or at least how to tell a moderator a deletion was wrong.

these two pictures were deleted for the "human only" reason but Princess Bubblegum isn't human, she's living candy like the tags say.

https://e621.net/posts/2452323
https://e621.net/posts/2480403

sorry if there's already a false positives thread for this, I could only find the YoungHumanPurge one, which is not this case.

in posts where the character just appears to be a human (Technicolor skin or not) they're considered to be human. unless the character's more gum-like features are actually visible in the post it would be considered irrelevant to site.

slutterfly said:
or at least how to tell a moderator a deletion was wrong.

Contact the moderator/janitor in question and state your reasons why you think the deletion is wrong.
If you are still not satisfied, you may contact the head admin @NotMeNotYou to escalate the issue.

these two pictures were deleted for the "human only" reason but Princess Bubblegum isn't human, she's living candy like the tags say.

https://e621.net/posts/2452323
https://e621.net/posts/2480403

It does not matter what the tags or lore say, please refer to the Humans and e621 section of the Uploading Guidelines.
A pink-coloured human/humanoid is considered irrelevant for the site, unless they have "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" or is part of "a page, or an image, of an otherwise furry-centric comic".

sorry if there's already a false positives thread for this, I could only find the YoungHumanPurge one, which is not this case.

We do not have a thread to contest such deletions, you will have to contact the janitor who deleted it or an admin.
Please also read the pinned topic #23578 on reasons for why your post has been deleted.

If you'd like a tl:dr version:

slutterfly said:
or at least how to tell a moderator a deletion was wrong.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Contact the moderator/janitor in question and state your reasons why you think the deletion is wrong.
If you are still not satisfied, you may contact the head admin @NotMeNotYou to escalate the issue.

As TheGreatWolfgang says, albeit with some exceptions. If the deleting Janitor is Mairo, just go straight to NotMeNotYou (by Mairo's own request).

In your case, the staffmember (Millcore) has retired (if you have "Colored usernames" enabled in your Advanced Settings, you'll see the name is teal), so you can skip messaging them about it. Your best bet is to just ask an Admin or NotMeNotYou about it.

these two pictures were deleted for the "human only" reason but Princess Bubblegum isn't human, she's living candy like the tags say.

"Human only" basically means the characters look like humans, regardless of what their actual lore says. E621 is a furry-centric booru, so humanoids get in on a technicality. But they must look the part and have some sufficiently non-human trait that can't be explained by an art style, like pointy elf ears (the Link rule) or a mouth-o'-fangs (the Venom rule), or a costume. Funky skin colors don't count (the Simpsons rule). This is TWYS (Tag What You See) because a majority of Users don't know about the lore and don't even care.

Can this be difficult at times? You bet! Posting art of humanoids is a risk. Is that a Pokémon or a human wearing a funny hat? Is that a monkey or just a human with big ears? Is that really Venom or a furry or does it appear to be just a human in a fursuit or costume? Is Squirrel Girl a squirrel kemonomimi or just a cosplaying human? (Actually, she's frequently worse than the average kemonomimi since one of the defining traits of a kemonomimi is the animal ears and hers can often look like they might be attached to a hairband instead of being her real ears. That just leaves the tail.) Is that goo humanoid gooey or transparent enough to count as nonhuman? Are those humanoid pointy ears really pointy enough to count?

There's reasons why humanoids are none too popular amongst Janitors, and if it's eventually decided certain humanoids are indeed too human-looking (eg. Queen Tyr'ahnee once it was decided that the apparent lack of mouth didn't count) they can potentially get purged.

We do have exceptions, though. If a post that is human only is part of a sequence of pictures (for example, a comic or a transformation sequence) that are otherwise predominantly nonhuman, then the picture can be kept because it helps complete the overall story. However, the post needs to be either in a pool or a parent/child relationship, otherwise no one's going to know that it's part of anything.

Now for how that all relates to these two pictures of Princess Bubblegum:

https://e621.net/posts/2452323
https://e621.net/posts/2480403

Putting myself in the mindset of the average User, I don't really know Adventure Time lore, so must go only with what she looks like. The pink skin is irrelevant (the Simpsons rule). She has no pointy ears (the Link rule), clearly has no animal bits, so what makes her nonhuman? If I want to put in the effort, I can do a little research (or just ask a more knowledgeable staffmember) and find out that her major defining nonhuman trait is her goopy hair, which apparently should look like melted gobs of bubblegum. However, given the simplicity of the style she's usually drawn in, that's usually not conveyed, and her hair looks like just cartoon-stylized locks.

The tags are helpful in showing me what direction I ought to look for nonhuman cues, but they aren't the be-all and end-all of the matter. (Which character is the living candy? Are they both living candy? Was the post mistagged and neither are?) They are part of a pool, but is it a sequence of pictures or just a collection of them? It appears to be the latter, so leaving these two out doesn't affect the "plot" of the pool any.

In light of that, I'm going to have say that Millcore had the right of it. These two pictures aren't relevant to e621's mission due to being too human-looking. However, if you still disagree, you can certainly ask Head Admin NotMeNotYou for his opinion.

clawstripe said:
"Human only" basically means the characters look like humans, regardless of what their actual lore says. [...] they must look the part and have some sufficiently non-human trait that can't be explained by an art style, like pointy elf ears (the Link rule) or a mouth-o'-fangs (the Venom rule), or a costume. Funky skin colors don't count (the Simpsons rule).

[...] If a post that is human only is part of a sequence of pictures (for example, a comic or a transformation sequence) that are otherwise predominantly nonhuman, then the picture can be kept because it helps complete the overall story.

That actually explains a lot.

clawstripe said:
[...] I don't really know Adventure Time lore, so must go only with what she looks like. The pink skin is irrelevant (the Simpsons rule). She has no pointy ears (the Link rule), clearly has no animal bits, so what makes her nonhuman? If I want to put in the effort, I can do a little research (or just ask a more knowledgeable staffmember) and find out that her major defining nonhuman trait is her goopy hair, which apparently should look like melted gobs of bubblegum. However, given the simplicity of the style she's usually drawn in, that's usually not conveyed, and her hair looks like just cartoon-stylized locks.

The tags are helpful in showing me what direction I ought to look for nonhuman cues, but they aren't the be-all and end-all of the matter. (Which character is the living candy? Are they both living candy? Was the post mistagged and neither are?) They are part of a pool, but is it a sequence of pictures or just a collection of them? It appears to be the latter, so leaving these two out doesn't affect the "plot" of the pool any.

Yeah, I see your point. Thanks for explaining it in such detail!