@JourneymanGeek Are you referring to yourself or the mod who reviewed the flag? (Or both ;-) )

"how to improve them [tags] for past questions" - Even if there was complete consensus that the general tag should never be used with a version specific one (and the specific one was preferred), an edit that solely removes the general tag is the definitive example of an edit that "…does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are … completely superfluous …". The word "redundant" by very definition implies that the removal of the tag will have no effect! Nothing could be clearer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@BenVoigt Interesting. I would have thought that if it was a screenshot captured by the OP themselves, the mere posting of the link would constitute acceptance by the OP to apply the Creative Commons license. (I'm not a lawyer, though, so…) However, I can see how that might be an issue for third-party images.

@Ramhound Btw, how did you manage to find that particular review? (And check out the next two edits done to the question.)

@Ramhound Thanks for bringing up that specific case. I was thinking of doing so myself as an example of incorrect approvals by users, the issues it causes and the fact that reviewers don't always have time to attempt major reject and edits. I also wanted to illustrate that I often come back to my rejected edits when I have more time and improve them outside the queue. And also to show that despite my best efforts I still couldn't quite completely clarify the question without possible changing the OP's intent. But then I thought that that would just be adding more fuel to the fire ;-) …

… I can't recall having seen your second link before. I just read through it now, though, and none of the answers address the question any better than what I've done here. In fact, some contradict others, one contains outdate info (the auto conversion to Community Wiki), and Shog9's answer is an nice tangential ramble but doesn't address the question directly (although the three posts linked to in the first sentence do). Reading through all this did remind me of the solution I had come up with to the bumping issue - allowing reviewers/2000+ reppers to optionally suppress the bumping.

@fixer1234 Thanks. I was aware of that first link but decided not to use it for this case as 1) It is written from the point of view of a reviewer; 2) It doesn't explain in detail the basic things I mention here; 3) It contains approval recommendations that seem to be contrary to actual reviewer practice (at least here on Super User). -§- Good idea about pointing it out to users as they cross rep thresholds, though. …

@Ramhound cc ^

@Run5k Once again thanks for your feedback! I will try to limit such edits in future. It did cross my mind whether or not Meta worked differently. As the sentence I removed didn't directly address the quote it fell under, and was essentially repeated two (non-quoted) sentences later, I decided to risk removing it, and take the rap on the knuckles if Ramhound deemed it necessary ;-)

@Albin As for opening a chat room, I'm not sure what's better. Meta works differently to the main site. It is more about discussion, rather than a Question plus Answers with the comments just used for clarification. I will defer to the more experienced meta users.

@Albin You have to use the work-around. Basically the OP always gets notified, plus the one user explicitly "pinged". (It is slightly more complicated than this, though. See How do comment @replies work? for further details.) All previous commenters do not get spammed with notifications ;-)