Question: I notice that there have been a bunch of edits in the queue recently to the effect of removing one curse word. I understand that profanity in general should be avoided, but is there a lower boundary on how much is worthy of an edit? I mean, if the bad word in question (damn) occurs once and is irrelevant to the meaning of the question, like in some of the proposed edits, should we be approving those edits?

So far, I've been approving them, but they feel a bit frivolous, especially when the edit has a more forceful description to the tune of "no offensive language is welcome here"... I read this ([To summarily edit out offensive language?](https://music.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2358/45266)), but I'm asking more about the super-trivial edits for isolated, comparatively tame words. Especially when it really seems like no one could take offense to it.

I meant edits like this:

[![Proposed Edit](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T9OUP.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/T9OUP.png)

Although this wasn't a great example of the "no offensive language is welcome here" type comment.

For that, see this (a related question about a slightly more extreme case): [Edits: Foul Language in a song warranting removal of link?](https://music.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3199/45266)

Answer: 
I sense that there's some badge-hunting taking place. I get it; I think most of us, to varying degrees, have been guilty of that at some point in our careers here. But I disagree with the tactic in question: making grandiose claims of something being "very offensive" (or `viio` and `Eb` being "extremely confusing," with edits of `vii°` and `E♭`). (Worse still is a particular answer of mine that seems to attract a different suggested edit about every other week or so, but that's a discussion for another time.)

If memory serves, I reject all of these types of edits unless the edit removes superfluous text.

As an example, see [Me and the grand staff: how to achieve pacific coexistence](https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/30596/me-and-the-grand-staff-how-to-achieve-pacific-coexistence); as I see it, the original opening didn't add anything to the question and could be regarded as the "fluff" discussed in meta questions like [What is the etiquette for modifying posts?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11474/what-is-the-etiquette-for-modifying-posts)

But even then, I admit that such "fluff" doesn't really bother me. Frankly, I think it adds character to the post and helps us get into the shoes of the questioner. Sometimes it can be valuable to sense their frustration, but I may be in the minority on that front.
I am not against editing out even soft profanities (unless such an edit causes harm to the post), but I myself am unlikely to initiate such an edit for something like a single occurrence of "damn."

That said, I usually will accept such edit suggestions. I think that we strive for a certain tone of professionalism in the content here, and removing profanities always feels like a nudge in the right direction to me, and hence an improvement in the post.

But, if such an edit actually changes the poster's meaning or otherwise harms the post, the edit should be rejected. This is the case [for the edit referenced in your other question](https://music.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3199/edits-foul-language-in-a-song-warranting-removal-of-link). Trying to edit profanities from a title or a quotation, or removing a link to material germane to the question altogether would actively cause harm.