I've gone ahead and upvoted your post, as you bring forward some important arguments for your edits, but I must dissent with these parts:

I believe that submitting an edit just for removing or adding a tag is not enough.

I would have also opposed an edit for just some normal tags.

I'd just like to have a quick mention of that here. Correctly tagging posts is crucial to the site, so while tag edits may be minor, they are still important and impactful, much more so than fixing typos (btw, I hate typos). Please don't refrain from making tag edits, even for non-required tags.

Hi Andreas witnessed the end of the world today‭, I copied that mentality of edits needing to be more than just for a tag from SO. But now I'm confused. If on CD these types of edits are accepted, then why were some of my other previous tags edits declined? Should I pause making edit contributions till this minor edit thing is implemented? p.s. Appreciate your agreement :)

meta user‭ I'm not so sure why you'd be getting that mentality from SO, where there's a precedent for such edits being acceptable. Are you sure the problem isn't that you actually just made edits to low-quality posts? If a post is headed for deletion anyway, there's no point in sending edits of it to review. If anything, CD and SO is very similar in this regard; tag edits are fine; the disagreement is about whether or not bumping posts is justified for making the edits. The general stance on SO is that you can make a few such edits, but not a lot of them at a time. Personally, I think this is wrong, but it's also important to keep in mind that SO is weighed down by a lot of debt in functionality and UX. So a lot of the decisions on SO stem from an idea that nothing can be done to change the system.

You'll see it's one and the same person that's been declining your edits, while staff members of Codidact have been accepting them. That said, staff members opting to do it that way, isn't much of an argument in itself, as this is a (somewhat) democratic community-driven platform. My answer stating that declining your edits is wrong, is currently sitting at 2 upvotes and 2 downvotes, so the community seems divided in this case. I do understand it's quite annoying to have the posts list flooded with posts with no actual real new activity, but I consider that a necessary burden at the moment.

Should I pause making edit contributions till this minor edit thing is implemented? p.s. Appreciate your agreement :)

That might be a good idea. Personally, I'd say no, but it's not my own personal decision to make (sadly!).

Although I stand by what I say. I really don't think it's correct to decline what is to be considered correct edits. But I cannot enforce that view onto those reviewing your edits.