I prefer to just say skill check should have consequence, one way or the other, rather than associate any negative terms with it.
A rogue skilled in lock picking, with the right tools, that has all day to pick a lock, will do so, no roll required (assuming it is pickable in the first place, of course). However, if she hears a guard approaching around the corner, now the roll has meaning.
A bard known for his charms can make a good impression with courtesans at the ball, no problem, no rolling, that's what he does. However, if the party is really trying hard to curry favor with the king, either a rousing good joke or a mistimed faux pas when speaking with him could make things more interesting, so that makes a good time to roll.
That's why I don't like players rolling their own checks. Sometimes it feels like when you're doing a thing, and said thing is marked on your sheet with a modifier beside it, said thing needs to be rolled for. But if the character is good at the thing, and especially trained in the thing, then I like to assume they are good at what they are good at. Chance comes into play when the pressure is on.
As for the last 20+ pages of this thread, I think I fall somewhere in the middle of this debate. While I prefer the players just tell what they are doing, I don't mind if they ask if a roll is appropriate. Sometimes I'll just tell them it's not, they succeed in what they're trying to do, sometimes I'll agree that it's needed. Sometimes I'll ask what they're doing to necessitate the roll, sometimes it's just really obvious from context. But mostly, my players realize by now that I'll let them know if a roll is needed during the course of play.
Also, perusing this thread, I realized that I really should
write something in bold. That felt good.