Knowledge Base Wiki

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shitty is like saying ownt 9 times srys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.159.180 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) They should be merged. The spellings are irrelevant and a condition of the person saying/typing it (maturity, intended audience, and/or humor being the major factors). Having two different articles can be confusing to the uninitiated and creates unnecessary elaboration. Of course, it would wise to explain the relation and debated differences in usage. However, in the end they both mean the same thing. Awhisperedlie 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often times the bassis of a word is the root of the word. It is without a doubt that "Pwn" is based from "Own" as is apparent. But to merge "Pwn" into "Owned" is to deface and devalue the language that brings us such great utilities as our beloved Wiki. It is these terms, derived from words and given life via. the internet, that defines what it is to be a "netizen" and with this term, it defines a class of people who enjoy what they do. To merge this word with another is to reduce the value of the word, and disconnect computer gamers from their language. -Night0wl 7/27/06

Pwn and Own are two different meanings as owned as projected to more hacking, and pwned is mostly for a FPS. The only way to know if they should be merged is to look at where pwned came from,Counter-Strike. It is said that someone was playing CS late at night and accidently pressed P instead of O,people thought "Genius!" and know we hace pwned.

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)[reply]

Earlier citations of hacker usage may likely be found, and would be welcome additions.

--Hobart 03:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I add a "Owned" picture? James 06:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that "large brown monster" thing James 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a pretty benevolent and appropriate one. I deleted the emotion eric comment on the picture. I couldn't find anything to prove it was actually him, but if you can, please change it back Yanksox 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the page on EmotionEric.com with him and the Pluto mascot: [1] W3bbo 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my mistake. Thank you. I'll fix it Yanksox 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Owned" should not be merged with "pwn". To be "owned" means that you got killed/beaten in a harsh or crushing way. To be "pwn'd" implies that you are a n00b who gets "pwn'd" a lot. Also, if you are "t3h pwnz0rz", it means you are the greatest, but there is no such thing as being "t3h ownz0rz".

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)[reply]

I think that this should be merged. Go for it. Jpittman 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well owned and pwned are basicly the same term used mainly used in gamming situations.

                   -psp401.com 4/17/06

"Owned" and "pwned" are the same things. I'll tell you the history of "pwned": One day, at a forum, a child accidently misspelled "own" as "pwn". "pwn" is used since then. They should be merged. --85.96.41.66 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"pwned" is a typo-deliberate spelling of "owned", ironically, only noobs differentiate between the actual pronounciation of owned and "pwned", since "pwn" is pronounced "own." Another vote for it should be merged. --Nerdtalker 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah merge them. Tamlyn 16:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I, such as many others, think that theese two artucles should be put toghether. MERGE THEM TODAY! :) --Najoj 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for merging. The two terms are used interchangeably by most people that do employ them. There is not a sufficient agreed-upon distinction in their nuances to justify separate articles, particularly given how sparse and comparatively uninformative the current pwn article is, with just one hard-to-notice link to owned at the bottom -- Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, vote for merging. 'pwned' is derived from 'owned' and inherit it's meanings. I agree that the word is often use in areas outside of the gaming community to mean the same thing. However the specific spelling 'pwned' is only associated with the gaming community. Kjt 05:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the pwned.nl site Lord of nothing 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged, they mean basically the same thing. RobJ1981 04:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it should not be merged, as a veteran of internet gaming culture i beleive that they should remain separate articles. To make them one is to give one more importance than the other. They have evolved into separate entities, and it is the duty of wikipedians to record it, we can not force the two separate terms into one just because we are too lazy to maintain two wikis. They should not be merged. Nerfbat 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, if these two get merged, wikipedia's gonna get pwned. (not owned.) Pwn tends to be stronger than owned, kind of like "kill" and "murder." They mean the same thing, but most people (most) think that "murder" is stronger.

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)[reply]

I'm not really sure we can go off of one man's theory on that. besides, won and own have different meanings. won means to win in past-tense, and own means to beat or win-over someone in an uberific way. "I own teh tourny" is not exactly a correct use of the word.

Vennith 01:26 7 December 08 (EST)

Own in reference to being dominated in a game is actually used in the 1986 song "Who Made Who" by AC/DC. In the first verse of the song:

The video game she play me. Face it, on the level, but it take you every time on a one on one. Feeling running down your spine Nothing gonna save your one last dime cause it own you. Through and through.

Not sure if it was used in this context prior to this, but it clearly was at this point and not years later with the internet subculture. --Noxxville (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are military examples of similar sentiments being expressed by a victorious party."

There are? Where? By whom? Optimus Sledge 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so...I do own anybody though... Nasvien

Yeah I've heard actual soldiers (not in a game or movie) referencing "owning" a target or "owning" another team in training and so on... Whether or not these came up before or after the web usage is unclear, and is speculation. Also, if you can, please avoid using long section titles. Its kindof obstructive. I have taken the liberty of moving your title to an in section quote as they usually are.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers using these terms isn't that hard to believe as many of the armed forces are young men that come from all walks of life, including gamers Swalesy

Not just gamers... Then again it wouldn't be to hard to believe that they picked it up as jargon from those in their units that were gamers.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up in the movie "The Rock," too. Pretty sure the directors wouldn't be up to date if it were a more recent phenomenon at the time. More likely that it spread from military use to videogames... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.185.219 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course these two articles should be merged; They are both the same word!

PWN (verb)

1. An act of dominating an opponent.
2. Great, ingenious; applied to methods and objects.

Originally dates back to the days of WarCraft, when a map designer mispelled "Own" as "Pwn".
What was originally supose to be "player has been owned." was "player has been pwned".

Pwn eventually grew from there and is now used throughout the online world, especially in online games.

1. "I pwn these guys on battlenet"
2. "This strategy pwns!" or "This game pwn."

---

it's called owning:P

>x<ino 11:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ownt is used as much from what I know, I think they should be merged/ stay merged as Ownt is just a variation of owned User:Editor=toast

Pwn and Own or Pwned and Owned are very different. by these being merged it would be like merging apple with fruit. i dont need to explain myself

^ I agree. They should not be merged. Pwn and Owned are used diferrently- in fact they have infiltrated normal conversation. "Owned" is used for all sorts of things, in my experience, and is often used in conversation, somewhat like "burn". "Pwn" is only used on the internet, and is used more like the origional useage of "own". 4.247.143.12 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then would you say pwn is a typo of own, and 'o' and 'p' are next to each other? That's what I've always thought it was. Troubleshooter 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was introduced to the gaming world about a year ago and I was not aware of the relationship between own and pwn until I read this article. I predict that meaning and usage of pwn will continue to evolve whereas own has already crystallized. There is also a chance that pwn will become a base of a whole set of new terms i.e. noun pwnzor, extreme form OmgWtfPwn, etc.

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)[reply]

y0u d3f g0774 m3rg3 0wn3d w1th pwn3d, f0 sh0

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 -- feb^talk 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this may well be one of those topics where verifiable non OR sources simply do not exist. It's a slang term that has evolved only relatively recently. The best way to tell what is and is not vandalism is to check the meaning os the examples and see if they fit (currently all of them mean "severe defeat" in some way shape or form. I've seen all of them being used.

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)[reply]

There was a picture sometime ago it showed the common usage (video gaming) and was somewhat humourous. I wonder why it'd be deleted? User:Editor=toast

This was the picture that used to be on the page: Image:Ownedpic2.jpg. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure that we can really give this article the non-OR sources it wants us to. This may well be one of those topics where verifiable third-party sources simply do not exist. This sort of stuff simply does not appear in the kinds of sources the person who added the tags wants us to reference. It is blatantly ovious that much of the stuff that says "citation needed" etc is true- google serach will show you that. (Case in point- 0wn3d- "who says this?"- google it, noob). However, I seriously doubt that this kind of thing is documented in the kind of sources they want us to reference. In fact the only place I can think of is Urban Dictionary, which is not exactly a credible source, but it's the only actual source I can find. there isn't an "encyclopoedia on l33tspeak" out there. For example, a large number of people have similar conceptions on what cars are "cool"- but you would be damn hard pressed to find a source that says that.

I'm consiering removing the citation needed tags because they are asking for stuff that doesn't exist. The article should be reverted considerably.211.30.132.2 11:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should be deleted. Articles on Wikipedia need to have a neutral point of view, need to be verifiable, and cannot contain any original research. If a statement has no reliable source, the statement needs to be removed from the encyclopedia. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If a statement is true, it should be easy to find a source for it. You shouldn't just remove the citation needed tag. The article needs reliable third-party sources. If a statement is not verifiable, it can be removed by anyone. Citation needed tags are a courtesy to give people time to find sources. Any editor can remove unsourced statements. A Google search is not a reliable source. You seem new to Wikipedia, so I think it would help if you read about our policies. Wikipedia does not exist to document every piece of slang on the Internet. Stuff like that belongs on Urban Dictionary. Those citation needed tags have been in the article for over a week with no citations provided so I've deleted those unsourced statements. It would really help the article if someone found an newspaper article or magazine article in a well-known magazine or newspaper that was about the word, not just someone who uses the word. --Pixelface 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've been around on wikipedia for a little while (But thanks for the welcome on my talkpage you left) and this is not the first time I have been involved in disputes over what I consider inflexible adherence to wikipedia's policies. However, upon reading them more extensively, I believe that it says sources are not needed when we are dealing with really common knowledge, such as "Paris is the capital of France" (that was the exanmple on the page). I still think that this counts as that sort of thing. You strike me as the sort of person who is not particularly familiar with the term "owned" or the whole "L33t" environment and may be slightly uninformed as to the exact nature of its usage, which may have lead to your slightly inflexible application of the pricniple "if a statement is sture, it should be easy to find a source". I can give you quotes galore from millions of sites, should you desire it, but not the knid of thing you're talking about. Going back to what it says of the advice on citing sources, most of the people in the discussion and on the page seem to think that really obvious stuff doesn't necessarily need citing. "anything you can't confirm with a few minutes on google should be cited" was one of the quotes. Personally, I think the reason verifiablity over truth is important is because people have different percepetions of truth. There is little difference in percpetion of the word "owned" and its meaning. It is so ludicrously easy to proove beyond any doubt what owned means, but you would remain hard pressed to find really good sources. Back on the policies, I believe it also says you shoud cite things that are "challenged". It would be hard to challenge a lot of the stuff that was deleted. I'm still thinking aobut reinstating some of the deleted stuff as it is blatantly obvious and we really can't write a good comprehensive article on this sort of thing if we adhere to strictly to the citation rules. (BTW, aplologies for bringing this discussion back up to the top of the page, but I would really like to get this over with. Then we can delete or remove the discussion if you like).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.132.2 (talk • contribs) 12:07 21 August 2007

Please sign your comments with four tildes so editors know who they're talking to. Providing sources is one of the 3 core policies of Wikipedia. Statements must be verifiable so readers of the encyclopedia know that some editor didn't just make something up. Something may be common knowledge to you, but other people read this encyclopedia too. You need to cite reliable sources. If it's easy to prove what it means, then cite a source that was published in a reliable publication. And please put new comments on the bottom of the page, not on the top of the talk page. --Pixelface 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny- on some of the "smaller" articles, they usually put new comments at the top of the page. That sort of makes more sense when you think about it, but anyway. AS for "reliable publications", I am aware of numerous sites that say what owned means- many in fact. Mot however are slightly informal, but this is l33t we are talking about. Most are this sort of thing: http://catb.org/jargon/html/O/owned.html

You can find more like this in about thirty seconds if you try. If you think this sort of thing is ok, then I may add some (althouh it would acutally help if you were to enlighten me on exactly what code you type in to cite sources, as I have never done it myself). I still don't think you quite understand this whole "owned" thing. I'll give you an example: Master Chief (the Halo character) is considered by numerous people to be udenaiably awesome. Prove it. You woudl have to use sources from gamers etc- because they are the only people who write this sort of thing. You will only be able to (generally) find sources by L33t H4x0rs about what "owned" means- because they're the sort of people involved. You are treating the "owned" article like a science or history article, where sources and evidence are extremely important. This is by no means the same thing. As for stuff beign common knowledge to me, I would be prepared to say it's a pretty safe bet that most people know by now what "owned" means, given the general non-challenged nature of its usage. It is now a generally accepted slang term throughout most of the western world and there is little dispute as to what it means. If you don't believe me, Google it. No I'm not saying this is a reliable source, but I think it may help you get a better feel of the nature, meaning and usage of the word "owned". Perhaps after that you may understand what I am on about a bit better. This is not the sort of thing that gets published in your "reliable sources". You are being woefully inflexible with this entire issue. There are other ways of proving things than your rather inflexible and narrow list of sources. None of the stuff I am advocating is original research. In fact I coudl offer you a 100% guarantee that no matter where you looked in your search for the word owned, you would find exactly the same answer. I am in fact studying history at the moment, and a very important apart of that is sources and analysis of them. A subset of that is the reliability of a given source, and one of the way to check this is to see if it goes with what all the other sources are saying. Applying that analysis to the "owned" article and comparing it with all other information available, I would say that this article was almost certainly reliable. I reiterate what the advice on citing sources said- anything which you cna't verify on google in a few minutes should need a source, but things that are common knolwedge within that subject (like "Paris is the capital of France") don't need them. I can understand contantious or rare information, or stuff on people's opinions, needing sources, but I actually find it utterly laughable that you think there is any possibility of the information in the article being contentious, challenged, or any way wrong at all. It's not. Like I said- have a look around on the internet (try typing "owned" into youtube is another good one) and try and get a better feel for what owned is all about. Then you might understand what I am trying to say a bit better. What I will do, however, is remive the information that you think needs sources until we have settled this, eiter by finding sources or reaching some agreement as to whether or not this information really needs them. If you like, we can take this discussion to my talkpage (I guess you know how to access it, considering you've done so already). While I understand the reasons behind your beleifs totally, I really don't think you quite get this topic. And before I forget: 211.30.132.2 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could provide citations for any edits you make to the article. When an editor writes a statement on Wikipedia, the burden of evidence is on the editor who wrote the statement -- they have to show that someone else (who is a reliable source) said that statement. A citation is a way of showing that a statement came from a reliable source and isn't just the opinion of the editor who wrote it. One easy way of providing citations is to find a URL and put brackets around it like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org] and put that after the sentence you wrote in the article. A longer way of citing sources is to use this format: <ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |accessdate= |author= |date= |publisher=}}</ref> ...then find the URL, Title, date you looked at the URL, author, date the article was written, and publisher and paste that information in behind the = signs, although some of those may be left blank if that information is not available. You can read more about citing sources at WP:CITE. The encyclopedia entries on Wikipedia need to contain no original research, need to be neutral, and need to be verifiable -- that is why providing citations is important. I hope I haven't offended you. Thanks for signing your comment above. I appreciate it. :) --Pixelface 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you tihnk the site I provided the link to is good enough as a source? It has most of the stuf we're debating in it and seems to be of the same quality as the other sources involved. The other thing I'm a little worried about is that the article currently gives a rather misleading image; it implies that owned is more of a slang term used by hackers etc, whereas it is now more commonly used to refer to getting smashed or humiliated. 211.30.132.2 04:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article that focuses on just the word would be best, but I did find this article by doing a Google search through news stories.[2] The word is only briefly mentioned and usually that's not a really good source, but the article by Sam Leith does discuss other gamer slang. I think it could be added to the article by pasting this code in:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/09/01/dlgeek01.xml |title=Welcome to geek heaven at Blizzcon |accessdate=2007-09-22 |author=Sam Leith |date=2007-09-01 |publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}</ref>

I don't know if the Jargon File counts as a reliable source but since this article is about slang it may be appropriate. Anyone can contribute to the Jargon File[3] (much like a wiki -- and wikis are not considered reliable sources, although contributions are emailed in so they don't appear immediately). The entry at the URL you suggested has an unknown author so that may be an issue. The maintainer of the Jargon File, Eric S. Raymond, edited a book that was published, called The New Hacker's Dictionary, and the 3rd edition was published in 1996.[4] I would be interested to see if "owned" appeared in that edition. I think it probably does, but it might just list the definition referring to root access. The current online version of the Jargon File is 4.4.7 and it was last updated December 29, 2003[5], so we know the word has been used to show domination or to humiliate since at least that time.

There's a page on how to cite the Jargon File here.[6] I say go ahead and put your Jargon File source[7] in the article. You can paste this code in somewhere:

<ref>[http://catb.org/jargon/html/O/owned.html ''Owned''] from the [[Jargon File]], version 4.4.7. Retrieved 2007-09-22</ref>

...or maybe add it as an external link:

==External links==
*[http://catb.org/jargon/html/O/owned.html ''Owned''] from the [[Jargon File]], version 4.4.7 (December 29, 2003)

Someone else might remove it later (because of the issues I've mentioned), but I think it will be OK. --Pixelface 09:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put that in now where appropriate. I may add the telegraph source as an external link, as it is a bit more useful in that sense. I'm currently using it as a source for the 1st sentence. I've put the jargon file one in where it needs to go (there are 2 places where it was useful). We'll see how it goes. I will continue to find more info on this word and add more sources as I find them.211.30.132.2 13:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think they should remain separate articles. They're similar in meaning, but I think there is a slight difference and I believe pwn to be a slightly "heavier" term than own. Holdsradar (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Talk:Pwn#Proposed merge with Owned for more discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Growing up in the 80's in the Midwest, we used "Own" a lot as well. "Own" did not originate in Leet.173.15.44.165 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nobody has ever used the term pooned in any context. It may be an error on the author's part in interpreting "pwned", which was just a misspelling and even as it caught on was pronounced "owned". Further investigation is needed by those who actually care and whatnot.

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

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)[reply]

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.

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) 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The twitter sources are merely to support the claims that A) Chuck Tingle took part in the stream B) Cher Retweeted the stream, since neither are mentioned in the Metro/Polygon articles. As to your other point, I don't dispute that none of the other sources specifically use the exact term "owned". What the sources do confirm is the series of events alluded to in the section. As the Metro article puts it:

"The YouTuber added: ‘I chose Mermaids specifically, because when they were designated some funding via the National Lottery, Graham Linehan, a comedy writer who did some work on a good show 20 years ago, a very normal man who is very angry about trans people all day nowadays, went on Mumsnet and told them to email the National Lottery en masse. Well done, Graham… now, tons of people know about Mermaids, and support them just to spite you!’

Ouch."

Party A sought to deny funding to an organization. In direct response, Party B raised over 340,000 for that organization. The 'Ouch' is particularly relevant as well. It suggests that this series of events was particularly painful or humiliating for the dominated party. This being the case it is entirely accurate to summarize this source as saying Graham Linehan was owned by HBomberguy. I don't believe that constitutes even an extrapolation or inference. Saying party A was severely dominated and humiliated by party B is synonymous with saying party A was owned by party B. These are just different words for the same thing. Demanding a source use the exact phrase "owned" is too high a standard. Obviously official articles aren't going to use such slang.

Ikillchicken (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]