This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Internet culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

I'm not quite sure where I'm supposed to offer an explanation of why this article matters, but here goes: Fmylife is extremely popular among college-age students (and others, I'm sure) and as I've found, has recently been highly trafficked. I'm fairly certain that a lot of people are probably Googling Fmylife, visiting the site, but wondering how it got started, who made it, etc. I don't personally know that much about its origins, but by making a Wikipedia page, I think that people will contribute and eventually it'll get sorted out. rhs ( talk) 09:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I declined the speedy. The LA Times link is more than enough indication for notability. Regards So Why 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

While granted, FML has garnered a level of traffic and media attention that has warranted the creation of wikipedia articles for many other websites and internet memes, this site is only the latest in an expanding number of sympathy/empathy-centered web communities (e.g: PostSecret and Group Hug. Would it not be more efficient to merge FML, along with the aforementioned, and any other uniquely-featured websites falling under the umbrella of "pity-centric" into one article concerning this emerging genre of web entertainment? I think the CONCEPT of FML, etc, has substantial notability, whereas the sites themselves are more a 'flash in the pan' sort of thing. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.15.53 ( talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I can definitely see that. This site has only been around for about a year and it really hasn't been all that popular until pretty recently. If this site maintains it's current level of traffic then it definitely warrants its own article, but as it stands right now we don't know that this site is going to remain relevant for very long.-- DavidFuzznut ( talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I was bold, if you want to be a dick and remove it for notability / lists, then please consider that

• Notability for FML is questionable
• There is no better format for my list
• The section can be expanded/article renamed/etc latter

-- 86.15.153.179 ( talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

No, notability is not questionable. It more than satisfies WP:WEB. And as for your list, your links are WP:LINKSPAM, and nothing more. Per that link, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." If you want links included to those other sites, they should be their own separate articles, which means you need to verify notability for each. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Has anyone else noticed that the site's been censored lately? The 'sex' category is now 'intimacy,' and the old slogan, which was something along the lines of "My life sucks but I don't give a f***" is now "Get the guts to spill the beans." Anyone know what this is all about? 98.234.116.17 ( talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I noticed that. The "I agree, your life is f*****" link for each story has been replaced with, "I agree, your life sucks." Some changes like that. Apparently, they have been told to censor some of those things, but I actually don't know much about it, and of course, wonder why. -- WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 01:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

And now the entire site's a giant advertisement for "The Goods" movie. All that's left to censor now is individual posts, which are currently still allowed to use profane words like 'sex.' Selling out, anyone? PsychoPop ( talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply

And what's with this "failing my life" BS? Everyone knows that it used to stand for "f*** my life," and by most people's standards, still does. That should at least be in the article, really. Shivers _talk 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it doesn't get to go in the article without a proper source. Per WP:V and WP:OR, only stuff that's verifiable by secondary sources can be included in an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

What about old versions of fmylife's site? You know, the ones before it was censored. I think the site itself would be a good enough source... 169.231.38.39 ( talk) 09:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The article should reflect the current information. And using two sources like that - especially primary ones - would be a violation of WP:SYN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

How about rewording it, then? Instead of saying "FMyLife has been censored" to saying "FMyLife has toned down its profanity" or something like that. I can see how saying it's censored would give certain implications and fall under WP:SYN, but saying it was toned down is just, well, the truth. 169.231.38.39 ( talk) 08:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Regarding the above: Whether or not the complaints regarding site censorship are warranted, I wouldn't say a few changes to the wording of certain on-site functions is really notable enough to be mentioned, especially given that half the motivation here seems to be a general sense of annoyance at how the site has supposedly "sold out" ( PsychoPop and ShiversTheNinja's comments). A Wikipedia article is not the place to vent frustrations, and technically neither is its talk page. KaySL ( talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Is it really a blog? It actually is user-generated content that has no bloglike content to it, because nobody cares when a story happened, just the fun part of each entry. It's like textsfromlastnight.com or givesmehope.com and there should be a better term describing these user generated miniature story collection sites. -- Trickstar ( talk) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

if you want to call it "Fuck my Life," bring a source. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

here we go > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuck%20my%20life%20website

50.9.97.53 ( talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

ok we all know what that means: FUCK MY LIFE. why is this being censored? 50.9.97.53 ( talk) 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FMyLife. 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/20110606024809/http://www.fmylife.com/faq to http://www.fmylife.com/faq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804115001/http://www.fmylife.com/blog/50 to http://www.fmylife.com/blog/50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801140739/http://www.fmylife.com/blog/99 to http://www.fmylife.com/blog/99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823123433/http://www.fmylife.com/applications/official to http://www.fmylife.com/applications/official

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply