Tried uploading this picture I saw on Rule34 (https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=12464407)
and it was flagged and deleted as human only.
Now, all this image depicts is a Tinkaton (from pokemon), and there are many Tinkaton pictures here on e621. So.. how is Tinkaton a human?

The only two visible features in that post are goofy anime hair and super-macro breasts. Of those two, which screams "nonhuman relevancy" to you?

lafcadio said:
The only two visible features in that post are goofy anime hair and super-macro breasts. Of those two, which screams "nonhuman relevancy" to you?

Tinkaton?

emyds said:
Tinkaton?

Never heard of it, and you haven't provided a reason for me or anybody else to care about the post based on its visual content.
You already have 9 non-pending posts on your account, uploaded over a period of about two years, so I would advise rereading the uploading guidelines so you can see if perhaps there's text pertaining to this exact case (there is.)

It's no problem, I was just wondering why it was flagged as human content.
I can understand people can't tell it's a pokemon straight away from the picture.
In the end, I uploaded it just to have it visible here on e621

emyds said:
It's no problem, I was just wondering why it was flagged as human content.
I can understand people can't tell it's a pokemon straight away from the picture.
In the end, I uploaded it just to have it visible here on e621

It's flagged and deleted because it visually resembles or is indistinguishable from human-only artwork, see the Humans and e621 section of the Uploading Guidelines.

Even though it is canonically Tinkaton being featured in the post, there is insufficient evidence to say conclusively that they are indeed a furry character.
From an outside perspective, without being told what species are featured on the post, one could only see a weird lump of hair (not furry-relevant by itself) being crushed under a pair of giant breasts (also not furry-relevant by itself).
If there were more evidence that points to them being furry characters (e.g., any animal features that deviate from human anatomy, etc.), then it would be more likely to be approved and kept.

emyds said:
Now, all this image depicts is a Tinkaton (from pokemon), and there are many Tinkaton pictures here on e621. So.. how is Tinkaton a human?

It's not about who/what they are, it's about how they look in any given image. An image of fox_mccloud could be deleted for being "human only" if none of his non-human traits (fur, tail, snout, ears) are apparent.

emyds said:
Tried uploading this picture I saw on Rule34 (https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=12464407)
and it was flagged and deleted as human only.
Now, all this image depicts is a Tinkaton (from pokemon), and there are many Tinkaton pictures here on e621. So.. how is Tinkaton a human?

After looking at the piece in question, I see absolutely no way that the Tinkaton in the piece could be mistaken for a human.

rubberduckydj said:
After looking at the piece in question, I see absolutely no way that the Tinkaton in the piece could be mistaken for a human.

The deletion reason "human only" does not make the claim that the character featured in the post is human, it just means that the characters featured lacked any "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" to make it eligible for approval.

Certain Pokémon are a pain from a TWYS perspective. Lore doesn't matter. We go by what they look like in a picture, and some Pokémon can be so annoyingly human-looking sometimes from certain angles and positions that it's a toss-up on whether they get to stay or not, regardless of what they really are lore-wise.

I made a more detailed breakdown over here, in case anyone's interested.