Was your edit on something politically sensitive?
I ask because this could e.g. be an edit about TCP congestion control in the wild; or an edit about the link between autism and vaccines.
I don't at all want to accuse you of the second type of edit, but that type would not be universally seen as an improvement, no matter how well sourced and explained.
I agree that some topics are hot-button topics whether that's on-wiki or AFK.
But on Wikipedia anything can become a hot button topic. Look at, for example, the amount of discussion about whether to use en dash, em dash, or minus in article titles.
> 500,000 words … about whether to use en dash, em dash, or minus
Pfft, amateurs. 500,000 words and no mention of the distinction between a true hyphen (‐), a true minus sign (−), and the vulgar ASCII hyphen‐minus (-).
Not op but was interested in OpenStreetMap for awhile. Although there were no editors but there were people who thought they knew better and they have deleted huge chunks of map because they didn't like it and they will redraw it "sometime later".
A simple and small factual edit on a UNIX programming article, with links to authoritative external sources (think: Tanenbaum book, although it was something else).
I don't at all want to accuse you of the second type of edit, but that type would not be universally seen as an improvement, no matter how well sourced and explained.