your edit. If you make edits after that point, YOU are the aggressor in the edit war.

• The OP posts the original question: no edits have been made, and there is no edit war.
• You make an edit: Nothing has been reverted, no edit war.
• The OP reverts your edit: The OP decides that he doesn't want your edit in his post. He gets to make this decision, because he has more ownership of the post than you do. The reason he has more ownership is because he's more invested in the post, and he's the one who's held responsible for the post.
• You re-make the same edit: You've decided that the OP really doesn't own the post, and you're trying to take ownership of the post away from him/her. To put this in war terms, you're trying to conquer it.

Easy.

The OP can't edit-war with you if you don't edit-war back.

The OP is more invested than you in the question. If you make an edit and he doesn't like it, then don't engage in an edit war with him.

If there's something that absolutely has to be dealt with, then flag the question. Re-posting the answer in his question might qualify for this, but the formatting does not.

Let the op have the (frankly, not even bad) formatting that he wants. It is him who gets the reputation modifications when his question is voted on, and it's him who needs an answer to it.

You should decide whether to flag, comment, or move on after the first time the OP reverts your edit. If you make edits after that point, YOU are the aggressor in the edit war.

• Op posts original question: no edits have been made, there is no edit war.
• You make an edit: Nothing has been reverted, no edit war.
• The OP reverts your edit: The OP decides that he doesn't want your edit in his post. He gets to make this decision, because he has more ownership of the post than you do. The reason he has more ownership is because he's more invested in the post, and he's the one who's held responsible for the post.
• You re-make the same edit: You've decided that the OP really doesn't own the post, and you're trying to take ownership of the post away from him/her. to put this in war terms, you're trying to conquer it.

Easy.

The OP can't edit-war with you if you don't edit-war back.

The OP is more invested than you in the question. If you make an edit and he doesn't like it, then don't engage in an edit war with him.

If there's something that absolutely has to be dealt with, then flag the question.
the formatting of his question does not qualify, and him making a note about a comment that was posted under his question, probably doesn't really need to be removed either.

Let the op have the (frankly, not even bad) formatting that he wants. It is him who gets the reputation modifications when his question is voted on, and it's him who needs an answer to it.

You should decide whether to flag, comment, or move on after the first time the OP reverts your edit. If you make edits after that point, YOU are the aggressor in the edit war.

• Op posts original question: no edits have been made, there is no edit war.
• You make an edit: Nothing has been reverted, no edit war.
• The OP reverts your edit: The OP decides that he doesn't want your edit in his post. He gets to make this decision, because he has more ownership of the post than you do. The reason he has more ownership is because he's more invested in the post, and he's the one who's held responsible for the post.
• You re-make the same edit: You've decided that the OP really doesn't own the post, and you're trying to take ownership of the post away from him/her. to put this in war terms, you're trying to conquer it.

Easy.

The OP can't edit-war with you if you don't edit-war back.

The OP is more invested than you in the question. If you make an edit and he doesn't like it, then don't engage in an edit war with him.

If there's something that absolutely has to be dealt with, then flag the question. Re-posting the answer in his question might qualify for this, but the formatting does not.

Let the op have the (frankly, not even bad) formatting that he wants. It is him who gets the reputation modifications when his question is voted on, and it's him who needs an answer to it.

Easy.

The OP can't edit-war with you if you don't edit-war back.

The OP is more invested than you in the question. If you make an edit and he doesn't like it, then don't engage in an edit war with him.

If there's something that absolutely has to be dealt with, then flag the question. Re-posting the answer in his question might qualify for this, but the formatting does not.

Let the op have the (frankly, not even bad) formatting that he wants. It is him who gets the reputation modifications when his question is voted on, and it's him who needs an answer to it.

You should decide whether to flag, comment, or move on after the first time the OP reverts your edit. If you make edits after that point, YOU are the aggressor in the edit war.

• Op posts original question: no edits have been made, there is no edit war.
• You make an edit: Nothing has been reverted, no edit war.
• The OP reverts your edit: The OP decides that he doesn't want your edit in his post. He gets to make this decision, because he has more ownership of the post than you do. The reason he has more ownership is because he's more invested in the post, and he's the one who's held responsible for the post.
• You re-make the same edit: You've decided that the OP really doesn't own the post, and you're trying to take ownership of the post away from him/her. to put this in war terms, you're trying to conquer it.