# Talk:Gotcha (video game)

Hi Guys. Was wondering if that is an "after" controversy box? The controls look like normal early joysticks instead of plastic boob mounds like originally intended. Thanks.BinaryLust (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The current description under 'Controversy' is exactly the same as the one used in the source. It would be nice if someone checked the timestamps in order to find out which one was copied. In any case, changing the current description would certainly help to avoid making the article a carbon-copy of the cited webpage (or vice versa). Frozzato (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gotcha (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 04:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Still wrapping up a Vice City GA, but both of these articles are short, so I should be able to get them reviewed fairly quickly. Indrian (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Indrian: how quick is that Cognissonance (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Cognissonance: I have shepherded a lot of PresN's articles through the GA process and we have a good working relationship.  He knows I get busy sometimes, and I know he is never in a big hurry.  I find this intrusion rather rude and unnecessary.  If it was instead an attempt at gentle, prodding humor, it fell flat. Indrian (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Indrian: Not busy enough to prioritize other things, apparently. Stop projecting. Cognissonance (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
So let me get this straight.  You wandered on to a GA review that has nothing to do with you just to make personal attacks?  Now I'm really confused. Indrian (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Indrian: Yup.
The backlog isn't gonna reduce itself.
—Sincerely, personal attacks. Cognissonance (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, none of that is constructive nor conducive to the goals you claim to be interested in achieving.  A GA review is between the nominator and the reviewer.  Again, rude and unnecessary. Indrian (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)."
"additional comments are welcome"
"welcome"
"welcome" Cognissonance (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course they are.  Constructive collaboration is what Wikipedia is built on.  Of course Wikipedia also has policies based around harassing other editors, which is the only activity you have engaged in here. Nothing you have posted has anything to do with this nomination or the GA process. Indrian (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that your job? In the time you've argued with me, the review could have already been done. Cognissonance (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Uh....
Indrian has done quite a few reviews for me; yes, sometimes they can take up to a few weeks to get started on them, but on the flip side they're some of the most thorough, knowledgeable reviews I've ever had (and I've had, uh, 100 of them now). I'm perfectly fine with waiting for a while.
And if I wasn't, I'm perfectly capable of pinging them myself or requesting another reviewer. I don't need someone else to jump in and harass them into doing a review they're not fully prepared for.
Additional comments and review points are always welcome on a GA review by other interested editors. Harassing the original reviewer into moving faster is not "additional comments".
There are 12 other video game-related GANs outstanding without reviewers, and hundreds of non-video game ones. You don't need to jump on one that already has a reviewer. --PresN 02:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
If you're not ready to do a review, don't be a reviewer. Otherwise, a backlog accumulates which requires me to check in like this.
Calling it harassment is rich — he said he was busy, I saw flaws in the logic and explained why; he interpreted that as a personal attack and I countered it. If you have a problem with my sarcasm and think that makes it harassment, well, that'd be hilarious wouldn't it. Cognissonance (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyhoo, moving on from all the nonsense above, I have given the article a thorough copy edit and now feel that it meets the GA criteria.  Well done! Indrian (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)