User:Thejadefalcon/sandbox

Editor Reviews - Do not delete without my permission

Buggie111's Editor Review

• Update

Types of Vandalism - Do not delete without my permission

Types of vandalism

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Type	Description	Examples
Blanking	Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.	Diff 1
Page creation	Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. Includes blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), blatant POV pushes, hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. New users may sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism, though such pages are normally speedily deleted. Also, creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism.	N/A
Page lengthening	Adding very large (measured by the number of bytes) amounts of bad-faith content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computers without the browser or machine crashing. Adding large amounts of good-faith content is not vandalism, though prior to doing so, one should consider if splitting a long page may be appropriate (see Wikipedia:Article size).	Diff 1`
Spam	Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism, or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest, or text that promotes one's personal interests.	N/A
Vandalbots	A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands).	N/A
Silly vandalism	Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious.	Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3
Sneaky vandalism	Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.	N/A
Userspace vandalism	Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).	N/A
Image vandalism	Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value).	N/A
Template vandalism	Modifying the wiki language or text of a template in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds of pages.	N/A
Abuse of tags	Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes removal of extremely-long-standing {{policy}} and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first.	N/A
Page-move vandalism	Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate terms. Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days and with at least 10 edits (i.e. autoconfirmed users) to move pages.	N/A
Link vandalism	Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g. spam, self-promotion, an explicit image, a shock site).	N/A
Avoidant vandalism	Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.	N/A
Modifying users' comments	Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.	N/A
Discussion page vandalism	Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.	N/A
Repeated uploading of copyrighted material	Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.	N/A
Malicious account creation	Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.	N/A
Edit summary vandalism	Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and remain visible when viewing a page's history. Only a small number of editors with special powers above administrators have the ability to modify edit summaries). Often combined with malicious account creation.	Diff 1
Hidden vandalism	Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism (described above), or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.	N/A
Gaming the system	Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by making bad faith edits go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the {{construction}} tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets.	N/A

PC Gamer Review for Citation - Do not delete without permision of BlazerKnight

ARTFUL DODGER

The striking visual style and awesome violence of ZENO CLASH work surprisingly well together. The art of wart, painted in shades of pastel. _{By Evan Lahti}

Playing Zeno Clash is like attending an exhibit by an avant garde painter, where a scheduling snafu leads to Wrestlemania XXVI taking place instead.

Conventional etiquette holds that ramming your knee into a spectator in the presence of Monet or Van Gogh shows a lack of class, but in this case gorgeous art and fisticuffs mesh superbly in this gloriously demented first-person brawler.

Have you heard this story before? Man returns from introspective personal journey, man kills his androgynous hermaphroditic parent, man flees horde of mutant siblings with girlfriend who has horns coming out of her huge '80s metal hair. I'm guess not. Your escape from the angry mob of mutant siblings leads to a spectrum of psychedelic locales: purple-tree forests, netherworlds where shadow-men lurk in electric fog, floating down midnight rivers on a gondola made of bone, sandy dunes grazed by brontosaur-giraffes...

Zeno Clash isn't interested in being 'different for different's sake.' The insane narrative fashions a context that stimulates - not to make some high-falutin' point about creativity in gaming. Embracing the eccentricity will only draw you in further, but it's still secondary to Zeno's strong suit: punching the blood out of every cartoon-faced Cro-Magnon or thing-that-looks-like-a-humanoid-kiwi you meet.

First-person fighting grounds the game in familiar mechanics, but turns the familiar into the exotic with intensely physical hand-to-hand combat, dual trout pistols, bone swords, and double-crossbows that fire skulls at enemies. You won't be executing any complex combos, but the simple set of moves works, and is made even better by all the visual feedback you get. A finishing uppercut that flings foes spread-eagled into the nearest wall just doesn't get old. The sense of recoil a blocked punch produces, the momentum gained when you wind a haymaker by holding right-click, the camera swivel-sway when you get smashed by a charging elephant man - few engines (in this case, Valve's Source) can render character physics in a way that elevates the intensity and intimacy of combat this well.

Your enemies' expressiveness contributes a lot: they'll taunt, groan, bleed and bruise as their life-bars empty. The only flaws are a handful of animations that don't detect collision (you might have to wait for a thug to finish his 'getting up off the ground' animation before you hit him) and a sticky lock-on system that stay tethered to enemies when you want to sprint away.

Zeno's other flaws are almost as minor. The elephant men minibosses you encounter rely too heavily on a charge attack: fights quickly settle into a predictable bull-dodging pattern. Along those lines, most of Zeno's five boss encounters boil down to basic mechanics that you've seen in other games.

Yet so overpoweringly physical is the combat, so adjective-escaping the surreal art design, that you're able to shrug most of this off and enjoy five or six hours putting paid to the notion of action games as the preserve of space marines, paratroopers and enchanted plate mail. A satisfying challenge mode provides replay value in the form of a dozen or so varied battle royale events to work through.

It's a well-spent shift away from the usual genres for anyone worn out on action/FPS fare, or who misses the offbeat worlds of '90s PC adventure games. And hey, if you get to sock a few parrot men in the beak along the way, so much the better.

Verdict box-out

A completely welcome contrast to anything you've ever played, with the best first-person fisticuffs in a game.

84%

A box-out down the left of the page

Need to know

What is it?

A dreamlike world filled with original characters that you fist into submission.

Influenced by

Dark Messiah of Might and Magic

Play it on

Dual-core 2.4 GHz, 2GB RAM, GeForce 8800GT/Radeon 4850

[I'm not sure if those are the minimum requirements or their own recommendations - Jade]

Alternatively

Box a large man wearing an elephant hide while under the influence of hallucinogens.

Copy Protection

Steam, Direct2Drive

Other Info

[Doubt you'll need this, but just in case - Jade]
Expect to pay: £15
Release: Out now
Publisher: ACE Team
Developer: In-house
Multiplayer: None
Link: zenoclash.com

Citation

<ref name="PCG UK 202 Review">{{cite journal|last=Lahti|first=Evan|date=2009-06-04|title=Zeno Clash|journal=PC Gamer UK|issue=47|pages=74–75|publisher=Future Publishing|accessdate=2009-11-17}}</ref>