Since it was me doing that edit, I clearly didn't see that as a "misuse".
It surely wasn't a 'defacing' as I took care to not change anything else in the post.
A casual reader will not see any differences or any changes made to that post at all.
Despite some more typos for example that also would still need improvement.
Even in the revision view only one of three viewing options makes those comments visible.
A plus side to this would be that the OP as well as anyone else editing that post would read it and then decide to be responsive to that content or not. In the latter case with the fast and easy option of a relatively painless rollback.
Therefore the rationale for it is that this is still a friendly edit.
An edit that should give hints to improve the post.
And as the canned edit rejection phrases it:
This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.
The edit I made addresses the content of the post, which I thought was largely unresponsive to the question posed, too weak in the arguments presented, with some grievous errors or falsehoods, and in the parts that do present a direct response it ignores the actual evidence already present in the question by just stating an unreferenced 'false'.
Couple this with expressed intent of the answer to just complement the question, as this user thought the question itself, which already got complaints for being ugh-tooo-looong, to include more background info. Info which by its very nature in this case might be interesting to know for non-Berliners in general, but not really relevant for the question asked.
The answer also engages in a contradictory meta-discussion:
"For these reasons I casted the second vote to close this question as Opion-based." which is evidently so non sequitur that it still prompts OP to then go on to post an opinion based answer. Still filled with the intent to accuse the author of the question as narrow minded and either pushing a position or asking in bad faith, as apparently 'evidenced' that the question post was too short and supposedly ignored the small French origin minority from some time earlier than the time frame asked about.
To repeat that: my question presented an observed pattern of language policy that left out one particular spot to fill. The question asks for the discussions at the time as to why there was some exception made. We see from the question that the exact wording in question was under attack from 1801 but the medal itself seen with a really special status even in 1934. Now that 1934 data point is a tiny hint with indeed the help of a reference in the answer under discussion, alas wholly dismissed by OP.
The close votes the question attracted for being allegedly "opinion based" are hard to follow. "Low quality" was now another reason given here on meta by OP.
Just because a simple net search doesn't give you the direct answer? Wikipedia links don't spell out the answer? The question is difficult to answer, as some of the most relevant books are not online:
Stephen Thomas Previtera: "Prussian Blue: A History of the Order Pour Le Merite", 2005.
David Edkins: "The Prussian Orden Pour Le Mérite: History of the Blue Max", 1981.
The perceived by me need to improve the answer is a really rather large one. Adding just a comment is not enough for comment length restrictions and further made difficult for the surely ensuing discussion style, with a pattern of then receiving a response that will be argumentative and with a ratio of one comment generating another three or more as responses that are often filled up with 'me is right and you are wrong' or
My statement is correct, yours is false.
Looked at from the other side: how should one rectify such problems as 'Liberty fries and Liberty cabbage'? While being an 'American thing' one is a century after the inquired time frame, the other the exact same pattern to observe. Some policy results in attempts to change the language in seemingly simple words. OP dismisses both of these far away incidences in another language and polity but just links to the fries, where that propaganda stint didn't catch on outside of jokes with a reference to Wikipedia. Had he done that with a link to the cabbage than the whole circumstantial argument breaks down, as 'liberty cabbage' did catch on much better for a time. For the purpose of the question this is quite secondary, as it is the reasons and arguments exchanged at the time that are being asked for, not just some random 21st century SE user's opinion. I'll stop listing even more examples from the question on main for the purpose of returning to 'purpose of inline comments and proper use'
As per SE model: From the long list of flaws and errors in that answer that I tried to fix I included some counterarguments into the question itself. By incorporating some evidence I try to preempt that these mere assertions and tangential reasonings are not enough and even clearly contradicted by prior research in the question.
But how should anyone improve further a question that is met with
Your own quote answers your own question: The aim was to replace foreign words with German expressions. Words not names. Had they wanted to change everything French, they would have done it then. But they didn't. Sorry, but this is wishful thinking on your part.
"Names" are not "words"? "Had they wanted to change everything French, they would have done it then." – I give evidence of a century long struggle with small steps of achievement and defeat, a process with ups and downs, many arguments exchanged, then get greeted with a nonsensical 'common sense' comment that is proven wrong in the text of the question itself, with hard evidence and primary source quotes – yet the comment is still upvoted?
In light of this I chose the alternative to proceed as it presented itself to me, as repeated from the canned rejection response:
Address the author 'with a comment'. In this case an inline comment invisible to the casual reader.
It is not my intention to attack the author or deface that post, however much I really do disagree with most of its content. Those 4014 characters added are not made in or for fun and are meant as an invitation to fix what's wrong with the post.
If "should be a comment" really unexpectedly for me excludes 'inline comments' – it was one attempt to find a solution to the problems of content and form discussed above – then I'll just stop.
Jedes Urtheil wissenschaftlicher Kritik ist mir willkommen. Gegenüber den Vorurtheilen der s.g. öffentlichen Meinung, der ich nie Koncessionen gemacht habe, gilt mir nach wie vor der Wahlspruch des grossen Florentiners: Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti!
