Talk:Owned (slang)

message: Shitty is like saying ownt 9 times srys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.159.180 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: D-AJ
It should not be merged.
No way should they be merged pwnd is such a big thing now it carries a life of its own.
--User:me 14:40, July 11 2006 (UTC0
The terms pwn and own may have originated from the same term but have since then evolved their own meanings and thus should be given their own articles. If they were merged, the article should at least be named "own/pwn" so as to not give one more importance from the other. They should not be merged. nerfbat
I think that its worth it to keep the page just to be able to redirect people to http://en.wikipedia.org/Pwn --24.51.94.14
I don't think the two should be merged, the two do have different connotations. 'Owned' is has a much meaner connotation than 'Pwned' The two remain seperate in the gaming world, therefore the two should remain seperated on Wikipedia, too.
--Dr Wasabi 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: --Hobart 03:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There is such thing as "t3h ownz0rz". "Pwn" is simply a variation (in its beginning, a typo) of "Own". I see no difference. It should be merged.Herunar 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  As someone who uses the term pwnz0r more than I really should, I agree that the term is really just a l33t spelling of "own".  A section in this article can deal with the minor connotative differences, but they are essentially the same thing. --DDG 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be merged, they mean basically the same thing.  RobJ1981 04:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: The word "own" could be a misspelling of "won" as in, eg, "I won the tournament" into "I own teh tourny"
The word is nowadays heavily used in sport and the likes, so the origin could likely have spawned from a real life scenario rather than a computer one. I don't know for sure though.
RZ heretic 06:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: it's called owning:P
:>x<ino 11:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owning 

message: To a gamer pwning and owning are very different. These topics should be kept separate. Play some games and find out the difference before you do something drastic!
:And for everybody the Bible and the Koran are 'very different', yet Wikisource still put them into one page.
:Pwn comes from Own, and no matter what sort of different meaning there may have been born, it definitely should be merged. We cannot detail the history of 'Pwn' without mentioning 'Own'. It is much simpler to merge it in a page and list out the differences. Keep in mind that we are writing this for everybody, not for ourselves. Those that see pwning and owning as 'very different' are few, and fewer there are that would want them to be separated. By the way, sign your name with four tildes. Aranherunar 12:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference 

message: Being gamer, to be pwned is much different than being owned. To be pwned implies that you got, for lack of a better description, beaten into the ground rapidly by a force much better than yourself/team/group.  Being owned doesn't carry that kind of weigh when using it online, there's not really a way to describe something being owned, or owning, which usually implies that something was l33t and that yourself/team/group did an outstanding job.
 Many times, people don't even use owned, it turns into ownt, which is stronger than owned,  but not as strong as pwned or pwnt.
In short, there are major weight differences between pwn and own when refered to online usage, which is most likely the only place you will see pwn used. -- Nathan Newby; WoW - spirestone - Fiyero
In the online world, pwn and own have very similar meanings, but definately not an identical definition. For two words that began in an online environment, separate listings only seem fit. They are measures of severity, and although the term "pwn" originated as a typo, it is a unique phenomena, much like the term "w00t". -- Mike B
:They're not identical, but they have to be in the same article or else it's impossible to write them well. One originating from another is enough to merge them into one article. Keep in mind that you are editing in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. ROFL is very, very different from LOL, but they're in the same article. That's the rules - Nothing is perfect. Aranherunar 06:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't delete sections of the talk page, and please sign your comments.  As to your assertion, you do need to provide reasoning if you actually want others to be convinced by what you say.  Regarding your analogy, while apple was at one point in the time used as a generic term synonymous with fruit, in the modern usage one is a strict subset of the other, whereas "own" and "pwn" are variants of the same term which may or may not have notable differences in their connotation and situational usage.  A better comparison would the question of whether the terms "ass" and "arse" are sufficiently distinct to merit separating. — Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  These should not be merged 

message: Couldn't the origin of "own" come from a typo of "won" such as: I own the game.
The typo would have started in the first widely popular internet games like Starcraft and players would say they won at the end of the game, making a typo.
Then the term would become a verb by it's widely spread usage in more popular games appealing younger audiences. Players in Counter Strike would then adapt the word and define it to what it is now.
This is just a theory but I believe it is more plausible than the hacker theory.
:If you can provide a reputable source to back your assertion, then by all means incorporate it into the article. Isopropyl 03:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, origin is "owned" as-is. I claim to be the first to start using it. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: I've removed the external links section as Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, so please do not add any external links unless they are being used as references. Doing so only sets a precedent for spammers. Please see Wikipedia:External links for more details. --   Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I hear the term 'owned' used more outside the gaming world in real life, mostly by people who don't even play games.
You probably hear it more in real life because "PWNED" is pronounced the same as "owned," unless you're with a bunch of total nubs all the time. --209.180.119.10 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used more in real life 

message: I have removed the "Leetspeek Derivatives" and reworded it in the Examples section; there are quite a few possibilities of writing "owned"/"ownage"/"pwned"/"pwnage" in leet and they're not really encyclopedic. The reader should know that these words can be written in leet (just as any word) but listing a dozen examples is pointless. - Simeon87 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leetspeek Derivatives 

message: Current revision seems to be full of OR, which doesn't really help with being able to tell what's vandalism and what isn't... Although, I can't honestly think of anywhere to get sources for somethign like this -- febtalk  12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: I dunno I just think some pictures would liven up the page. A word like "owned" shouldn't be presented so dryly. 67.48.97.82 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the picture that used to be on the page: :Image:Ownedpic2.jpg.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah the pic of the kid getting owned with the fire work was funny and displayed a good example of "Owned!". Metal to the Max! 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: Everything on the article has sources now, so it is a bit redundant. It has also been some time now since the existing sources were put in, and nobody has voiced any objections.211.30.134.111 07:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should We Remove the Reference Tag?

message: What are people's thoughts on a merger of the two? I can't see them being that different. But I'm not an expert on the topic. For a comparison, I personally have no idea why nigga and nigger are seperate articles, but it's not a field that I know much about. I could say the same about this.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to Talk:Pwn#Proposed merge with Owned for more discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[pwned]]? 

message: I've been browsing Owned.com (link in this article) and WOT plugin came up and stopped my in my tracks - it's quite a suspicious website. See the WOT review scorecard of OWNED.COM here. Should I delete that link?juggernaut0102(talk) 08:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owned.com deletion 

message: When I grew up in SoCal in the early 80's we used the word OWN a lot, with basically the same meaning... I know it's cool to think of it as leet speak, but it's been used in "real life" for for at lesat 20+ years132.27.151.5 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the origins? 

message: pooned? really?
Wikipedia can certainly be stupid sometimes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.3.98 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: pooned

message: let us protect this article so that people will stop fucking around with it.     Yours truly,    HelskoWrigley (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear sirs, 

message: I don't get it. Seems really out of context. Its not a message from a hacker. It looks like something someone did to vandalize a school sign message in the middle of the night. And its not even about 'owned', or at least the usage isn't common. It just looks creepy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture and description? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Owned. 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/20051127183441/http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1997/11/14/spice/ to http://attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1997/11/14/spice/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220104043/http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1997/12/08/www.yahoo.com/ to http://attrition.org/mirror/attrition/1997/12/08/www.yahoo.com/
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) 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Apart from some pretty horrific BLP issues with the contept in general neither the metro nor the polygon article support the owning claim. Twitter isn't going to be an RS for a claim with a BLP issue.©Geni (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: While technically we might accept "pwned" a direct statement in a reliable source is exactly what what wikipedia requires to say that a living person has been "owned". Our BLP policys are pretty strict. If you can't find a source for it you can't put it in an article. Beyond that by your own standards this would not be a notible owning. After all on a scale of 1-1066 the events you allude to are insignificant.©Geni (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable ownings

message: This article, as well as Pwn currently both talk about words.  They do not make it clear what the underlying concept or entity is.  How the entities are different.  There are other words for the same thing.  (Trounce, Ignominious defeat, route, etc.)  At this embryonic stage it is not clear that the two levels of defeatedness could not be handled by one article (with notes explaining the varieties).  So they should be merged.  However I see that there seems to have been many failed attempts at that.  So please improve the articles by making them not about language, but about failure, in whichever form.  172.58.46.138 (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be made into an Encyclopedia article, not a dictionary article 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Owning someone. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 1#Owning someone until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Owning someone" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]