lies

RSS

modestlybold:

Evening Fog - Kalden D.

You two are sourcing superheros. :) Sourcerors?

omg, sally.

joooooohn weheartit is not a soooource.

Did I source something to weheartit?

Edit: Ah, I see what you’re complaining about. I guess you should take it up with memoriesfullofmagic, who appears to be the person who originally posted the item from weheartit, causing Tumblr to stick that “Source:” attribution on it.

Yay, Google Image search. It’s “lavender field, near hood river, oregon" by Flickr user diane c. lee. She released it under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license, which I think means she’s officially okay with people reusing it, though she’s requiring attribution, which the weheartit post and everything from memoriesfullofmagic on down on Tumblr omitted.

I’ll update my reblog to include the attribution.

rmangi:

I’ve marched plenty of times. I protested Iraq, toxic waste, Republicans… I could have watched football today but sometimes you march to pass on the experience and the knowledge that YOU CAN AND YOU MUST PARTICIPATE to the ones who are going to suffer if we don’t do something now. 
Quincy ran into a friend from school and we marched with her and her mom. They chanted, they cheered. They had an experience that lasts a lifetime. They were part of history.

rmangi:

I’ve marched plenty of times. I protested Iraq, toxic waste, Republicans… I could have watched football today but sometimes you march to pass on the experience and the knowledge that YOU CAN AND YOU MUST PARTICIPATE to the ones who are going to suffer if we don’t do something now. 

Quincy ran into a friend from school and we marched with her and her mom. They chanted, they cheered. They had an experience that lasts a lifetime. They were part of history.

flutish:

I was watching Emma Watson’s important speech on feminism and gender equality at the UN, and I decided to check her Wikipedia page to learn more about her work on the matter. Instead I found that more sentences have been given to the male-gaze magazines who have ranked Watson on the basis of her sex appeal (first appearing when underage) than for the work she has done to promote women and gender equality. More care to her looks than her humanitarian work.
Watch the speech. And take action in whatever way you can.

I looked (briefly) at the Wikipedia article and am having trouble finding what you’re referring to. I’m seeing roughly 10 sentences in the section on her women’s rights work versus 5 sentences on her appearance in the men’s magazines (2 in the intro and then 3 later on).

Regardless, you’re not limited to talking about it here on Tumblr if you feel the Wikipedia article is inappropriately balanced. You have everything you need to take action directly. Edit the Wikipedia article yourself to improve it. Or, if you don’t have an existing confirmed Wikipedia account that will allow you to make edits on a semi-protected page (which “Emma Watson” is), then propose the changes you wish to make on the article’s Talk page, and try to build consensus (which is a good idea anyway if you want your edits to persist).

Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, and if you try to make it one you’ll be frustrated by other editors’ reverting your changes. But if you can make a case for the change you want in terms of Wikipedia’s actual values and goals (to be a neutral-point-of-view, accurate encyclopedia article), you’ve got a good shot.

flutish:

I was watching Emma Watson’s important speech on feminism and gender equality at the UN, and I decided to check her Wikipedia page to learn more about her work on the matter. Instead I found that more sentences have been given to the male-gaze magazines who have ranked Watson on the basis of her sex appeal (first appearing when underage) than for the work she has done to promote women and gender equality. More care to her looks than her humanitarian work.

Watch the speech. And take action in whatever way you can.

I looked (briefly) at the Wikipedia article and am having trouble finding what you’re referring to. I’m seeing roughly 10 sentences in the section on her women’s rights work versus 5 sentences on her appearance in the men’s magazines (2 in the intro and then 3 later on).

Regardless, you’re not limited to talking about it here on Tumblr if you feel the Wikipedia article is inappropriately balanced. You have everything you need to take action directly. Edit the Wikipedia article yourself to improve it. Or, if you don’t have an existing confirmed Wikipedia account that will allow you to make edits on a semi-protected page (which “Emma Watson” is), then propose the changes you wish to make on the article’s Talk page, and try to build consensus (which is a good idea anyway if you want your edits to persist).

Note that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, and if you try to make it one you’ll be frustrated by other editors’ reverting your changes. But if you can make a case for the change you want in terms of Wikipedia’s actual values and goals (to be a neutral-point-of-view, accurate encyclopedia article), you’ve got a good shot.

The king and queen’s lantern finding it’s way to Rapunzel.

Edited to add the photographer’s attribution:
It’s “lavender field, near hood river, oregon" by Flickr user diane c. lee. Used here (at least) under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.

Edited to add the photographer’s attribution:

It’s “lavender field, near hood river, oregon" by Flickr user diane c. lee. Used here (at least) under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.

(Source: scamanders)

If I don’t morph into a snail someday, the end goal is Lisa Simpson, definitely.

- mountainchickens rambling

(Source: definite-disnerd)