1

In what does “got takes on” mean?, I gave an answer. I understand that it may be less than perfect. However,

  1. I did search online to find a definition of the idiom I was describing. I couldn't find one that satisfied me.

  2. I made up my own examples.

  3. Without my consent. my answer was edited to provide a link to a website that was a general one about learning English. It didn't address the original question and it is not even clear that the idiom is covered on the website at all.

So what happens when a disagreement about an edit occurs?

We can't have a discussion in the comments.

It would be petty to just delete the edit and get into a delete/undelete war.

What is the best/usual way forward?

7
  • 2
    The best usual/best way forward is to make your own edit providing the reference which you think is more appropriate. A quick google search is generally more than enough to find it.
    – user66974
    Aug 5, 2015 at 13:32
  • "without your consent"? Does stackoverflow system guarantee that consent is necessary?
    – Mitch
    Aug 6, 2015 at 15:43
  • @Mitch - Pardon. I should have said "Without the editor doing me the favour of commenting and letting me do the changes myself" The phrase "without my consent" was just my shorthand for the longer version. Aug 7, 2015 at 8:35
  • 1
    Whatever you call it, same thing. I don't think SE allows 'original contributor oversight' directly. If a person has high enough rep, they can edit and it goes through immediately. If not high enough it goes into the review queue until someone (of high enough rep) approves it. I think you do get notified of the change though. So you can then look it over and change some more, roll back, or leave it alone. Try not to start an edit war. As to discussion, there's always chat (which people hardly ever use for that purpose but there it is).
    – Mitch
    Aug 7, 2015 at 12:41
  • @Mitch - "I don't think SE allows 'original contributor oversight' directly." As far as I know, it doesn't... but I think it should. I don't mean that an OP should have a final approval vote for edits, because many OPs would not participate. But the OP is the one who can best judge if the edit retains the intent of the question being asked. So I would say that (after an edit has been approved by reviewers), the OP should be able to "reject" the edit (not simply "roll-back"), as if it had been rejected by reviewers. Nov 22, 2015 at 20:37
  • @KevinFegan You say "I don't mean OP should have final approval vote", but then you say "the OP should be able to reject the edit". Those sound diametrically opposed. So which is it? Can you elaborate? Do you mean allow the OP to have a 'leave alone' vote and a number of positive votes are needed for final approval?
    – Mitch
    Nov 22, 2015 at 20:45
  • @Mitch - I mean for a suggested edit which is approved by reviewers, the edit goes "live", without sitting in some queue waiting for "final" approval by the OP (which is no change from how it works now). I'm suggesting that the OP should then have the ability to "reject" the edit (not simply "roll-back"), as if the edit had been rejected by reviewers. Nov 23, 2015 at 6:31

0

Browse other questions tagged .