TommyGunn said:
Wiresect
I think that's was being driven at.
Stealthbird97 said:
I think that's was being driven at.
Ah misspelled it urk. Fixed now.

Edit: actually I think this means I've been misspelling etcetera all my life. Oops.
post #176745

ToS:
Grotesque: Any depiction of extreme mutilation, extreme bodily distension, feces, or bodies that are far outside the realm of normal human proportion (for example, breasts that are as large as the body).
You have fatso down near the bottom. Also imo it's not really a wallpaper, more like a scan from some manga.

I have nothing against the Ghost Rider image, but it is not anime.
Kumacuda said:
post #176745

You have fatso down near the bottom. Also imo it's not really a wallpaper, more like a scan from some manga.
One of my neighbors is slightly larger than that woman pictured, so it's withing the "realm of normal human proportion". As for it being a scan, I don't think it is, but what do I know? I thought scans were ok. For anyone who wants to see the image we're talking about here.

Kumacuda said:
I have nothing against the Ghost Rider image, but it is not anime.
True, but neither is this.

I think we may need some more clarity when it comes to what is acceptable in terms of western animation. So far I've found that if it's done by an eastern artist it's approved... unless it isn't...
TommyGunn said:

True, but neither is this.

I think we may need some more clarity when it comes to what is acceptable in terms of western animation. So far I've found that if it's done by an eastern artist it's approved... unless it isn't...
I agree, but no one as sat down and gone, this is fine and this is not.
Kumacuda said:
I agree, but no one as sat down and gone, this is fine and this is not.
Which is why I'm saying we should do that now. Because this just got uploaded yesterday. I think DC comics is just about the epitome of western animation.

I'd sit down and write up a rough draft of the guidelines for this myself if I wasn't completely bewildered as to what you want.
Well that is anime in style, but again does the image have to be JPN related or anime style related?
Kumacuda said:
Well that is anime in style, but again does the image have to be JPN related or anime style related?
That's what I'm asking you...

Either way, I'm still not seeing why post #179587 is any worse than the half dozen examples that I've brought up so far, and it's done by a much more well known artist than most of them.
There are not many images with the tags skull and male and this looks so different compared to the usual 'bishojo' images, I just thought it was not a post that would fit the website. Undeleted for linking to similar posts.
Went full retarded and pressed delete when i saw 3 results on the "find similar"...
[post #180217]

notes to self is not to upload it when simultaneously changing tags and uploading new posts. was conducting dupe check + tag corrections than i freak out a bit and deleted it right away... there shouldn't be any on kona but i mistaken it so it would be good that it is reinstated.
@ArthurS91: I have undeleted the post.
@Zolxys much appreciated, and sorry for that retarded mess Orz
Should I go through this appeal process if I want to undelete some of my old uploads (from before I was a contributor/mod)? A majority of them are fine with staying deleted, but there's a small handful I'd like to have on the site. I'll pick a few out here in a minute.

post #127650
post #129245
post #131963
post #127693
post #127360

That's it, actually. That's all I'd undelete out of the one's I've uploaded. There's others I would've approved had I been the mod at the time, but that's another point all together.
I'll vouch for post #129245 if nobody makes a case against it being approved.

Post #131963 and #127693 both have jpeg_artifacts, in 131's case I believe along all edges/color boundaries in the entire image. However, they aren't as evident in a monochrome environment as in a full color one. Since I consider myself to have inadequate experience with monochrome images (and they aren't quite my style either, I'm a sucker for detail and color), I'll defer to the other mods on those and post #127650 (I'm concerned about the aliasing in this one, I think it's not overboard but it did stand out to me even before I went looking for problems in the image) and watch the proceedings closely.

As for post #127360, it appears to me to be lacking in depth (e.g. it looks flat).
I've undeleted ② and ③.

① is fairly dirty and the artifacts make it even worse. I think it would be fine if it were cleaned up properly.

The artifacts and dust/dirt/marks around the head in ④ keep bothering me but the rest looks good. I think it's probably acceptable.

⑤ is... too far from my taste in wallpaper to judge. I'll leave that for someone else.

*Edit: Though as a mod I don't think you really need ask regarding images that were deleted for "Not approved for 3+ days". Feel free to undelete them if you think they're worth approving. However, check ① on a properly calibrated monitor first. I really don't think the quality of that one is good enough.
Fair enough. I appreciate the detailed responses.

Zolxys said:
*Edit: Though as a mod I don't think you really need ask regarding images that were deleted for "Not approved for 3+ days". Feel free to undelete them if you think they're worth approving. However, check ① on a properly calibrated monitor first. I really don't think the quality of that one is good enough.
I'll leave alone. I honestly didn't notice the dust the first time. I was just kinda scanning through. I do still love the guy's sketches, though. Shame.

and I'll go ahead and undelete, then. The monochrome style in disguises what jpeg artifacts are present well enough. As for , it is kinda to my tastes. Bright, colorful, unique. I don't criticize stylistic choices of the artist. It's png as well, so any quality concerns are purely due to that style.

I anyone want's to further argue against either of these two, that's fine. Hell, if another mod wants to redelete them, that's fine as well.
Ok so I have 3 images I've been meaning to appeal for, might as well do it now.

1) post #170942 -

Reason for deletion: Not approved for 3+ days.

Why it should be undeleted: This one was probably axed for being a bit heavy on the artifacts side. But then, all hjl posts are (he has yet to upload a work >500kb in size), and IMO the artifacts are not really that bad. And content wise, the image is beautiful. Should make up for the slightly low quality.

2) post #173445 -

Reason for deletion: quality - lots of jpg artifacts

Why it should be undeleted: I don't think the artifacts are that much evident if you look at the image (probably coz of the colors used). The small filesize is probably due to the BG being simple and having no content. BTW this artist, too, has this annoying habit of uploading small sized works.

3) post #173130 -

Reason for deletion: Not approved within 3 days

Why it should be undeleted: Why indeed? ^_^ Well, I dunno why I uploaded this, but quality and content wise, the image is good. Also, after rotation it doesn't hurt the eye/look very odd (which is THE main thing if you're rotating an' uploading), at least to me.

Phew, that's all. I hope I haven't made any stupid appeals. Please do see if any of them can be brought back to life.
Flandre93 said:
3) post #173130 -
The rotation does bother me. The fact that it was intended as a vertical image, based on the source. That's not to say the quality is lacking, but I don't feel it was made to be a wallpaper.

As for the other two, I personally like them. The jpegs on the first bug me more than the second. I would've approved the second (post #173445) had I seen it. However, as it was deleted specifically on quality grounds, I'll let another mod or two chime in.
3) - I dunno, the rotated version seems okay to me. Damn, maybe I've looked at it too many times D; Oh well, if ya think it's not suitable to be a wall, I'm fine with that.

1) - Yeah, the artifacts are there (and visible on the girl's face), but I still feel the image's good enough (content-wise) to stay. Personally, it's one of mine favs from the artist. In fact, I'm pretty positive it would have been safe if a contributor had uploaded it at that time.
1) >.<

The unwritten policy of "giving certain artists a reprieve from or more leeway with artifact-based deletions" never did make sense to me.

2) D-Deleted for an excess of jpeg_artifacts!? I can barely see the things, if at all! Bah! And I'm one of the more anal people around Konachan when it comes to artifacts... Maybe Wiresetc didn't mean to use that deletion reason. The deletion reason box has a little drop-down menu of recently used reasons, and so if he misclicked on one of those and was being hasty or sleepy or something at the time and didn't notice...

I think the image is fine.

3) I think I see what PAIIS is talking about with the rotation, but I wouldn't delete it for just that. However, some of the lines are aliased and unclean... AND in my opinion the "sauce" on her belly and breasts looks both two-dimensional and, since the underlying character doesn't, like it was just stamped over the main image.
Undeleted post #173445, given the agreement.
PAIIS said:
Undeleted post #173445, given the agreement.
Agreed. I apologize for the faulty deletion. Those are not jpeg artifacts.

About (3), I have to agree with PAIIS and Minabi, but the quality is good enough to stay. As long as users don't look at the original, it won't look weird. With (1)...guess it's undelete one, or delete them all. Lots of hjl's posts have poor quality so having one with more artifacts is okay. Undelete the two.
*claps in delight* That's 3/3 undeleted! Thanks people :D
post #181334 is not a quite a dupe, and you would see that if you actually checked between the two... that was why it was able to make it past kona's self dupe check in the first place. It's also the updated version by the artist, but whatever I guess.
I did check between the two, and I didn't notice anything different. Care to explain what was different?
Check the area just near her left hand (the one with the fingerless glove on). That's where you'll spot the difference. That's the only diff though.

Also, FormX's right about it being the updated version. If you'll check the source address for his post, you'll see it has a ?<some number> after the .jpg, meaning the artist updated the post later on. I use a pixiv add-on for direct links to the posts, and for some reason it refuses to give me the link to the artist revisions, instead always linking to the original version D;

That being said, I don't think the difference between the two posts (post #181331 and post #181334) was enough to warrant a re-upload. But you can undelete the latter and delete the former if you feel you'd like the updated version.
To be honest the area right in front of the left hand is jaggy, as if there are artifacts there, although it might just be a wanted effect... Dunno. I'm more inclined to keep FormX's version but whatever you all decide. I see no reason to keep both of them since they're still essentially duplicates.
post #163205

Yes they are essentially the same, but this was in higher res and lossless, so why was this one deleted?
Lack of additional detail for the increased resolution. I zoomed the smaller one to match the res of the larger one and they looked the same. However, I failed to notice the difference in quality in the darker areas of the image. I'll switch them.
Yeah...
post #185203

There are no issues with it. Its exactly the same quality, if not greater than my other ones.
I question whether anyone actually looked at it or decided to just leave it to someone else...
Not approved in 3+ days is ridiculous.