Deletion appeal thread

Well, I wouldn't say it's "toddlercon", just very icky loli. As an aside, I'd be glad to kill the entirety of the toddlercon tag. I'm generally not one to decide what kind drawn porn people are allowed to look at, but 1) toddlercon really crosses too many lines for me to be anywhere near 2) we're art site. And that's not art by any possible stretch of imagination.

Danzaiver said:
Right. By "testing the limits of loli," I meant that I was testing it for my own personal information, to see what the limits were. Not that I was trying to push any of Danbooru's envelopes or anything.

Heh, you mean like this? (No, it's not a hidden threat)

Heh. Yes, that is precisely the sort of thing that I would prefer to avoid.

I've never been a fan of toddlerkon (there's a tag for that?) myself, which is why I was surprised to see a consensus on that classification for my post.

Can post #455770 be reconsidered? I don't feel there's anything wrong with it that kept it from being approved. If it can't, can you tell me why?

ehh...its just barely passable. Something about it just seems off, but I can't pin down anything in particular, but I like the general concept at least. So yeah, approved.

I'd like to ask about post #451126 as well. Proportions are too off, I take it?

NOT SEXY

derp

post #456079

No.

It doesn't even look like Kanu anyway.

Can post #456605 be reconsidered? I was thinking that it didn't get approved because of the lens flare being too bright. Considering the other works by the artist, I'm doubting about this one.

derp ?

post #456606

Why post #424240 was not approved? I think it should be reconsidered since it looks better than the parent.

Fencedude said:
NOT SEXY

I-

I wasn't aware that was a requirement!

post #457164
post #456685

I'm not too concerned about the first one. I generally don't care about explicit images and only uploaded it because Vanillaware stuff tends to be rare and the artwork seemed decent. The second one confuses me though, because there's two other QBTV wallpapers (post #431742 and post #456686) that have been approved. Is it simply character biased?

Thanks for your time.

TripcodeMel said:
I-

I wasn't aware that was a requirement!

In porn, it obviously is.

Please reconsider post #439082 - I think it's a cute wallpaper of a reasonable resolution.

Can post #457084 be reconsidered? The post is by dooru, although I'm doubting about this one either because of the slight jaggedness in the picture or any flaws on Arin's proportions that I may not see.

soundofsilence said: Please reconsider post #439082 - I think it's a cute wallpaper of a reasonable resolution.

The wallpaper part is the problem. Or rather the third party created watermarked animepaper wallpaper. The original image by itself would probably be acceptable.

jxh2154 said:
The wallpaper part is the problem. Or rather the third party created watermarked animepaper wallpaper. The original image by itself would probably be acceptable.

I didn't think the watermark was sufficiently "obnoxious" to be deleted under the watermark rules?

soundofsilence said:
I didn't think the watermark was sufficiently "obnoxious" to be deleted under the watermark rules?

It's sufficiently obnoxious to go unapproved.

soundofsilence said: I didn't think the watermark was sufficiently "obnoxious" to be deleted under the watermark rules?

Technically, any third party watermark is grounds for immediate deletion. It's prohibited under the TOS: http://danbooru.donmai.us/static/terms_of_service