File talk:Wiki-facial.png

Image comment
as with the other similar picture, I have to ask again, I don't see the point of putting this picture on said article, just seems gratuitous. Would anyone with an opposing view care to chime in? --70.26.68.102 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's about as un-gratuitous as you can get while portraying the act realistically. 71.55.253.100 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * yyep pretty much --96.243.180.70 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell do you need two pictures?
Everyone wants to argue that NO THIS ISN'T GRATUITOUS yet you have two pictures demonstrating this act. Right. That's not gratuitous at all.


 * srsly, how bout just one real picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.178.71 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

how about two pictures, the cartoon "theory" and a photographed, real depiction similar to the pearl necklace? It would be no more gratuitous than it currently is. (86.150.112.166 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

How about a short video clip? It would be much more educational. 99.32.57.120 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)