Talk:Pwn

Rough consensus to keep as is. VfD notice removed. Deletion debate archived below. -- Cecropia 01:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

• Overwrought dictionary definition of a gamer culture in-joke. Rebrane 08:40, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet -- Cyrius|&#9998 12:06, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Add links to Cant, Jargon, Argot & Leet. --Davout 13:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet. Exploding Boy 13:43, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for now. It's not strictly a part of Leet language. --Johnleemk 14:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Leet and redirect. Oddly, this article makes it look like Leet is a subtopic of Pwn... Fredrik 15:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • More elaborate motivation why this does not need its own article: Pwn is already covered quite well in Leet (including meaning and origin). The few things that are missing can be added easily. The note of being subject to flame wars is absolutely unimportant, since flamewars on obscure Internet forums erupt all the time, about all kinds of subjects. What remains is a description of what Leet is, and that is, well, redundant.Fredrik 00:39, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 00:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. - Fennec 00:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, entertaining and well-written, and a rather more detailed writeup than that of any of the other words described in the Leet article. --Stormie 01:50, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet. -Sean 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's pretty good. Pteron 22:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cribcage 05:37, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jeffy 15:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Fredrik is right, we should merge this with Leet, but keep the article and put a link to it on leet

---

I understand that the deletion debate has already occurred, but I wanted to stress that I believe this article should be kept as-is (seperate from Leet). The word is distinctly different, though used by the same culture. On DavisWiki.org I was able to provide this link as an explaination of the term, which would have otherwise gone misunderstood or lost in the sea of Leet. Leet is also more hax0r-culture than gamer culture, which pwned is. --Philip Neustrom

---

VERY similar to the free dictionary definition http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pwn3d Chicken or the egg? Metastable 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fine print at the bottom of that says they got it from here. Goplat 23:52, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They get everything from here...Dustin Asby 07:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Under Etymology, the simple-typo theory (certainly the only seriously-held theory in my speech community) is listed twice. That's odd. Also, I would propose that "chizzown" comes from "chown" (which comes from the general proliferation of words that end in "own", with some help from unix), by way of the same process that leads to "bizznatches" in the "hizzouse"; the gratuitous insertion of 'z' and necessary vowels, from black English. I decline to edit this myself, since I'm hesitant about the potential for controversy in tracing etymology without extensive research. --jholman 12:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

zwn

I removed the "rhymes with zwn" from pronunciation. Google and Dictionary.com have nothing on zwn as a word. It's not a very helpful pronunciation guide if there's no indication how to pronounce zwn.—Rory ☺ 00:07, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree wit this point and in general, I really like this article. I think that this is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia really good. It is clearly documenting and explaining generic information that will take years to make it into any written encyclopedia. --Jpittman 15:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You've not only been pwned, you've been zwned! :) Rickyrab 00:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (signed after I logged in)

In usage by gamers, I have seen several sightings of the use of 'zwned' in MMROPG's, referring to the tactic of changing between game maps or 'zones' to escape or avoid player-vs-player combat. I am hesitant to add this usage though without more research or support from other writers first. -- Anon

Warcraft

"Finally, one other story reports that in the game Starcraft (Alternatively Warcraft), [...]"

I removed the "(Alternatively Warcraft)" part. Does this mean the story is also told of Warcraft? Or that Warcraft is an alternative name for Starcraft (not true but seemingly implied)?

I heard the same story about Warcraft. Two entries on UrbanDictionary seem to agree. More Googling seems to suggest this too, it also confirms that pwn was used before this. Philip Nilsson 20:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've put it back in. —Rory ☺ 20:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The most common theory that I've heard is pwn originating from a War Craft map. I've never heard of it coming from Star Craft. Are you sure you have that right? Phoenix Hacker

Since the specific game mentioned seems to be a subject of off-and-on edit wars, I've decided to change the story to acknowledge the fact that various people claim that the game in question is Warcraft, Warcraft II, or Starcraft. My personal belief is the most likely candidate is WC2, because custom maps for the original WC were very rare (WC2 was the first game in the series to include a map editor) and I think "pwn" existed before "Starcraft" came out. But without any evidence actually confirming or refuting any of these, I think we should acknowledge all three possibilities. Colin M. 02:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

Added {{cleanup}} as the additions of more and more etymology and variations are making a quite good article less so. mordemur 12:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pooned

Recently on the MMORPG Runescape I have seen it often used in the form "Pooned", and even more recent I even saw it on the MMORPG Rose Online. This could just be a small group of people originated in Runescape, or even a completely different word in it's own, so rather than edit yet I'm wondering if anyone else has seen evidence of this? Jimbobsween 04:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've use pooned/pooning/poonage and I've never played those games and, in fact, don't personally know anyone who has so I can't really comment on it's meaning for those communities. I just use it because that's how I pronounce pwnd when talking IRL.

Reference for the omniscient Weyes

This is a pure waste of my time, but okay, since there are people who don't know what Google is:

• Pwn3d 38 300 results. Just an example of what you've been removing. E|t
• Al Capwned
  • It's been used 174 times in total, or hardly at all. --W(t)
• Post-Pwned
  • Lots of hits for someone with the nickname post-pwned and a couple of posts that are pwned. --W(t)
• Pwnz0r
  • Exactly 11 unique hits. --W(t)
• Tehpwnzor
  • 174 hits, nearly all for people with that username. --W(t)
• Pwnt
  • None of these seem to have anything to do with the word in this context. --W(t)
    • Yeah. You're right. I'm pretty sure you checked all 26 000+ results too (irony). Anyway, that just about rendered your argument useless. E|t
• Pizwn3d
  • 4 hits. --W(t)
• WTFpwned 7 040 hits

Look, I don't have time, nor will to list up ever single one of them. Use Google. Google is your friend. And stop reverting. This is a good dictionary for words like these: Qwned EliasAlucard|Talk 16:22, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is a terrible source since every possible neologism is added to it by people wanting to push "their" word. --W(t) 14:33, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Bad argument. You think pwn is a real word? It's as much fake as any other word people are "pushing in the urban" dictionary, and the derivate words in this article. Words such as pwnz0r are pretty standard. I'm reverting back now. If you cannot prove that the usage of these words do not occur, then stop reverting. These derivate words aren't supposed to be established standards in the gaming vernacular. That's the reason why there are such few hits on some of them. Stop reverting. You're destroying the article when you're removing knowledge from it.

Even Micro$oft has acknowledged the existence of the derivative word pwn3d which you so brilliantly removed [1]. So far, I've given a lot more proof about you being wrong. So I'm asking you kindly: stop reverting.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:10, 16 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ! :) — Rickyrab | Talk 02:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I hardly think that "pwn3d" counts as a derivative word, since it's just a, er, normal word fed through a leetspeak filter to change the 'e' into a '3'. As for the rest of that list, it's really starting to get ridiculous. Most of those words simply aren't commonly used (and in many cases, not even remotely so) in the parlance of the culture which spawned the word "pwn". See Wikipedia:Neologism. --Dachannien 21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think the list of derivative words is a bit ridiculous. Some derivative that is used a couple times on some internet forum is not encyclopedic knowledge. In particular, I've commented out "tehpwnzriate", "klwned", "paedwned", "oregapwned", "owntehpwnsord", as I couldn't find any google hits for it that weren't Wikipedia and clones. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research. If anyone wants to find a suitable third-party reference for any of these, feel free to add them back. Other words I found dubious: pwnaggio (1 non-Wikipedia hit), chizowned (1 hit), and pwnacity (2 hits). Colin M. 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, "modus pwnened" gets no non-wikipedia hits on Google; the variant "modus pwnens" does get hits that all seem to be some guy's username on Slashdot and other web forums. Colin M. 00:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I see there's a request for an RfC, could both parties give some explanation of the issue? Please be brief! Dan100 (Talk) 20:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Pwned as a contraction

It is my understanding that the word "pwned" is a constraction of "owned" and ":p" which is a smiley wiggling his tongue at someone. I saw the word ":pwned" before "pwned" in online FPS.

• I've never heard that before, myself. - Stoph 03:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• It is my dog's understanding that some burglars accidentally leave their pizza behind after they have robbed me. --Tysto 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The last edit

removing all that info is ridiculous. Why is it misinformation? because you said so? Lockeownzj00 17:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

rv'ed the section. Just because it's 'not supported by evidence' is not a reason to delete a whole section. If such a section should be deleted, further motivation should be given on the talk page.

Husky 23:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable puns, variants, etc

There were quite a lot of non-notable puns and variants that I removed. As with LOL, the smilies or any other neologism, this article risks turning into a running archive of every "word I just invented" or "word I just heard my best friend use" to cross a computer screen. In order to avoid that, we need to keep a close eye on how wide-spread each version is, and in many cases, how different versions can be collapsed into a rule (e.g. "pwn variant" + "hax0r variant" = "pwnzer", "pwnzor", "pwnz0r", "pwnx0r", etc., etc. There is no need to list the variants if we understand the rule). -Harmil 16:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work Harmil. With just a little bit more work we could remove the 'cleaned up' message in the future

Husky 19:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

someone revert plz --Skuld^{‡ insult} 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

WHAT PWNED REALLY MEANS

IDK how this got out of hand...PWNED MEANS EXACTLY THE FOLLOWING...ever since CS came out in 1999

IT means: Powerfuly Owned

                 P - owerfuly + (owned-o) = PWNED

NOw dont disagree with me, i have been playign cs before people who run around shouting "I OWN YOU"!

And kiddies, this game is rated 'M' for a reason, so little kids dont run around saying LEET and NUB or NOOB, or I PWNED UR TEAM. IF you know someone who says this in life, and smack them.

While it's lovely that in these uncertain times you have so much conviction in your statements, do you have a source or anything? Foolish Mortal 12:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, why would anyone remove the O from OWNED in the first place?

"owned" just looks cooler with a little "|" attached to the "o" to make it look like "p". The "p" in "pwned" is really an "o", but it just has a cool looking line on it.

Sources, plz?

While it's inherently difficult to source things in online gaming culture, statements like "adopted by practically all online gaming communities" are just inexcusable. Anyone watching this page want to take a crack at it? nae'blis _(talk) 20:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with your first statement. There is, as far as I'm aware, no definitive work on the topic of video game sub-culture slang. Do you have suggestions? At this point, I think the best source for such a statement would be the direct experience of a wide range of Wikipedia editors who have not reverted such statemets (I would certainly agree that gamers of all stripes that I have known use the term). -Harmil 10:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And most of the people I know who play computer games (who are generally over 21, and not playing in LAN parties/i-cafes) don't use it. YMMV, but that's why I'm objecting to the overgeneralization. Also, I want a source on the "those bears totally pwned those hunters" comment, which seems forced, to say the least. nae'blis _(talk) 19:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will try to find some decent sources for this. I agree that some of the info here should be removed BUT realise that Wikipedia probably has the most extensive parcel of info on "pwned" on the Internet now. The real issue is seperating what's needed and accurate and what's not.--Mike 02:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Derivative words

I renamed this section "Notable derivative words" to emphasize that this is not the place to add every derivative of "pwn" you can possibly think of. Otherwise the page would end up with many dozens (maybe even hundreds) or rarely-used "derivatives". My suggestion is that only commonly-used, well-established words should be listed in this section. "Commonly-used" means at least a couple hundred independent Google hits. "Well-established" means it's been been in wide use for at least a couple months. "Derivative words" that do not pass these two tests should not be included in this article (but feel free to start a List of words derived from pwn if you really feel that every use of pwn needs to be noted somewhere). See also Internet slang and List of internet slang. Colin M. 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the derivative words section?

Seriously, it's gone. Why was it removed? Chad Okere dec 24th, 2005

Looks like it was removed by some random IP about a month ago. They also deleted the pronunciation stuff.

Other trivia

In version of Hamlet released by the Nova 2010 Shakespeare project, which will produce modern-verse versions of William Shakespeare's plays, Laertes shouts "Thou are pwnt!" after striking the titular protagonist with a poisoned blade.

---

Really? I can't find any evidence for this. Trollderella 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought of that. The translation of Shakspeare into t337. Truly a contractdiction in terms. Kind of like Instant Julia Child.

The refrence for this is: [[2]] Nov 10, 2005 Actually the refrence is No-Effort. Its a flash movie. © Copyright Chris Coutts 1999-2004 and its REALLY REALLY BAD.

Origin of Pwn

After being around online gaming, and communications for decades: I would speculate that Pwn, is word of t337 speek, and t337 came from warez and piracy. Its common usage now is in PK(PlayerKiller)fights on online games. The z at the end of warez, probibly was a play on words like smileys :P, using ASCII character sets. ( `>8-<-< = Robin Hood ) The use of ASCII character sets for art was popular on BBSs in the 1980s. Which probibly originated with the use of ASCII, as graphics for the computer game Rogue '@'. Rogue was developed to test TermCapabilities( TermCap ). The only thing I remember that resembled ASCII art before Rogue, would be a rotating line, with 4 ASCII characters '-', '\','|' and '/'. and pictures printed ( large scale multiple sheets ) from line printers.

I would say that of any word in t337 speak, pwn is probibly as important as the rest of the language, with the exception of the word 'warez'.

( SHOOT ME. I looked for warez on wikiPedia...! ) ( warez is NOT a contraction of warehouse! Noooo )

You should have been there...but mabye not. --Artoftransformation 12:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The origin is first of pwned. pwn is a reverse derivation of that. It comes from "pk" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player#Player_killing

The act of abbreviating it as "pk" caused it to change sense and meaning. Creating the infinitive "to pk" (to player-kill - ie to kill another player's character in the game). This is to differentiate between killing player controlled characters and computer controlled ones (npcs, mobs, whatever.) So, if you "mob-ripped" (rip starting from R.I.P, and turning into a verb) it meant you died from a mob, rather than being pk'ed, which meant that you died from another player's character.

By abbreviating in this way, new abbreviations tend to appear, like being p-looted (another player takes your character's equipment), to being p-owned (which we are discussing here).

As for p-owned, if you blinked you would have missed its morphology. it went from p-owned to pwned rather quickly. The easy typo of own to pwn, and its similarity to other words (like pawn - in the sense of being "used". With "use", in this case, giving a slight semantic meaning as f-ed - "I used you like a b-h" - to - "I f-ed you up" - to - "I pwned you"), among other things, gave it nearly immediate widespread usage. It's a very aggressive statement with the speaker attempting to forcibly imply dominance. And much stronger than the simple "I beat you" of competition.

"poon" or "p00n" are variations of this, but also of the word "harpoon". I p00ned you = I speared you. (note the phallic references throughout all.)

I hope this helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.144.181 (talk • contribs)

• Did you make that up just now... or did it take some time? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-27 07:54

It looks like a lot more time went into than was necessary, but all the same, thanks for the good read.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of it was to hopefully update/add to the main "pwn" article. : ) I was/am presuming that changes are posted here, for approval into the main article. I can reformat/edit the above text in several ways, or whatever, just let me know.

I've been "online" since the mid to late 70s in many different aspects/ways. Just discovering how voluminous wikipedia is, and starting to get hooked : )

PS-the pronunciation I've typically heard (in person, on voice chat, etc) is /pee-ohnd/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.144.181 (talk • contribs)

we've been having a long standing issue with verifiability on this article. While for the most part I think that WP:NOR and WP:CITE are being taken a little to seriously here, and that WP:IAR should be considered to a small extent, I am starting to agree with BRIAN more with respect to verifying as much of the information as possible before posting it. It might be of interest for you to create an account also, its free, easy, provides added anonyminity(sp?), and makes it easier to track/have discussions about edits. Also, if you have a signifigant interest in editing this article, you might want to take a quick breeze over the rest of this talk page, noting some of the more recent verifiability and source discussions. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Am I the only person who thinks the picture for this page makes no sense? Apparently someone was Pwned, but the picture doesn't illustrate that fact in any sense I can think of.--Mihoshi 20:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the picture issue James 10:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah!

Too bad this article didn't get pwned in the vfd. :P The Wookieepedian 19:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Theories of origination

I would propose that as a criterion for a theory's inclusion in the "Theories of origination" section of the article, that theory must have the verifiable support of at least two distinct people. I believe that this would reduce the size of that section substantially. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible Source of Pwnd in Starcraft

A friend of mine (and a quite reliable source) said that the phrase "pwnd" was coined by himself and a few friends in Starcraft in 1998. It was used as a term in online play, particularly in sniper, to describe the action of patrolling areas for enemies to gain an advantage. Since the hotkey for patrol is the letter "P" and you would own someone by using it, the two were put together as patrol own- in essence, pown. After a while, it worked its way down to simply pwn, which is what is used today.
If anyone is wondering, the people who credit themselves with this are named in the Starcraft community as gotunks2 and lukefrenz.
I believe that this is quite reliable myself, as I do have two sources (one of which doesn't even live in the same state and I do not know, so I can say it's not a scam), and the other descriptions of the origin (especially the Warcraft designer's theory) don't contain any sources or links to interviews or the like. And if the story about the designer is true, then there would have to be some written proof somewhere.
- Canadian_nazl ^{(talk - contribs)} 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many several theories regarding the origin, and it would be a mistake to cite one source as more reliable over any other without specific citable evidence. I am going to edit accordingly, if anyone objects please revert, but only if you are willing to defend your reversion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pwned

Pwned gained fame from PlanetQuake. Back in 98 they published an article with pwned in as a test to see if the sheep would adopt it too, to try and fit in. Obviously it originally began as a typo, but Planetquake is responsible for its widespread use.

The only 'evidence' I can give is from old PQ mailbags where they'd already ran it into the ground by mid 99: 1 2 3 If you can track down Lowtax or the original PQ squad I'm sure they would confirm it. Trampled

I'm sure too that they would confirm their own apparent founding of the word. Unfortunately this just fits in with the fundamental idea that as an internet meme, its true ancestry is likely untraceably. As far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty sure everyone else will see it the same way, all the various explanations hold equally without indisputable evidence of one over another. This falls right in line with the histories of various fads, they can only be traced to a limited set of possibilities, rarely anything more.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would be proud of starting off such an idiotic trend. Most of the PQ staff hated the word and regretted publish ing it. If you can find any earlier reference to it on a popular website I'd love to see it, but I was around at that time and I am pretty certain that is the first time I'd heard it. Trampled

Unfortunately those links you provided dont work, and as it has no verifiability over anything else as a theory, it should remain as such. Any proof would also have to be conclusive, not just an examply of how it seemed to you at the time.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Exapmle: Anarchy, he got qwned by flow

Verification

There are no verifiable or reputable references for this article; therefore adhering to Wikipedia policy just like the user "Viriditas", I must target this article for deletion because it is "original research" and cannot be verified. If you have questions about this decision, please contact Viriditas. Haizum 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not blank Wikipedia articles. And, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. --Viriditas 06:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You just proved my point exactly. Thanks! Haizum 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT. --Viriditas 06:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please dont create seperate Re: sections everytime you reply. Please leave it in the existing sections using appropriate indentation like everyone else. Second, this article does not qualify under original research. See HERE. While that section does not completely encompass the scope of this article, it would be an appropriate guideline. As for the theories regarding the orgigins section, so far every theory I've seen there sports some large form of following and consensus, and absolutely none have been given documentable proof over another as either first use or even occuring at all. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Exapmle: Anarchy, he got qwned by flow

Pronounciation

There seems to be an issue with this. If anyone isn't sure what pronounciations are used, especially most commonly, see for yourself. Go onto a CS server, or any other game with voicechat, or hang around teamspeak channels. You will definitely see that the current statements regarding pronounciation in the article are correct.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I still say that it's totally pronounced 'pyooned'. That's just my two cents.--Javguerre

Out of all of the pronunciations, how would that one make any sense? Where is the 'y' sound coming from? Avengerx 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it can reasonably be pronounced as 'pewned' (Yes, pew + -ned). I also believe that there must be at least one other person who agrees. --Javguerre

thats the problem with an article like this. Too many people want to put in "their two cents" and no one wants to realistically look at the big picture. A word is pronounced exactly how society pronounces it. No one's going to argue that dog is pronounced "doog" because everyone knows better. Someone probably pronounces it that way but the majority of society doesn't. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The most common way of pronouncing "pwn" is pohn. Basicly say "own", but put a "p" in front of it. Thanks for adding the pronunciation on the main article James 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The New "Pwn'd" Picture

I scratched the old "pwn" picture and put in this new one. I think this one defines "pwn" more clearly James 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Crap theories" and factual accuracy

First, I'd like to call into question your concept of "crap theories". Just because you do not agree with something does not mean that it is crap, and it is definitely not proper to delete them outright. Second, how exactly do you propose anyone gets citations for any of these theories. There is no clear way of determining the roots, and this is reflected in the phrasing of the theories. There are no independent research studies concerning the eytomology of the term 'PWN', and this is reflected in the article. Thus, we must include a variety of possible reasons. Avengerx 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess adminstrators don't have to read discussion pages, because they are automatically right. Avengerx 17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

They are random claims made by 1-edit anons on this talk page. Deciding to stick them in the article goes against WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 17:19

Also, it is ridiculous supposition (as well as original research) to claim that because it may be difficult or impossible to pin down the source of the term, any old suggestion by anyone should be allowed in the article, whether or not it is based on anything factual or verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 17:22

"If you want to adhere strictly to the no original research policy, then we must delete the entire article. ALL of this article is supposition and original research. In fact, half of wikipedia would have to be deleted, JUST because we don't have a "specialist" in all of these subjects who can do "academic" research. Yet again, another seagull Wikipedian, who would rather tag up an article before fixing it. Avengerx 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you denying what I have said in my reply, or ignoring it? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-31 18:10

In your reply, you mention factual accuracy and verification are the major issues that you are attempting to tackle. If that is what you are trying to say and demonstrate, then what I am saying is that it is impossible to verify ANY of the text within the article. And, in response to what you said before (in the part of your post that you deleted), could tacking on any source to the statements within the article make them any more solid? Instead of having a well trimmed article, with a variety of possible explanations, you have decided to request citations that cannot possibly exist in proper format, and to delete things rather than work on them. Because of your status as an administrator, you have already flaunted your ability to delete things out nothing more than your will by citing them as 'crap'. While I would love to help make this article better, I know that anything I do will be over-ridden by your authority. And to that I concede, though with downtrodden sentiment. P.S. I believe that I addressed what you said clearly, in both this post and my previous one. If there is a failure in our communications, please address it directly so that I may clarify myself. Avengerx 20:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's something to consider. What if some of these theories have shown themselves in repeated mention on the internet, which while normally is not a good source of verifiablity, most definitely IS when the subject in question is at is core an internet topic. In which case you can do a google search on pwn, or pistol own, and find tons of associations with the two. This isn't just some 1 edit anon theory either. This theory; as someone who has been playing FPS games for a long time, and talking on internet and gamer related messageboards; I can say has been in existence for a LONG time, and is held by a signifigant portion of the users of the term. It is a perfectly plausible and likely origination of the word "pwn" and is definitely one of its most common interpretations. If that is the only reason against its mention in the article than perhaps the origin section shoudl be renamed "origin and use" or "origins and proliferation"--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 11:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• The reason it is not included is because it is not based on anything verifiable. If you would like to find the most reliable sources for the information, sources that didn't base their information off of this Wikipedia article, then we can use them in the article as references. The Starcraft reference needs only a screenshot of the typo. This should be simple enough to verify. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-1 14:18

Also, if you are still thinking that the pronounciation needs citation. How is one supposed to cite what could in easily be considered reasonable knowledge. If you regularly use speakeasy or other voicechat while playing online games, it becomes as plain as day which pronounciations are used regularly.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so we document how different voicechat programs pronounce the term, but the most likely pronounciation will rhyme with own, since own is the most likely origin of the term. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 08:17

It seems you are thinking of programs that convert text to voice. I was intending to refer to programs that simply transfer voice signals, simmilar to VIOP, in videogames. Many like Counter-Strike have their own, there is the Xbox Live system if you're familliar with it at all, and then there is [3]. I was referring to ways that players themselves actually pronounced the words, over a wide geographical area, since it is easy to have players from all over the country and even internationally on the same voice channel or server.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Earliest occurrence

Can anyone find anything earlier than this post (August 1999)? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-1 14:59

• Yep, me playing any of several games prior to that, along with thousands of other gamers, and seeing it plastered all over the web. To deny that its origins are in question is a factual innacuracy, as they are, and most likely always will be. There is very little proof of anything regarding this word. To its users, it is as simple and commonplace as the word dog, or pants. Its there, it gets used, and no reason is seen to document its use. RE: my entry about pronounciation, I take it you didn't find anything wrong with that, since you said nothing about it?
  • I just wanted to know if anyone could find a documented earlier source than that. Of course I and others used the term earlier, but what does that matter? We don't do original research here. Of course the origins are in question; who is saying they aren't? We can't just state our own beliefs about the origins, however. At most, we can provide the most logical origin (the misspelling of own), and then say that "other origins have been posited". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 08:11

I would hardly consider it original research, but more along the lines of public/common/reasonable knowledge or whatever you want to call it. Generally this is determined either by consensus of participating members, or a look at the general masses involved with the subject matter. It would seem that such a look at the general masses quite obviously yeilds the result I was talking about before. Wikipedia defines in WP:NOR that original research constitutes formulating a thesis, or using unrecognized or non-reliable sources, not stating fact. Otherwise everything on the site could be considered so called "original research". These theories are stated as just that, Theories held by a signifigant portion of the demographic that the word occurs with. If this wasn't clear enough in the previous wordings I can make it so. Last time I checked NOR was not meant to impede the usage of accepted factual information simply because it does not have sources to the letter, so to speak.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pawn

The article is missing the connection to the word pawn (as in the weakest and lowest raking chess piece) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.213.190 (talk • contribs)

Its already been discussed and is not notable. It is essentially a contrived connection made after the fact by chess fans.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for addition

http://www.expectnothing.com/?page=story&post=9531#Comments Read the news story, then someone made a comment "pwned". This wiki article claims it wants sources. 199.197.135.1 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

what exactly does it verify? All I get from it is that the word "pwn" has been in use for at least 4 days.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the person misspelled "owned". :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-11 05:48

Several days ago though. The only sources we need are really regarding the origins, which are pretty much agreed to be from the before the year 2000.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ephemeral adolescent cult slang

If Wikipedia continues to wank out articles like this one, it will go blind. --Tysto 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess since you use big words you're more mature? Step off the high horse. Avengerx 13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Too bad Wikipedia wasn't founded in the 1950s. We would have oodles of swell articles on all the hep lingo that the cool cats and dollies were using. That would be the ginchiest, daddy-o. --Tysto 20:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, I'm sure someone studying 1950's American culture would love to have entries like that for research and reference. While you may not realize it, slang and lingo for individual cultures reflects immensely on the time period and on the people who live within it. The term 'pwn' has been around for several years, and maintains common usage within the online gaming community. The word demonstrates a very prominent culture for today's youth, and therefore I think it would be very useful for someone researching youth culture or internet culture to have this article. Avengerx 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly say this article would give a parent concerned about their child's online exposure more information than those parent articles microsoft and the like put out, no?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 10:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone studying 1950s culture should read original sources, but for casual readers we should have an article on 1950s slang, not individual articles on ginchie and daddy-o. The point is, there is already an article on Internet slang. There is no need for the overwrought faux scholarship of an article like this. You can explain everything anyone will ever need to know about pwn in two sentences. Even if you think this is a culturally significant term, it should be a sub-section under "own" in Internet slang. --Tysto 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This has already come up in a deletion proposal once. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and try to get it deleted again. Outside of a deletion debate it serves no purpose to pose these questions or hypothetical alternatives.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)