Research talk:Improve your edit

Fact tag

assuming the main aim is to get people to add fact tags instead of reverting edits then it also needs an option for "unsourced but plausible edit not involving a living person". And if they tick that it doesn't revert but adds a fact tag instead. I suspect that part of our problem is that Huggle and so forth don't have such an option. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

Spelling and Grammar errors are not an excuse for reversion, and we shouldn't imply that they are but creating such an option. Unless of course the only thing someone does is change a word to a typo, but if that isn't an English variant issue it is probably vandalism. WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment about the [ Improve your edit now ] and [ No, thanks ] selection

The selection seems urgent and binary — could we meet halfway? How about a third option like [Not now, give me at least 7 days] to search for citations or something similar(People who edit are volunteers and doesn't always have time right? or maybe I'm missing something). I might be misunderstanding something especially the "What are we trying to find out?" section or having some kind of argument from ignorance fallacy but I'd say this anyway from the perspective of a newcomer(Registered this October).Frtongchkn (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to say, I like this idea of 'improve your edit' notification because it will also quicken the familiarization process of the policies and guidelines especially if we remember Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep compared to opening a new tab in our browser to double check the policies and guidelines. Although instruction creep is an essay and not a policy, I think it is true to 'some degree'.Frtongchkn (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)