Rejected complaint

He man, I added Algonquin, the 2nd island of GTA4, as a location and was rejected because 'it can just be discussed in the Liberty City article instead'.

This makes no sense at all. There's many locations that are small neighbourhoods in other gta games.

Hmm, it just happened to Alderney (GTA4's second island) as well.  'As it's a part of Liberty City, it can just be discussed in the Liberty City article instead.'

It's a totally legit submission.

nakies or gtfo

"nakies or gtfo"

nm -_-

Fuck it. I'm done with this website. If a concept as 'air' or 'grass' gets accepted with thousands of games, but a location like mine doesn't the whole idea of the site is not working. I'm logging off. Bye.

lawl

Ah... well that's just too bad. I was gonna accept it for you. I mean, we already have articles on every airport in the series; might as well have an extra island too. But hey, if you don't wanna use the site anymore, that's fine too.

Since I was the one to reject those particular submissions, I'll be honest: it turns out I had a misunderstanding. I'm human and therefore make mistakes. Bear with me on this one.

I was under the impression that those places were simply part of Liberty City itself (ie: a district, neighborhood, etc.) and not its own autonomous political entity. I made this assumption because most prominent locations within the past several Grand Theft Auto games have all be contained within a larger entity that was actually the governing body, hence my statement regarding keeping discussion simply within the Liberty City article.

Turns out I was wrong and I apologize for that. It happens and the only reason I can say why is because I hadn't played the game. There were gaps in my knowledge in that particular area which I didn't even know were there. Maybe I should have consulted some of the other moderators about it or maybe I should have done some research into the matter. Either way, you now have a name to associate with that particular rejection.

Gaffes like this happen. None of us moderators are perfect like that. If you still happen to actually be around on the site, you're free to resubmit it and I'm certain it'll get approved this time around. But if not, hey, I won't stop you from holding a grudge against me over an article.

"Emiel said:

"Fuck it. I'm done with this website. If a concept as 'air' or 'grass' gets accepted with thousands of games, but a location like mine doesn't the whole idea of the site is not working. I'm logging off. Bye."

wow lol.........guess he's having a bad day."

What a whiner.

Well I actually think it's a good thing to reject it. If we had a location for every single sub-location in a game, it would just be confusing.

No, the location is definitely valid. No need to be a lose cannon about it though. I added every location from Final Fantasy VIII to locations, it's the same thing really. We're moderators, therefore we are human. We all make mistakes.

arent moderators robots???? 0_o

(joke ;P)

"No, the location is definitely valid. No need to be a lose cannon about it though. I added every location from Final Fantasy VIII to locations, it's the same thing really. We're moderators, therefore we are human. We all make mistakes."

He'll be back. :P

"No, the location is definitely valid. No need to be a lose cannon about it though. I added every location from Final Fantasy VIII to locations, it's the same thing really. We're moderators, therefore we are human. We all make mistakes."

"Well I actually think it's a good thing to reject it. If we had a location for every single sub-location in a game, it would just be confusing."

Wow, that's ironic. I meant cannon, not canon.