The guidelines on general edits says: "Try to make the post substantively better when you edit, not just change a single character. Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged."
This morning in this spirit I rejected a proposed edit where something like three words had been changed which ultimately added nothing other than the editor clearly preferred his wording.
There was nothing wrong with the edited version but I rejected it on the grounds that (a) there was nothing wrong with the original and I felt if in doubt the original questioners voice should prevail and (b) we should discourage small edits even where there is nothing wrong as they don't add anything but do take people's time (even if it's only a few seconds to approve them).
Is this approach correct? Obviously I don't want to needlessly discourage people making edits as it's a useful contribution.