First off, though my search-fu is strong, I haven't been able to discern if declined flag queries belong on child metas or the main meta. I'm trying here first.

I just had a "not relevant" flag declined on [this comment](//superuser.com/q/13086/#comment11637_13086):

This works fine for unicode characters that don't include hex chars A through F. should read: for decimal codes. There are plenty of hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F. Like 10, which is not ten then... – Arjan Jul 26 '09 at 7:47

As can be seen from the revision history of the question, in Revision 2 the user posting the comment rolled the suggestion into the answer (within 24 hours):

The rest of the comment is

1. Used to support the reason for the suggested improvement to the question, and is no longer applicable as the improvement has been rolled in.
2. Trivial - of course here are hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F, and of course 10 in hexadecimal is not ten.
3. Redundant - even if the info in those last two sentences were important (which it is not), this second comment by the same user and this one by another user (both on the question) contain that very same trivial info.

So, why was this flag declined?

Did the moderator who declined the flag fail to notice that the suggestion had been rolled into the answer?

Should I instead raise one of those new-fangled "Something else." flags so that the mod is aware that the comment is "not relevant anymore" as the suggestion has been rolled into the answer? (In case the mod has had a late night and is still bleary-eyed ;-) )

Or is this a result of the new flag wordings causing confusion?

---

_{Note that the only reason I flagged comments on this nine year old question is due to it being raised in this recent MSU post: Misleading wrong answer in a popular question}

First off, though my search-fu is strong, I haven't been able to discern if declined flag queries belong on child metas or the main meta. I'm trying here first.

I just had a "not relevant" flag declined on [this comment](//superuser.com/q/13086/#comment11637_13086):

This works fine for unicode characters that don't include hex chars A through F. should read: for decimal codes. There are plenty of hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F. Like 10, which is not ten then... – Arjan Jul 26 '09 at 7:47

As can be seen from the revision history of the question, in Revision 2 the user posting the comment rolled the suggestion into the answer (within 24 hours):

The rest of the comment is

1. Used to support the reason for the suggested improvement to the question, and is no longer applicable as the improvement has been rolled in.
2. Trivial - of course there are hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F, and of course 10 in hexadecimal is not ten.
3. Redundant - even if the info in those last two sentences were important (which it is not), this second comment by the same user and this one by another user (both on the question) contain that very same trivial info.

So, why was this flag declined?

Did the moderator who declined the flag fail to notice that the suggestion had been rolled into the answer?

Should I instead raise one of those new-fangled "Something else." flags so that the mod is aware that the comment is "not relevant anymore" as the suggestion has been rolled into the answer? (In case the mod has had a late night and is still bleary-eyed ;-) )

Or is this a result of the new flag wordings causing confusion?

---

_{Note that the only reason I flagged comments on this nine year old question is due to it being raised in this recent MSU post: Misleading wrong answer in a popular question}

First off, though my search-fu is strong, I haven't been able to discern if declined flag queries belong on child metas or the main meta. I'm trying here first.

I just had a "not relevant" flag declined on [this comment](//superuser.com/q/13086/#comment11637_13086):

This works fine for unicode characters that don't include hex chars A through F. should read: for decimal codes. There are plenty of hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F. Like 10, which is not ten then... – Arjan Jul 26 '09 at 7:47

As can be seen from the revision history of the question, in Revision 2 the user posting the comment rolled the suggestion into the answer (within 24 hours):

The rest of the comment is

1. Used to support the reason for the suggested improvement to the question, and is no longer applicable as the improvement has been rolled in.
2. Trivial - of course here are hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F, and of course 10 in hexadecimal is not ten.
3. Even if the info in those last two sentences were important (which it is not), this second comment by the same user and this one by another user (both on the question) contain that very same trivial info.

So, why was this flag declined?

Did the moderator who declined the flag fail to notice that the suggestion had been rolled into the answer?

Should I instead raise one of those new-fangled "Something else." flags so that the mod is aware that the comment is not relevant anymore as the suggestion has been rolled into the answer? (In case the mod has had a late night and is still bleary-eyed ;-) )

Or is this a result of the new flag wordings causing confusion?

---

_{Note that the only reason I flagged comments on this nine year old question is due to it being raised in this recent MSU post: Misleading wrong answer in a popular question}

First off, though my search-fu is strong, I haven't been able to discern if declined flag queries belong on child metas or the main meta. I'm trying here first.

I just had a "not relevant" flag declined on [this comment](//superuser.com/q/13086/#comment11637_13086):

This works fine for unicode characters that don't include hex chars A through F. should read: for decimal codes. There are plenty of hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F. Like 10, which is not ten then... – Arjan Jul 26 '09 at 7:47

As can be seen from the revision history of the question, in Revision 2 the user posting the comment rolled the suggestion into the answer (within 24 hours):

The rest of the comment is

1. Used to support the reason for the suggested improvement to the question, and is no longer applicable as the improvement has been rolled in.
2. Trivial - of course here are hexadecimal numbers that don't use A-F, and of course 10 in hexadecimal is not ten.
3. Redundant - even if the info in those last two sentences were important (which it is not), this second comment by the same user and this one by another user (both on the question) contain that very same trivial info.

So, why was this flag declined?

Did the moderator who declined the flag fail to notice that the suggestion had been rolled into the answer?

Should I instead raise one of those new-fangled "Something else." flags so that the mod is aware that the comment is "not relevant anymore" as the suggestion has been rolled into the answer? (In case the mod has had a late night and is still bleary-eyed ;-) )

Or is this a result of the new flag wordings causing confusion?

---

_{Note that the only reason I flagged comments on this nine year old question is due to it being raised in this recent MSU post: Misleading wrong answer in a popular question}