Talk:Facepalm

Suggested content for this article
A facepalm is a gesture used as an expression of embarrassment, frustration , disbelief, disgust or general woe.

There are two ways in which it is used:
 * Physical gesture
 * To bring the palm of the hand to the face
 * To bring the face down to a cupped hand or hands.
 * Written use
 * Primarily used in text communication on the Internet (often as *facepalm* or similar) when it is generally used to show embarrassment or disbelief, but is also used in personal communication.

One of the earliest examples of its public use is in a photograph of Jim Horne, a model, whose use typified the "disgust" aspect.

An example of its use in popular culture is seen in Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Jean-Luc Picard often expresses disbelief using this gesture.

The existence of this article gives me the urge to facepalm
Seriously, an article about the action of facepalming? WTF? What is encyclopedical about it? If someone wants some lulz, Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article about the facepalm that will provide many. I suggest to delete this page. Devil Master (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a well-known and notable human gesture / widely used body language. On that merit alone--given that there's enough verifiable things to say about the subject--it should have its own article. You seem to have a problem with that it's also an Internet meme. First off, I'm glad we don't delete articles just because they happen to be part of an Internet meme. Second, if the meme dies down, the article still documents a well-known gesture in (Western?) human body language. I agree that it could be expanded with more general information (like, what cultures use it, especially which ones don't), so that there's less focus on simply being that funny Picard picture. Furthermore, a quick browse of Google Groups/Usenet shows that the word "facepalm" has been commonly used (in this way) since at least the early 90s. That's before the word "meme" became a meme! :)
 * In my opinion, to improve this article, it could be split into a section discussing the facepalm as a gesture in body language, and another section discussing "facepalm" as an interjection in informal written communication (such as email, texting/SMS, IM, etc) part of which may include discussion of the Internet meme status of the funny Picard picture, etc.
 * Aside: "Interjection" doesn't seem to be exactly the right word, here. According to the article it's primarily used to indicate a part of spoken language. I wonder if there's a parallel term for interjection-like words in (usually informal) written language, or whether the article on "interjection" is just somewhat incomplete in this respect. Max Ijzersteen (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Gestures are usually not used world-wide and can have different (even opposing) meanings in different cultures. So why shouldn't there be an article about this gesture? --BenediktWildenhain (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * wasn't this deleted? was the delete reversed?  98.122.177.19 (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily an article like this would be deleted without mercy, but a few moderators and other well-established users got really excited about writing this article. Clout is clout, and bureaucracies are bureaucracies, even online. Articles like this really drag down the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole, but I suppose at this point Wikipedia has already made its first impression with most of the world so it doesn't really matter. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wether some may like it or not, this is human knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.176.210.185 (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A similar question was asked by someone on Yahoo answers a six days ago. :) ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Picard
Need a facepalm picture of Jean-Luc Picard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.131.10 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a sourced episode it probably has no business in the article. Even if you do, this might be altogether too inaccessible a reference for the majority of readers. --Ioscius ∞ 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As the most famous facepalm of all, or at least where it all started, an image of it could presumably be uploaded. It would fall under the fair use policy, so it wouldn't need to be public domain. It'd also be better than the available ones in the article, they just don't define the subject quite as well. Penyulap   talk 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The french wikipedia has an awesome picture for this: a classical statue in a parisian public park Cain Henri Vidal Tuileries.jpg.88.132.42 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I second this. Despite the ambiguity of the reference for most readers, this is the classic image for the internet series of "facepalms" and memes that really sprung this topic to the mainstream in the first place. I think that a slight reference would do the article well. Kurjagger (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Questionable double facepalm
The double facepalm photo linked to (reference 3) is the product of photo manipulation. Picard and Riker never facepalmed at the same table at the same time. Riker's facepalm and the original photo is from Season 3, episode 14 "A Matter of Perspective," and Picard has been inserte from any number of Picard facepalm photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canonymous (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Smiting one's brow
This sounds made-up, a quick googlge search and the only returns are this article. Cxk271 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed master's thesis citation
I was uncertain about the acceptability of this reference, which is a thesis for a Master of Science degree. Generally a master's thesis is not acceptable, but in this case it was the only valid source and I didn't want to create an unreferenced article. The question was taken to the [|reliable sources noticeboard] and the consensus reached was that for this instance, it is not a valid situation for using the thesis. None of the references cited by the author (I've checked) had anything to do with the subject of this article, and I was unable to find evidence in citation databases that this thesis has been cited for scholarly purposes. The only instance of "facepalm" appears once as a colloquialism used by the author, and once as a footnote explaining what the colloquialism means without evidence.

If someone can demonstrate that the thesis has been cited elsewhere in reputable sources, then I'll support re-inserting it into this article, but without that please do not revert the removal of that reference. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Feature this
This article should be featured article. The quality of the writing is astonishing. It's the bestest of the bestest. --78.128.178.194 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious troll is obvious. ~jcm  21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Really obvious troll is so obvious there is no way to say his name but to say Obvious infinite times. 78.x.x.194 was being SARCASTIC. Get sarcasm? Fine. JJhashisreasons (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Facehand vs Facepalm
Anyone notice how the supposed "facepalm" pictures really show an entire hand on someone's face. Meaning with the thumb, index finger, middle finger, ring finger, and pinky. Anatomy is fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.23.160 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ending cuts off
I don't know what the last sentence was trying to say, it needs to be fixed; it gets cut off with "proposed m(".


 * Maybe the editor said "Candlejack", everyone knows that if you say his name he wi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.169.227 (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is found in reliable sources. Here is the definition from Oxford dictionaries. Another definition from the published MacMillan dictionary. Additionally, a search at Google books for "facepalm" (using the quotes) finds it in published works.-- ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The MacMillan one is user-submitted. And it's featured in very few published works, all from the last few years, and nothing that is anything of note; just more internet culture and trashy novels. This word is a purely internet-derived neologism and not well defined. I will concede that the OED is a notable and reliable source, but again that has been added only in the last month, and the OED seem to be adding any old crap to the dictionary these days, like 'Twittersphere'. I still maintain this article should be a redirect at the most. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because...

Information about this gesture isn't covered elsewhere.

To maintain its integrity, Wikipedia MUST NOT delete this entry until it has properly been merged into a parent article with a redirect.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.58.248 (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This article was nominated for speedy deletion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not? It's not notable. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I found this article useful
Today I saw facepalm in a Tweet. I had seen it before, but never bothered to try to understand it. A Google search produced 14,000,000+ hits. This article was the top entry. After reading this Wikipedia article, I checked back tothe first page of Google hits and they correlated with the information in the article. If this type is context is not contained within the definition of "notable" in Wikipedia, then that definition seems unnecessarily limited to me.

Also, I looked for a user named 78.150.164.120 but of course was not able to find a user with this name. The history associated with 78.150.164.120 is very short and limited to one day. May I suggest that 78.150.164.120 register as Wikipedia user and start building a reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooTallSid (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Article for deletion
Please see Articles for deletion/Facepalm (3rd nomination). &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gesture before 2008
Working under the assumption that this will make it out of AFD successfully, I do agree that despite what work has gone into this page already, there's a lot more than could be done. In particular, coverage of the gesture prior to the circa 2008 coinage of "facepalm" is pretty much absent. I haven't had any luck locating an older term that is still specific, but it's hard for me to believe that this didn't get any coverage in the social sciences as part of research on nonverbal communication. Something that ties whatever older material there is to the new content would be ideal, of course -- I can find discussion of people "covering their face" all the way back to the Bible, but I don't want to be too aggressive with inclusion at the risk of producing a novel synthesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked, and it looks like a related term is headslapper (headslapper). Some context is:
 * "All of Dave's and Gregg's developments involved one head-slapper, when you look at it and go, Why didn't I think of this?" 1993
 * "Hunting deer from a white blind in snow is a head-slapper of a tactic -- a why-didn't-I-think-of-this-before approach." 2011
 * This isn't the sense of something stupid beyond belief, but is a similar gesture. Chris857 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. HahReginaldTQ (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They're's only one image in the article...
and it looked totally fake. Like the person is making out with his hand or something. I feel stupid. 67.242.219.139 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could create a better image, then upload it and add it to the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel stupid? ReginaldTQ (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to get the permission to use the Star Trek image that is so popular with this gesture and its meme Kurjagger (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Revisions
The article needs a more fully developed explanation of the evolution of 'facepalm' as a cultural reference. The addition of examples of uses of the term, and similar terms, would be useful in demonstrating the pervasive presence of the term in popular culture. The article could also benefit from an explanation of different methods of employing the 'facepalm' reference, whether written, physically expressed, or meme-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmadchill (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The main additions made were in the form of: The page lacks a coherence in tone and topic, and so language was melded and ideas made more concise with references. Pictures were added for visual effect for both Facepalm and double Facepalm, expanding on the emotional component of the gesture. Kurjagger (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Layout
 * 2) Presentation
 * 3) Expansion of references
 * 4) Promotion of new material
 * 5) Promotion of cultural references
 * 6) Added pictures and media
 * 7) Language and concision

Extension of meme
The section on the "internet usage" seems to be only pertinent to memes and not the actual gesture. How would revision of this work? Kurjagger (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That whole section seems to be highly suspect (probably original research or maybe just opinion). It really needs some reliable sources for the claims it makes. I also agree that it seems out of place in this article. 173.172.70.38 (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My group aimed to clear that up. I'm glad we weren't alone Kurjagger (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
This group did a very good job finding citations and using inline citation for the pop culture section. Also the use of images is very well done. Furthermore the group does a strong job of linking to other Wikipedia pages.The article has a limited scope as it only discusses instances of facepalm in the internet era. They mention that the gesture is found in many countries and has been around in the past but do not cite or reference non-modern instances. Finally the second half of the article lacks citations. Overall a good, but limited, job. Yoavhelfman (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this group did very well in providing a great description of what a face palm is, why it is used, and many examples of its uses. For the introduction paragraph and the popular culture paragraph there was a great amount of citation; however, farther down in the article, by Internet Usage, there seems to be a lack of citation. There are many lines in which the statements made are not those that the general public would know, meaning they must be cited. I like how the group put a lot of hyper links within their article to other wikipedia articles. Another critique is at the beginning of the article, when the article mentions the origins of "face palm," it says that it was originated in 2006, but also could have been coined in 2001, and yet the article never really goes into detail about how "face palm" was used in each of those instances. I feel as if the group could go into a bit more detail there. Overall, I think that article was done well and after reading, I have a firm understanding of what a "face palm" is. Jokogan (talk0 12:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I thought this group did a nice job of seriously upgrading their "stub" article and have a very high quality page as the result. Although the article is brief, it is fine because the topic of the page does not naturally elicit a longwinded response. As far as Wikipedia editing goes, the group did a fairly good job. The article is easy to understand and simply organized. There are valid links to other Wikipedia pages and evidence of outside resources used. Additionally, the pictures are useful in explain exactly what a "facepalm" is. In terms of content, I feel the group accomplished the goal of an encyclopedia type definition of a facepalm, which is good. One thing that I found myself wondering about is the psycholgy of the facepalm. Is there a reason that this reaction occurs in certain scenarios, and why this natural rteaction? This could be a cool point to add. However, I still approve of this article as a really solid page that clearly accomplished the goals of editing and the assignment, and would like to commend the authors for keeping the article enlightening and fascinating. Jacob Metzger (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Although this article was short, I found it interesting and informative. Before I read this article I had only heard the term "face palm" a few times and each time it was referencing an embarrassing or frustrating situation, just as the article stated. This article explains how the term face palm is often used as *facepalm* on the Internet or in text to show embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, or disgust (I am assuming through Facebook post or Twitter) but it is used different in human interaction. Instead of saying "face palm" people physically bring the palm of their hand to their forehead to show embarrassment, frustration, disbelief, or disgust. The few times I have seen the term *facepalm* have been in situations like that and I have not seen very many people perform the act of face palm-ing. I really liked how this article had images, especially the image of Vidal's stature Cain followed by the two present-day pictures of men illustrating the face palm. The images show how many people use the face palm gesture in every day situations and allow the reader to connect an image to the word, especially when using it on the internet as *facepalm*. The "Similar gestures" and "See also" sections also allow the reader to connect the term to every day life. Overall this article was great, very informative, and very easy to understand. There was a lot of information and they cited many references showing that they got their information from a variety of sources. Savanahharvey (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Although it is hard to write a whole Wikipedia article on a single gesture, this group did a very good job of developing the main points of the infamous face palm. What I liked most about the page is its use of photos. Not only did they include multiple photos, but using statues from accent Greece gives the topic a somewhat valid and important feel. That being said, I think the group should have elaborated on the photo of the statue. Is this the only instance where Greek sculptors used the gesture? Is there any history that backs up their perception of it. Because it is such a narrow topic, I feel the group could have been a little more creative with their paragraphs. For example, one paragraph could include similar gestures. I was a little disappointed with the lack of sources in the "Internet Use" section. This section seems to be one that could be referenced the most. This section could also include the multiple social media sites that use "face palm". Like Savanah stated, I know of multiple times where i found face palm used on Twitter. Besides these additions, I think the page is developed enough to where it is useful and informative. Wikipedia is a reference for everything, even gestures, and needs to expand on this idea if it wants to continue the success it has. Jrobins618 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobins618 (talk • contribs)

Overall, I think this group did a good job on their article. The lead section is clear and functions well as an introduction to the article. The structure is organized and the sections are ordered logically by topic. All of the sections are approximately even in length, so no single section overpowers the others. I especially like how the group makes a clear distinction between the face palm gesture and the facepalm meme, since many people only know about one or the other. Also, I like this group's frequent use of links so that the reader can learn more about the important topics in the article. Also, there are many references, which allows the reader to explore the original sources for more information about the face palm. In addition, I like how there are multiple images in this article, which keeps the article interesting for the reader. One criticism I have of this article is that it could use some further elaboration and also that the "Internet Usage" section needs references. Also, I found one spelling error in the third section heading, which reads: "Similar estures." Overall, this article is very well written and follows the criteria of a good article from the "Evaluating Wikipedia" brochure.Henmuller (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)henmuller

I believe this group did an excellent job on their article. I think they did a good job to make the article not really look like a stub article anymore. I think that this page also cottons a vast amount of information and explains very well what the Facepalm is. Furthermore, I really enjoyed reading the section about the Internet Usage. Because I have definitely seen an "Online Meme" of a Facepalm before. One thing that could have helped out the article would be a whole sections on the Meme part of the Facepalm. I believe that is what really surged the Facepalm into popular culture and they touched very briefly on the history of it. One thing I really loved about the article was its use of pictures. I think visually they did an amazing job. From the picture of Cain by Henry Vidal to the Emoji to an example of the Double Facepalm, they did an amazing job of visually presenting their information. The Similar Gestures page was also a nice touch that added background information into the family of "Facepalming". Overall, I believe the group did a good job of lengthening the article and adding relevant information. Dylan Silverstein (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This group did very well on their article. The overall layout of the article seemed organized with many useful links and references. Their effort of in-depth research can be noticed by their number of references they used to write the article. Their subsections were divided with related topics and were informative and descriptive for the most part. The main description in the beginning was concise and was easy to comprehend. Popular culture section seemed detail-oriented and therefore it was very informative. The similar gesture section was informative as well as it was entertaining. Their uses of different images portraying "facepalm" was helpful in visualizing the gesture. However, their emoji photo was a bit too small and could be enlarged. In addition, their internet usage section could have been more elaborate because the term is seen quite often on the internet in many other settings. All in all, they met the criteria provided by "Evaluating Wikipedia Brochure" and the article was well written. Sandyang (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This group clearly worked hard on elevating their stub to the next level. The article is well organized, interesting and informative. The lead section is definitely understandable and provides a good overview of what the facepalm represents. I would have liked to see one popular culture facepalm example within this introduction, though, to tie it up, as popular culture seems to be a main section of the article. Their article did a nice job of explaining the facepalm is a structured manner from popular culture to internet usage and finally, to similar gestures. This structure created a flow that was easy to read and understand; I was not confused at any point within the article. The pictures at each section also aided to this flow and this really strengthened their article because I was able to envision what I was reading, heightening my experience. Thus, each section was well-balanced and I could see that lots of time was put into linking other articles. At one point their is a mention that "the gesture itself is not of recent origin" and their is an image in the top right corner from 1896 that mirrors this notion. I think some elaboration of that "history", maybe articulating more on that image or using a few other historical examples, would have been beneficial. Overall, I think this group did a great job. The article was proportional in information, the language was understandable and clear, and there were many reliable sources used to prove its validity. All this article needs is a few more examples and a little more depth, but otherwise the "Evaluating Wikipedia Brochure" criteria is met efficiently and successfully. Eborish (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)eborish

I think this group did an awesome job drawing attention to and explaining a topic that is obscure and somewhat unimportant. The beginning paragraph provides a great summary and clearly defines what it is "facepalm" means. I thought the group's addition of pictures really enhanced the article as well as provided visuals as explanations. In general, there are a lot of sources and the layout looks professional. In terms of content, I believe more could be expanded on the part about animals also using the gesture; in fact, I think an entire subheading could be used and would be beneficial to this topic being that it is a very large but completely different detail than all of the others. In addition, I believe the information under the heading titled "Internet Usage" is lengthy and could be paired down to state things simpler and with less words. Make sure you are sticking to just the facts under each heading and including no bias or opinion. I think it could also be beneficial if the group added information, for example, statistics, on where the term or image "facepalm" shows up most often be it twitter, television, or facebook, etc. Overall, I think this group did a really great job with a topic that doesn't contain much information. Beckermckenzie (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, the edits that were made to this article made it fun and at the same time ver informative to read. I particularly enjoyed the references to popular TV shows such as South Park. Looking at their references, you can tell the group made sure they were prepared when delivering the information. One thing that could improve this article would be the history section. I understand that one cannot simply pin point the origins of such an act, but maybe that picture of the statue doing so is?. Either that or I think the history part since it would be vauge could be removed? It an action that humans use so if it does not have an exact date on it origins I do not think the article will suffer. I think it will even make it stronger since they could replace that section by giving the meme description portion more details. As I stated earlier, the article was a gem to read and I was truly entertained. You can tell a good amount of time and effort was put into this in order to fulfill then "Evaluating Wikipedia Brochure" standards. Mokun (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I think that this group did an excellent job organizing and informing its readers about a topic we would think is very simple. However, there is always room for improvement. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, the authors mention the various significances of the gesture “facepalm” in many cultures. However, it is important to specify and cite which cultures are being referred to. Also, closing the “Popular Culture” section is a sentence related to how other groups such as mandrills use this “facepalm” gesture as well. Although this is an interesting fact to tell your readers, it seems to be a little out of place. It is important to expand on claims made and to place it in the correct subsections. My suggestion would be to either create a subsection of “Animal Usage” or eliminate the sentence all together. Aside from these very specific critiques, I do think that your article is very interesting and informative. It is interesting to see the many usages of a simple gesture like “facepalm.” Great job expanding on this topic and keeping the readers engaged Ishagupta715 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)ishagupta715

This is a nice article that explains the concept of"facepalm" well. There are a few mistakes that could be adjusted, such as the punctuation in the first paragraph (lack of comma in first sentence), and the placement of citations outside of commas in the body sections when they should be placed inside commas (as in most other Wikipedia articles). One thing I definitely wish I could have seen would have been cross-cultural interpretations of facepalms, as the first sentence of the article explains that the signal is not that the same across cultures. The title "Popular culture" seems to be a bit misleading, as the section seems to describe more of current uses in society rather than popular culture per se. As well, there seems to be disorganization in this section, jumping form current uses to one concrete example in a Newsweek article to animal usage. Consider eliminating either or both of the last two points, or section them off to create a more fluid and organized article. AdamWeiss2017 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this group did a good job with clear language and structure of the article. I thought the "Internet Usage" section was helpful to distinguish the differences for in-person and online usage. I think that some aspects of the article could be expanded on a little more. For example the part about animals using the facepalm in zoos could have more detail. Also under the heading "Similar estures" I think you might have meant to write "Gestures." Another issue I noticed is that under "Internet Usage" sources are missing because there is only one source for the three paragraphs. Since the main focus of this article is the use of facepalm in popular culture and Internet usage, it might be beneficial to briefly include these topics in the lead. This article does a nice job of focusing on the different sections equally and I thought that the lists of similar gestures and popular references were useful additions. Overall, I think that this group did a nice job of giving an clear, unbiased overview of the topic. Aeweiner (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Meaning
All of these meanings are possible causes traditionally, but I was under the impression that modern use, especially internet use, wasn't so often "disappointment" or "embarrassment", but rather a indication of disbelief that someone else could have said something embarrassingly foolish...embarrassing to them, not the listener. Like "Oh my god, I can't believe you just said something so stupid". That's the way I've always seen it used. AnnaGoFast (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The meaning is slightly different in "real life" than on the internet. this should be pointed out. Especially the pain / shock / horror / exhaustion are rather used in reality than in the phenoma/emotion used in the virtual world. there it is used like annagofast discribed it. NA (talk) 11:53, 6 Janurary 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Facepalm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902060543/http://www.mania.com:80/biggest-transformers-face-palm-moments_article_130358.html to http://www.mania.com/biggest-transformers-face-palm-moments_article_130358.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121185500/http://ukelection.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/bigotgate-goes-viral-as-uk-pm-says-facepalm/ to http://ukelection.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/bigotgate-goes-viral-as-uk-pm-says-facepalm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)