I noticed one in the queue. I don't believe we "correct" other people's comments since sources and conditions may differ. But another comment can be added to the same plant.

And you can click cirectly below a comment where it says "reply to this comment" and add other information.

I agree ... I wouldn't feel right "correcting" someone else's comment and don't think that should be an allowable feature. It's much better to leave a separate comment of ones own with additional information.

This is why "Edit this comment" proposals go through moderation. Proposing an edit to someone else's comment should generally be reserved for fixing glaring typos. Correcting wrong information is something that is better done as a reply to the comment.

In the case of the current proposal, it gently expands the location mentioned and I think that's a fine idea.

So then it doesn't change the original comment as that one appears to but is just added on to the comment or ?

Posting a reply? Yes.

I've never tried to correct someone's comments or seen that roll-over feature here so now I guess I know.

I agree that a reply or a separate comment is the only acceptable and polite option in this case, except in the case of typos, misspellings, or grammatical errors that the original poster overlooked.

I've talked with the admins and we have agreed that comments should only be edited to fix typos or gently correct grammar. I have added a note to the "Proposed edits to this comment" screen giving this information.

All admins and moderators should decline any proposal that goes beyond that for any comment edits.

Hi,
I kind of suspect that all of the forgoing discussion is related to my editing of the comment re. Mimulus tilingii var. caespitosus... ?
To explain, I edited the comment because I assumed it was intended to be done (since there was an "edit" button that anyone could use) - on most forums, unless it is intended that statements can be edited, it's simply not possible to do it.
I edited it because it was general plant information that appeared to be incorrect (it said that this variety was widespread across western North America, which is not true; the variety only occurs in BC/Wash/Ore/Idaho, according to reputable references - the regular species is however more widespread). The statement that was copied there came from the Wikipedia entry for the species, not specifically for the variety.
Since it was general plant info, and I'm sure this site aims to use correct info and IDs, I edited it and submitted the changes to the administrators (as the system allows you to do). Sorry, I didn't mean any offense by doing so.

Actually, my own policy is that I would not edit anyone's grammar or spelling on a public forum, no matter what it was like, because that may not be taken well by the original poster. Different people have different skills... so long as everyone can understand everyone else, that's all that matters. (Only species names, if mis-spelled, should be corrected within entries, IMO.) I also would not edit any personal observation that was made. However, to make a useful database, the plant info needs to be correct. As this info was not a personal observation (it was general plant info copied from Wikipedia), I thought it was allowed to edit it.
Anyway, sorry about that. Next time I will instead post another comment, as described above, if I find some incorrect data.
Lori