Talk:Lifehacker

Lifehacker talks about wikipedia

Not that this is relevant to the page on LH in any way, but there's an article on How to contribute to wikipedia on LH now. Also, please feel free to delete this content if it turns out to be really useless. -- Mayuresh 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Name?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. I adjusted the hatnote accordingly. DMacks (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifehacker.com → Lifehacker — On the website, it says Lifehacker in the title & logo, not Lifehacker.com『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't the name be Lifehacker not Lifhacker.com?『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of disambig I think. A lifehacker is someone who uses lifehacks too. Computerjoe's talk 09:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But the site's title & logo both only have Lifehacker, not Lifehacker.com『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No objections to a move. Computerjoe's talk 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Move request placed.『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』^¤ 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

criticism

somewhere here it needs to be mentioned that lifehacker is total garbage, written naively, half the time with technically incorrect information. when this happens, instead of admitting their mistake, and labelling their correction as such, they actually label it as an "update", as if they couldn't have known it at the time of writting. this is just one of many things about the site which make it absolute garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.244.73.17 (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can find reliable sources that offer such criticism, feel free to add information to the article. Otherwise, go complain elsewhere. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article does not use its sources properly. A proper rewrite would be a good idea for this article. Anyone wants to effort into this? Talktrue (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"This article does not use its sources properly." How so? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lifehacker. 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/20070119223830/http://www.gawker.com/advertising/demographics/ to http://gawker.com/advertising/demographics
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.us.mensa.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Top_50&Template=%2Fcustomsource%2Ftop50_winners.cfm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)