GuildWiki talk:In case of dispute, take plenty of screenshots

Moar to be added soon. -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The exact opposite of GW:AGF! --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * +1, no point to this. [[Image:Jamster Sig.jpg|19px]] ---Jamster--- 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * exactly. Still, people say it all the time. I think GW:AGF needs some rethinking as well. I mean, evidently somone saying that they got a perfect elemental sword from a level 2 grawl is hard to believe, which is when this should be used. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 14:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to believe, yes. But don't automatically assume they're wrong. [[Image:Jamster Sig.jpg|19px]] ---Jamster--- 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with GW:AGF I wouldnt believe them. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If they say something really crazy like that, you don't agf. Imo, there's no need for a policy to get a frikkin screenshot O_o --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]]-- (s)talkpage 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen you saying this before. ;) --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Guideline
Should be a guideline, not a rule! RT | Talk  14:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough, i suppose. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "In case of dispute..." is a good enough qualifier. It would need some rewording to not sound so...unfriendly...but I think this has become a general Wiki value. As such, making it a guideline is not a horrible idea. Kinda late though. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True, i suppose, but yeah. Feel free to edit it, entropy- Its not userspace. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 16:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it was in userspace, I could still edit it, since it would be moved to mainspace as a proposed policy anyways. But that's not the point. Anyway, I will try and work on this... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didnt really put much throught into making it, i just thought of it as a guideline really. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, Entropy! --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tbh, after working on this, I think it could just be merged into the already-existing AGF. It honestly isn't that much different - this tells you when to AGF in a dispute and what to do about it. There is a section in AGF for "Exceptions". It could be changed to "How to deal with disputes" or something, and "Screenshot or it didn't happen" put there. I dunno. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think it'd be a good guideline to have, and its not really exactly the same. Its sort of like the Be Bold and YAV situation. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs To Be A Guideline
I agree that sometimes screenshots are needed in order to settle a dispute between the content of an article. However, basically making someone do it because it is against the rules if they do not, is a bit.... farfetched, if I do say so myself. If this was re-written and proposed as a guideline, I would be able to accept it; but I do not see the point in it being a policy. -- Shadowphoenix  17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh, I don't really like it en whole. But as a guideline it'd be okay, as stated beneath header #2 and #3. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage 17:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I read those, but no one recreated it as a guidline so I thought I would rez the discussion :D -- Shadowphoenix  17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The bulk of this policy was written by me, and no one really complained or made changes after that so I never modified it. However, it is still "Proposed" (for months) so go ahead and change what you want. I don't remember writing that "basically making someone do it because it is against the rules if they do not", so I apologize if that was the impression. You don't force people to give screenshots, but it is one of the best proofs. Then again it is not infallible either. So...meh. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF corollary
I think this could be rewritten as a corollary to GW:AGF. Actually, I think the GW:AGF corollary needs to be rewritten from a different viewpoint. This article is basically saying, "Show proof for your claims," although it is only considering screenshots as proof. I took that as my viewpoint in the following rewrite (and don't be surprised if a lot of the wording reminds you of the Ace Attorney games, I just finished Trials and Tribulations on Sunday).

Supporting evidence
Many edits are easily verifiable. If a skill description is edited, other editors can simply login to Guild Wars and speak to a Priest of Balthazar to verify the description. In some cases, however, it can be quite difficult to verify the content of an edit. If an editor adds new dialogue that they claim to have seen after defeating Mallyx the Unyielding, for example, it would take most editors quite a bit of time and effort to verify that claim.

Whenever possible, and especially when other editors dispute your edits, you should support your edits with evidence. Providing evidence before your edit is disputed helps to minimize the amount of unnecessary arguments on talk pages. For example, if you add information to an article that reflects the results of your own experimentation, you can leave details of that experimentation in the article's discussion page so other editors can attempt to replicate your results. If you add information that was first reported in a forum post or fansite article, a link to the source in your edit summary is helpful. In all cases, screenshots showing in-game proof of your edits are usually accepted as decisive evidence (as the cynical saying goes, "Screenshot or it didn't happen"). All these measures help editors determine which edits to accept as credible and which edits to question as possibly invalid.

If you see an edit that you think might not be correct, assume good faith and do not revert it immediately. You can either verify the edit yourself, or you can post a polite request on the article's talk page for the editor to provide evidence that supports the edit. Claims that are obviously implausible, however - like claiming to have obtained an Elemental Sword from opening a Hidden Stash - can be reverted with a simple statement of such in the edit summary.

Remember that evidence can only be used as final proof if the edit in question is a fact. In the case of opinions, even though evidence can be used to argue for or against the opinion, there is no such thing as "truth"; therefore, finding consensus is about the best that can be done to resolve the issue. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I spy AGF in the "up for revisiting" category? --Shadowcrest  02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DE hasn't gotten to that one yet, acutally. Still, if AGF does get rehashed and loses that corollary, then we should propose a new policy (guideline) covering that, rather than trying to rehash this one. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr ishmael (contribs).