Danbooru
Login Posts Comments Notes Artists Tags Pools Wiki Forum More » Listing Upload Hot Changes Help

Search

Blacklisted (help)

  • guro
  • scat
  • furry -rating:g
Disable all Re-enable all

Artist

  • ? horiishi horuto 66

Copyrights

  • ? overwatch 17k
  • ? overwatch 1 14k

Character

  • ? d.va (overwatch) 5.1k

General

  • ? 1girl 6.6M
  • ? animal print 76k
  • ? armor 239k
  • ? ass 644k
  • ? blowing bubble gum 4.5k
  • ? bodysuit 137k
  • ? boots 553k
  • ? breasts 3.8M
  • ? brown eyes 909k
  • ? brown hair 1.7M
  • ? chewing gum 6.4k
  • ? clothes writing 47k
  • ? facial mark 111k
  • ? gloves 1.5M
  • ? hand up 401k
  • ? headphones 109k
  • ? high collar 47k
  • ? impossible clothes 29k
  • ? long hair 4.8M
  • ? looking at viewer 3.7M
  • ? lying 491k
  • ? mecha 46k
  • ? mecha pilot suit 23k
  • ? medium breasts 968k
  • ? meka (overwatch) 792
  • ? mountain 26k
  • ? night 130k
  • ? night sky 62k
  • ? on back 279k
  • ? outdoors 601k
  • ? rabbit 30k
  • ? rabbit print 4.3k
  • ? robot 73k
  • ? signature 336k
  • ? skin tight 43k
  • ? sky 483k
  • ? solo 5.5M
  • ? star (sky) 65k
  • ? swept bangs 133k
  • ? thigh boots 98k
  • ? thighhighs 1.3M
  • ? thighs 633k
  • ? whisker markings 16k
  • ? white boots 46k
  • ? white gloves 334k

Meta

  • ? commentary request 3.6M
  • ? duplicate 38k
  • ? highres 6.0M
  • ? md5 mismatch 103k

Information

  • ID: 2391766
  • Uploader: user 418493 »
  • Date: about 9 years ago
  • Approver: user 460797 »
  • Size: 2.27 MB .png (1920x1440) »
  • Source: pixiv.net/artworks/57224793 »
  • Rating: Sensitive
  • Score: 28
  • Favorites: 46
  • Status: Active

Options

  • Resize to window
  • View smaller
  • View original
  • Find similar
  • Download

History

  • Tags
  • Pools
  • Notes
  • Moderation
  • Commentary
This post belongs to a parent (learn more) « hide
post #4833027
Resized to 44% of original (view original)
d.va (overwatch and 1 more) drawn by horiishi_horuto

Artist's commentary

  • Original
  • Overwatch - D.Va

    イントロは「まったり」が好き

    • ‹ prev Search: user:user_418493 next ›
  • Comments
  • Recommended
  • Loading...

    user 418493
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    Apologies, I neglected to do a reverse image search.

  • 0
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Arzel Acruum
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    While Duplicate is not a reason for deletion, I think the site should be kept free of "spam posts", for a better search experience. Not that I'm a moderator or trying to guilt anybody for this kind of posts(I did the same mistake once), but it's an opinion.

  • 1
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Gollgagh
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    "spam posts"?

    I'm not seeing the "spam".

  • 0
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Arzel Acruum
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    Gollgagh said:

    "spam posts"?

    I'm not seeing the "spam".

    I mean, the pic was already uploaded, isn't that spam?
    Just saying.

  • 1
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Gollgagh
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    That's what the duplicate tag is for.

    Duplicate wiki:
    Do not flag duplicates for deletion if your only reason is that the image is a duplicate.

    afaic, spam would be posting stuff for the sake of advertising something

  • 0
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Arzel Acruum
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    Gollgagh said:

    That's what the duplicate tag is for.

    afaic, spam would be posting stuff for the sake of advertising something

    You've got a point there, perhaps "spam" was not an adequate word to use.

    Now, for the sake of knowlege, why does danbooru allow duplicates? Isn't that redundant? I think the only purpose it serves is to lengthen the list of post.

  • 0
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    user 460797
    about 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    Arzel_Acruum said:

    You've got a point there, perhaps "spam" was not an adequate word to use.

    Now, for the sake of knowlege, why does danbooru allow duplicates? Isn't that redundant? I think the only purpose it serves is to lengthen the list of post.

    What would be the consequences?
    We have a lot of md5 mismatch posts, also multiple twitter postings. MD5 alone is about 22k postings, not all of them have parents, but surely a lot.
    So you would punish people if you would delete these images, even though there wasn't the duplicate picture when uploaded. MD5 mismatch images aren't exact duplicates, but have slight changes. Still, they look pretty much the same.
    To delete then the child post isn't that fair and one should wait 2 days (because there is a chance that the artist revise the upload or uploads it on pixiv etc.).
    What is with this kind of picture that got deleted here? They also shouldn't be deleted, because 1. It was uploaded, i.e. there is a difference between the dA and pixiv upload and 2. even if that weren't the case: It is from a first-party source since it's that artist's dA-Account and wasn't reposted. This is a difference.
    Now we could handle these posts just like Twitter postings, that won't be approved if it's posted afterwards (and even before the pixiv uploads comes up (and I'm still having problems with this "policy")). But dA works a bit difference than Twitter I think^^.

    And btw. this picture has 2,27 MB, while it's parent has 2,25 MB. So not the same size and therefore no duplicate.

  • 0
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Arzel Acruum
    almost 9 years ago
    [hidden]

    Provence said:

    What would be the consequences?
    We have a lot of md5 mismatch posts, also multiple twitter postings. MD5 alone is about 22k postings, not all of them have parents, but surely a lot.
    So you would punish people if you would delete these images, even though there wasn't the duplicate picture when uploaded. MD5 mismatch images aren't exact duplicates, but have slight changes. Still, they look pretty much the same.
    To delete then the child post isn't that fair and one should wait 2 days (because there is a chance that the artist revise the upload or uploads it on pixiv etc.).
    What is with this kind of picture that got deleted here? They also shouldn't be deleted, because 1. It was uploaded, i.e. there is a difference between the dA and pixiv upload and 2. even if that weren't the case: It is from a first-party source since it's that artist's dA-Account and wasn't reposted. This is a difference.
    Now we could handle these posts just like Twitter postings, that won't be approved if it's posted afterwards (and even before the pixiv uploads comes up (and I'm still having problems with this "policy")). But dA works a bit difference than Twitter I think^^.

    And btw. this picture has 2,27 MB, while it's parent has 2,25 MB. So not the same size and therefore no duplicate.

    Well, if it serves a porpuse, let it be, then. I'm no mod anyways.
    I was just curious about posts and duplicates.

  • 0
  • Reply
    • Copy ID
    • Copy Link
    Terms / Privacy / Upgrade / Contact /