@AccidentalFourierTransform Why did you reject my edit here but approve my other edit here?

The first one was deliberate, and I think it should discourage inappropriate use of the tag. But the second one just substitutes out a less common name for a tag: if I was reviewing that, I would have marked the second one as 'no improvement'. I actually made the second only because I thought I would fix all the things in that tag in one shot: I didn't know they would be reviewed separately and if I had known that, I wouldn't have suggested the second one, which you actually approved.

I'd like to know a reason because if you think there's something bad about that edit, I'll avoid suggesting such edits, and the 'no imrpvement' justification seems a bit vague in this case. (I'm not objecting; it's just that I'd like to know the reason you think it's bad so that I don't suggest such things again. Perhaps there's a specific way in which it harms readability?)

@rob Was that really necessary? I tried to write that in a way which wouldn't make things understandable for someone who hadn't seen the rest of those flags. Eh whatever.

No biggie

Seems kind of unnecessary but I don't mind.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that nobody's bored enough to speculate about something of that magnitude.

@rob I figured it would be OK to bring it up here because we can't exactly have discussions about what's going on through flags and replies.

@rob I was concious about that. If you can still see the messages in that deleted message, you'll see that I removed the name itself, so it's just a user number, and I'm pretty sure that even 10k users can't see deleted profiles.

For example, instead of "...//physics.stackexchange.com/users/191954/chair", I put "...//physics.stackexchange.com/users/191954/"

Anyways, that issue's resolved, I guess. Thanks!