Using Derpibooru exclusive tag, for edited/colored in sketches and photos?

So I dont really do my own art, but I do like to color sketches and edit photos.  
Would it be incorrect to add the exclusive tag to my edits if I only plan to upload to derpibooru?  
Not sure if that would conflict because I also credit the original artist in the tags, who isnt always exclusively uploading to derpibooru

For me, the Derpibooru Exclusive tag is an artist tag, and it’s main use is in determining the correct source for the image when resolving copyright claims, and for badges, so it doesn’t apply to derivative works like edits, traces, etc.
 
Your edits are derivative, so their “source” is the image that you edited. That image can be exclusive, but the edit is not.
 
But, that’s just my take on it, and I know my view of those tags, primarily through the lens of copyright and badges, is probably not shared by many.

Fwiw, when I color edit I typically add ‘derpibooru exclusive’ in addition to their artist tag and link to the original in description and/or the source.

The definition of the tag itself says;
 

 
Since edits have an original source other than themselves (being that they are derivative) I don’t think the tag should be on edits.
 
Beyond that, on the “Best Artist” badge, which is only given to artists who upload their own “Derpibooru Exclusive” artwork that meet a certain criteria, edits are explicitly not included.
 
Ultimately, an image with the “Derpibooru Exclusive” tag that also has a “source_url” or the “source needed” tag is malformed - that’s not a situation that should be happening. Since edits can reasonably have a “source needed” tag, and may have a “source_url” that points to another image that was previously uploaded on some other site, the edited image is not a “Derpibooru Exclusive”, unless the edit creates a unique instance of copyright.
 
All of that gets to the heart of what we mean when we say “Artwork” - one way of looking at “Artwork” is “A unique instance of copyright”.
 
For example, if someone colors someone else’s lineart, the resulting image may be considered an “Edit”, but the work would also be transformative enough that it would be a separate copyright. In that case the person who colors it would be, under our definitions, an “artist” and should have an “artist:[name]” tag. That “Artwork” would still be an edit, but we would award that artist a badge based on that work of art.
 
So, just given all of that, I really don’t think you should be tagging edits as “Derpibooru Exclusives”, because they’re derivative, and not “exclusive” - their “source” is the image that was edited. That image can be an exclusive, but the edit is not.
 
That doesn’t make this site policy, because I don’t think we’ve ever needed a policy about this, but it seems like a good practice to not tag edits as “Derpibooru Exclusive”, because it conflicts with how that tag is used on this site in practice, and the more it happens the more “special cases” it will result in when it comes time to look at badges, or when doing stuff like auditing “Derpibooru Exclusive” images that have SOURCE_URLs that point off the site, etc.
 
If it’s possible that your edits actually are transformative enough that we should be considering them unique instances of copyright, please let me know and I’ll work with you to find out if maybe an artist tag wouldn’t be better.
 
But for the kind of edits that we usually are using an “Editor:[name]” tag on, that’s not going to rise to the level of “unique instance of copyright”.
 
I honestly don’t know if I’ve clarified this, or made it muddier …

I get it, its a muddy sudject for sure. I’ll just elect not to use the exclusive tag myself.