Talk:Leet

Archives
August 2002 – September 2005 December 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – Sepetember 2006

Ice Czar

defaced once again edited out "CHASE IS GAY" (large block step and repeat)

Interstella 5555

The title of the Daft Punk video, Interstella 5555: 5tory of the 5ecret 5tar 5ystem, has leet in it. Should it be put with the examples?

vandalism

alot of people seem to be vandalizing this. wikipedia needs to lock it until it gets sorted out. someone replaced the letters in the leet cipher and syntax. ie the R is where the W should be.

I tried to fix most of it.

People aren't trying to vandalize, their just trying to make it better

---

Can someone add this font to the Leet article linksection?

http://www.trypo.com/trypo/fonts/elite/index.php

It's the first l33tfont and lets you type "leet" right away.

Stephen Colbert

September 17th stephen colbert told people to vandalize this article.... I put it back to how it was..... or did I?

I cleaned it up

You may have noticed that Leet has undergone some pretty dramatic changes under some of the headings.

• I did my best to make everything sound encyclopedic.
• I boiled the over-stylized examples down to just their roots (e.g. for the pwn heading, pwn3d → pwned—The 3 only bogged down the example) so that nothing got in the way of their meaning.
• I got rid of a bunch of game references (lots of WoW **censored**).
• Removed a bunch of pointless topic expansions and extraneous examples
• Removed some unfounded claims and requested citations for others.
• Swapped some grammar and spelling sections around, because they were in the wrong section.
• Many other changes.

Hopefully most of you approve of the changes. I will be keeping a close eye on this article, as it seems to attract a lot of bilge.

The only thing I didn't go over were the lists of links at the bottom of the article.

Is it clean? Can we get rid of the clean-up heading? —Ragdoll 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections for 10 days, I'm going to be bold and remove the clean-up notice. Please, though, continue to remember that removing information may be just as valuable as adding information. —Ragdoll 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

cleanup / citing sources

isn't it kind of impossible to cite sources for comments like "some ppl spek lyk3 dis?" this kind of thing cannot be proved by officially recognized sources, and I'm under the impression that these kind of sentences don't really need to be proved; they should be already understood to be true.

"Some wrongly believe that the origin involved using a dynamic cipher, so that only experienced users would be privy to the message"

someone reply how these kind of sentences can be given a citation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowxling (talk • contribs) 19:42, September 18, 2006.

Find the study that talks about peoples' misunderstandings about the origin of Leet and create a citation for it. Otherwise, it may be better to opt to get rid of the statement altogether. —Ragdoll 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Destroy the Leetists

Yes, thou shall vandalize this article because it is an example of how NOT to write an article, IM lingo is VERY far off from the phenomina we know as leet, images of people using 1337 are mainly doctored, and half of the article is written by throwing in random facts here and there...

Destroy the leet, before it destroys us all.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.243.168 (talk) 08:04, September 21, 2006'.

Better yet, help us make the article better. —Ragdoll 22:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

destroy the leetists? ur retarded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.145.105 (talk • contribs) 09:16, September 22, 2006 (UTC)

Notable?

An anoymous user added a link to this site under the Similar and related dialects section. I'm in two minds as to whether or not it's notable enough for mention. Any comments? Crimson Shadow 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the linkspam, though I don't know what Zero is itself. If it's notable enough to be included, it won't be pointing to a freewebs page. —Ragdoll 16:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask.com logo

I'm hesitent to delete the Ask.com logo, just because I don't know if it's part of a joke they played, like Google often does with their logo on certain holidays. It's really ugly and ametureish, and I debate its neccesity, after Google's page is seen translated into Leet.

Do we need another search engine translation as an image?

Plus, it has no copyright information attached. —Ragdoll 22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Leet microwave ovens.

My image is not unrelated. Take a look at the time the clocks are displaying. JIP | Talk 07:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how a coincidence is relevant to the variety. —Ragdoll 22:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much leet & 1337 refences?

There are pictures from Sociological considerations to The Leet cipher and syntax. Ain't that a bit too much, pictures even cover a part of table. 217.159.163.220 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I chose to remove this one because personalized license plates can be anything. --Sbluen 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

…and another on a Pennsylvania personalized license plate.

I agree. —Ragdoll 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1337 The Numb3r

Is it of any significance that 1337 is divisible only by 7 and 19? 1337 is a fun number to run across irl.

Isnt it also divisable by 1? or 1337? also you have written 19? (is that supposed to represent 191? becuse it doesnt seem to divide by 19-with a whole number result)?

---

~ I actualy just added 1 + 3 + 3 = 7 to the page. 69.223.46.15 10:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FTW, Plz

I'm wondering if these belong in the Leet article, since none of them are actually Leet. These are both more like SMS language, or txt-tlk; they're not really enciphered. Plz might warrent a note in the main vocabulary section, but I don't think it needs a section all on its own. I vote delete.

What do you think? —Ragdoll 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree with the comment about Plz, but FTW is embedded in the leet culture so to speak and so i do believe it warrents a place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.147.232 (talk • contribs) 12:05, October 17, 2006.

I realize the whole of Leet is uncited, but I'd be more inclined to agree with you about FTW being “embedded in the leet culture” if you could tell me where you found this information. —Ragdoll 21:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they more properly belong in Internet slang and List of Internet slang. Actually I was visiting while trying to hunt down a reference for kthxbye (or kthxbai), which appears nowhere on the Wikipedia that I can find, though Internet slang is a redirect for it. Dfrauzel 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been 10 days. I'm going to go ahead and delete Plz and leave FTW for now, though I still think it should be moved elsewhere. —Ragdoll 07:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving FTW to this talk page until something appropriate can be done with it. Quite simply, it's not Leet. My recommendation is to build out sections for popular terms in Internet slang, similar to the way it's done in this article. It needs clean-up, anyway. —Ragdoll 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

==== FTW ==== 
''FTW'' is short for “For the Win,” which is used in reference to something powerful that helps one win.
It is commonly used in conjunction with a noun that a person feels the need to advocate—such as “Notepad FTW.”
Similarly, an argument or retort can be declared ''FTW'' if one feels one's comments were particularly
damaging, sarcastic, or funny.  

''FTW'' can also be used to describe something that the user feels is worthy of admiration. The object in
question usually has something to do with the person using it. For example, a gamer who is fond of playing a
mage character might say “Mages FTW.”

Conversely, ''FTL'' has come around with the opposite meaning: “For The Loss/Lose.”

The origins of this phrase may have been from the gameshow ''[[Hollywood Squares]]'', where it was
customarily used when choosing the potentially winning square.

Why leet, ?

Why is is "leet"? is it because 1337 becomes 13333337 is you transform it into hex? I cant find any good explonation to why it really s leet and not some other word like "eleet"... ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.64.150.116 (talk • contribs) 08:23, October 18, 2006.

Likely because it's faster to type, enciphered, and naturally, more Leet. —Ragdoll 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It (probably) was originally 31337, as the port for Back Orifice illustrates. I agree that it likely became 1337 simply as it's faster to type, etc.; also possibly because of the appeal of four-letter words? Dfrauzel 23:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a tad pointless to debate its origins without researching the subject extensively. Personally, I do not know. I'm not sure anyone does have a definite answer for sure. Would someone be willing to research why the "e" was dropped, though? I would myself, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Though, I do agree, it seems the "e" was dropped simply because it's easier to type/say. Probably a bit like how "do not" became "don't" after many years. "31337" is a bit redundant, also. Evening Breeze 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Definitely do not merge. Leet is different from general internet slang. Slang includes txt-tlk/SMS/hacker jargon and more. Internet slang is the over-arching group, while Leet is an offshoot. It's like merging mammal into dog. —Ragdoll 05:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That relationship needs to be clearer in the articles then -- especially since people keep adding Leet to the List_of_Internet_slang. --Renice 14:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sociological considerations - images

Have removed the following: [[:Image:Jeopardy-1337.jpg|thumb|An example of 1337 in Jeopardy.]]

File:Biddersrow.jpg

…and another on The Price is Right.

as they seemed to be entirely irrelevant to the article. not everything that happens to include one thousand three hundred and thirty seven is a reference to internet slang. --Black Butterfly 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit pending discussion here. In both cases those numbers were specifically chosen i.e. did not randomly occur. --Rtrev 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's a ref for both of them being deliberate leet references, as oppose to the number happening to show up, then they should be re-inserted IMO....from first glance however it seemed to be two random occurances of that particular number. I may have been over-hasty. --Black Butterfly 15:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Jeopardy reference (in which the CMU student places a bid of 1337 right before winning the series), by watching the show it is pretty obvious that most people (including the student wagering) got the joke except for Trebek. He was laughing quite openly in a manner that would not indicate that he randomly chose that number. Furthermore, he goes to CMU so the odds of him not realizing the number was a direct reference to his own culture are slim to none. Just my two cents (didn't see the price is right episode, and I don't have a link to a video of the Jeopardy win).

-SColombo 22:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty positive they're intentionally chosen because of the association, but I'd have no way of backing that up.—Ragdoll 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to 1337?

The name of this "language" is 1337 not Leet. Shouldn't this article bear the same name? 132.203.54.67 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not not seeing as 1337 is already a page for the year 1337. I think that the article does a good enough job of explaining the difference between "leet" and "1337" and their employment in the system that it will not easily confuse. --Rtrev 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No ONOZ? ONOZ!

There's no subheading for "O Noes" and it's variants... Totema1 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Find the relevant sources and add it, then. —Ragdoll 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG

ZOMG currently stands for "Zombies Oh My God" AcronymFinder.com. Someone should address the section "Over-exclamation and other emphasis" and determine whether ZOMG started as a misskeyed Shift press, or started as a stronger form of OMG.

Huh? It's just a twisted 'omg'. Also, 'whoamg'. I thought everyone knew that...--Falos 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be more appropriate in SMS language or internet slang. Acronyms are not Leet. —Ragdoll 23:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG is an acronym and it's in this article. --Brain 03:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

meh ---> Dr Zoidberg

Please expound on the example where Meh is attributed to Dr Zoidberg. I am VERY familiar with both the Simpsons and Futurama, but cannot place this reference.

It doesn't matter, meh in this context isn't Leet and will be removed from this article. —Ragdoll 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree with ragdoll

Legacy of numeric pager code

The article mentioned several sources for Leet, but not numeric pager code — here referring not to number→message tables, but to the practice of spelling out English words using the blocky LED/LCD numbers turned upside down to represent letters, e.g. 07734 → hELLO. This is why 1337 → LEET: the 7 is not T, but an upside-down L. This is also why the word ELITE isn't used; in 31173 the doubled 1 would be unclear (TT? II? IT? TI?).  – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 09:05, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

that's preety stupid --216.244.232.6 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

10100111001

There is a very short article 10100111001 it has been recommended for merge here. Does anyone have thoughts on a merge and redirect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 November 2006.

The above proposal received no dissent or other comments here. Subsequently, Walter Görlitz created a "Trivia" section summarizing the "10100111001" page, and that page now redirects to the "Leet" page. SAJordan added a citation to support the usage. Ragdoll deleted the citation and the trivia section on the grounds of the cited reference (Urban Dictionary) not being a reliable source. SAJordan restored the "10100111001" details as a footnote, changing the citation to a Google search showing actual usage on the Web, with discussion at Ragdoll's talk page. Ragdoll deleted these again, this time as ..."so trivial as to be unuseful and uninteresting". See further discussion at that talk page, unless it gets moved here. Meanwhile, "10100111001" is showing up in technical illustrations (see Ami_encoding.svg, Manchester_encoding.svg) and T-shirts (external/commercial/sales webpage cited as proof, not to advertise). – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 22:37, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

With Ragdoll's permission, here is the discussion from that talk page:

I put the claim back in, incorporating the number 10100111001 alone to main text (early paragraph), with explanation in footnote. Since wikis, blogs, and usenet posts are the only places documenting it yet (that I've found), I'm letting a Google search document actual Web usage, "in the wild", so to speak. If you've got any suggestions for improvement, I'd love to hear them! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 03:27, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Yes, 1337 can be converted into binary, just like any other number. It's not notable.—Ragdoll 15:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason you gave for your previous deletion of the "10100111001" detail was merely that the cited reference on its usage (Urban Dictionary) wasn't a reliable source, since anyone could edit it. That's why I tried to find another way to cite proof of the term's actual usage. If you'd given the present reason instead, I needn't have gone to that effort.

Not being notable is a good reason there shouldn't be a page on 10100111001, and accordingly the page that did exist on it was merged/redirected into Leet, as proposed in Talk:Leet#10100111001 (getting no dissent or other comment).

Many of the details in the "Leet" page, and in other pages, are not notable, which is why there are, and should be, no separate pages on those details. However, non-notability of details (within overall notable topics) is not a reason to delete those details from the overall pages, as I understand it. Or have I misunderstood?

Meanwhile, the very many sites where "10100111001" is used to mean "Leet", either openly or as an insider reference, even as an inside joke (see Ami_encoding.svg, Manchester_encoding.svg), provide a good reason to briefly mention it on the "Leet" page, with a brief explanation of why it means "Leet". I don't think that takes much space, or more than it's worth, especially as a footnote.

I think this discussion belongs on Talk:Leet, but I'm reluctant to move text from your talk page (including your comment) without your OK. May I do so? Or if you would prefer to do so yourself, you have my OK. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 21:54, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Go for it. I suppose it's better to get more opinions on this. —Ragdoll 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

(end of moved text) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:09, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Since I incorporated it I will add these comments:

1. 10100111001 is a binary form of Leet and hence should be listed somewhere on this page. Other forms could be listed as suggested.
2. It is in use in the Leet community and should be documented somewhere on this page. It also conforms to the obfuscation of the form.
3. Unless you can think of a better place, I suggest that we leave the inclusion in a trivia section or somewhere similar.
4. I have no strong opinion that it has to stay, but I do have a strong opinion that it does not merit it own article in wikipedia and this is why I merged it.

Bed time. --Walter Görlitz 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoping this will survive future edits, I'm adding it entirely as a footnote (no in-body text) to this sentence in the second paragraph:

For example, the term leet itself is often written l33t, or 1337, and many other variations.<ref>In keeping with the purpose of Leet, variations of its name have been deliberately obscure. After the decimal number 1337 became widely familiar, the binary version 10100111001 was used, e.g. as a puzzle(a), an in-joke for technical illustrations(b)(c), and a T-shirt design(d). This Google search finds examples of the two number forms used together on the Web with the name Leet.</ref>

Will that be satisfactory to all parties? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:39, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC).

I think that's satisfactory. Looks good. —Ragdoll 00:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Added section for -&

I added a section for -&, as I know I've seen it in use, mainly among message and image boards. I don't have a decent source for it, so if anyone could dig one up, that would be swell. If it is uncitable, and you'd prefer to remove it, I have no objection.

---

~ That definatly needs to stay 69.223.46.15 10:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Origins of 1337

I heard that it originated from hackers during an FBI operation to catch hackers. Supposedly from Urban Dictionary, it was meant to confuse the agents as a cipher language (as was stated in the article) . Clarifaction? The velociraptor 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

UrbanDoctionary is about as reliable a source as well... Wikipedia :)

I won't put this in the article itself since I have no sources to back it up, but I'll put it here in case it inspires anyone to dig out their old printouts (or ask Randy Ubillos, who ought to remember a thing or two himself :-). It might make a good addition to the article.

The use of digits and punctuation to obfuscate text on BBSs was inspired by the use of "Apple ][" in place of "Apple II". Apple BBS users in the late 1970s and early 1980s began using constructions such as "/\/\" for the letter M, especially in the names of these BBSs.

As the article notes, these BBSs used the word "elite" to refer to users with greater experience in hacking or a larger collection of pirated software, and this term was converted progressively to "ELEET" and "31337". This became "leet" or "1337". 10:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1337 in Media

[1]

The IT Crowd DVDs have just shipped -- with subtitles in leet! The IT Crowd is a convulsively funny British TV show about sysadmins, created by Graham Linehan, who is best known for writing the classic show Father Ted.

The IT Crowd's first six episodes ran last year on Channel 4, and was widely shared online, resulting in major commercial success, critical acclaim, and a renewed contract for another season of the show.

I was privileged to consult a little on the show, and I was able to connect Graham with uber-geek Yoz Grahame, who suggested that the disc carry subtitles in leet (or 1337), the letter/number substitution code used by gamers, hackers and other net-dwellers.

The disc is region-locked to Europe, but I hear that a US version is coming shortly. Link (Thanks, Damien!)

SkippyUK 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

alot of people seem to be vandalizing this. wikipedia needs to lock it until it gets sorted out. someone replaced the letters in the leet cipher and syntax. ie the R is where the W should be.

I think a semi-protect would be good for this article; I went to look at it while it was in the middle of an edit/vandalism war.

proposed edit

new user here...

i found one little typo i would suggest changing. under the section Common Transliterations, there is a note at the bottom of the chart with a '*' symbol. However, some of the letters (in the heading) are not appropriately marked with the '*'. Those letters are: Y, Q, G, P

(is this where i'm supposed to submit this???)

Nathandiehl 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Another proposed addition. Regarding "Word Endings: xor and zor", it is a possibility that this originates from the bitwise operator XOR ("Exclusive or"; see Wikipedia: Bitwise Operations). This would fit quite well with the computer-oriented origins of Leet.

User:SPQR210534 20:44, 22 January, 2007

Spelling of naive

The i in naive only has one dot over it. This isn't French. 198.111.39.24 17:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's double-dotted. Just like how Pokémon has the thingy above the e. Crimson Shadow 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Both spellings are correct. See Wiktionary's entry on "naïve", and on "naive". (Each lists the other as an alternate spelling.) – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 07:06, 29 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Constructed Language?

Is 1337 a constructed language or a naturally evolved language of a culture (online gamers)? I think it contains elements of both. And if it is a mix it should be mentioned in the list of constructed languages.--Exander 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it is not a language at all. In some aspects it is jargon (the added words), in other aspects it is cipher (existing words disguised), but these are used within existing languages such as English or Russian. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:36, 4 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Leet in software

It seems a version of VLC media player has been translated into leet speak. May be a good example of its pervasiveness (or use one of the screenshots as topic image?) http://download.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/0.8.1337/

Quoth the changelog :]

---

r10493 | d|0n034 | 2005-03-31 23:23:36 +0200 (j3u, 31 M4r 2005) | 2 1|n35

* 5m411 F|x35 (d4 |(0n (h4n63 5H0u1d n0W w0rk und0R W|nd0W5)

---

15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I got Pink Acid Boots On

I remember an old Aliens Trilogy game for Genesis and other consoles having a cheat code, namely "1g0tp1nk8c1d800t50n". Could that go under an example of L33t? 88.107.92.4 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Another possible picture

Leet Roadsign in Michigan, US.

Please consider this picture for inclusion in the article. This one is not contrived or created by people that are computer literate, but rather is a use of the word "leet" in a normal context, and so may be more appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. --HanClinto 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the road named after the cipher, or is it just a coincidence? —Ragdoll 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a country road out in the middle of nowhere, between Niles and Edwardsburg in Michigan. I'm pretty sure that the road was there long before the cipher came into use (so it is, as you say, a coincidence). This picture was taken at the intersection of Leet Rd. and US 12. --HanClinto 19:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

no one uses l33t any more

Glenbard west 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)it has come to my attention that people who are leet do not speek leet it is verry difficult to type 607 /\/\|1|< wile gaming any one who accually speeks leet is moast likely just a noob trying to be cool

Few people ever did use leet seriously as a method of encoding chat. However, it is still commonly used jokingly or tauntingly (Especially towards a person who uses leet on a regular basis). Deathstop 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

j00 n00b! haxx0r wi11 4|ways use 133! n00b and pwn is still commonly used both are core words of leet.--71.164.185.189 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

people use leet noobs overuse leet like that sentance people would bash you for that.

Uber

It should probably be mentioned that a common alternate spelling of "uber" is "00ber" or "00b3r".

---

~ First I've ever heard of that 69.223.46.15 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another example of Leet:

The artist Pink usually spells her name as "P!nk", as well as her album "M!zzundaztood" I haven't added it in the article, but I thought it needs a mention. 88.107.26.105 12:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not 1337, its 1337 if you use the word "one" instead of an "i", as in "Ponenk" or "Monezzundaztood". lrn21337. 12.41.40.20 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey buddy. using the word 'one' in a word doesnt make you 1337. It makes you gay. you use the number one, as '1' or 'P1nk'.

N00B0R

Shmirlywhirl 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work

This article is so fucking 1337. 12.41.40.20 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is vandalised quite a bit; do you think we should be thinking about semi-protection? Or is it not vandalised enough? Crimson Shadow 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's semi protected for now; hopefully the vandalism may tone itself down and we can remove the tag and have it be okay, but for now it is appropriate. -- Natalya 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe

That there's a big article about 1337 here. You've killed it now.

6r347 j08, 6uy5! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.104.155 (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Killed what? A language? Languages are not killed by being spoken, they are killed by not being spoken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.97.34 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

    Its not a language.... at all! I think there should be a paragraph about how it is mostly used by teenagers or fat 40 yr old virgins who still live with their mothers

If you think wiki has killed 1337, there's a really funny video out on the tubes somewhere called "All Your Base Are Belong to US"... I bet you would find that funny since it is brand new. Mcas 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you post a link to that? Hangfromthefloor 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Theories

I added another creation theory for pwned, that a Warcraft mapmaker misspelled owned in his ending message. I dont know if it should stay or not. My source was b.net chatrooms and wikipedia... Toothturtle 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)toothturtle

That's the theory I've heard too, so I think it should stay. --Brain 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

horribly wrong

zoorz and zor is making fun of noobs who are trying to use leet. saying something like "oh i just pwnzorzd you" is making fun of a noob who thinks that hes good. and people dont write whole sentances in leet theyll right a couple letters anything else and your a noob trying to use leet. This article has alot wrong like someone who says omg!!!11 is a noob ones after exclimation marks is like your wetting your pants in excitment and no one likes to see that. leet is used as emphasis mostly + most of those things like gom as omg is just plain misspelling or somekid trying to make his own little addition to leet so another thing is this article cant be written on second hand sources i dont know what their called becuase the people that write those are the noobs and most of the people who will give you information on it are the noobs about 1 in a hundred people who "know leet" arent noobs. so i know that this article cant bet completly correct ever but i want to correct some things that are just plain wrong. like this sentance in the grammer section "OMFG D00d Bob is t3h UBER 1337 R0XX0RZ LOL" shouldnt have the lol at the end roxxorz is used by noobs leet is still called leet people dont use 1337 in a sentance if their describing something as leet they use leet or l33t 1337 is something everyone knows but no one really says uber is like a joke teh its own word a 3 dosent belong in it dood is misspelled no one says dood unless they not only a noob but are also uncool and finally omfg most people immdiatly dislike you when you shout swear words so dont start a sentance with them. in leet bob rocks would probably just change to something like bob pwns. also never capitalize anything if its not important or you become a caps spammer. there IS a diffrence between leet and noob leet. and a person who knows leet genrally dosent have to worry about getting shot while typing becuase its whole purpose is to shorten how much you have to type and most of them can type faster then they can talk. newbie = just plain new its not their fault, newb = new and annoying, noob = not new but not good, n00b = insult they not new so they have no excuse for being rude its not so much a comment on their skills as a comment on them, nub = kid. sorry for it being so long but if i didnt let someone know it was wrong idve had to shoot myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.121.168 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-07 21:31:07 (UTC)

There is a "citation needed" as follows:

"While the intentional transposition of letters in language is novel [citation needed], Davis and Rawlinson have demonstrated that readers of most languages are capable of understanding the meaning of a word, provided complex phonemes and diphthongs are not corrupted [citation needed]."

I've found two web pages that may help; as a newb, I'm reluctant to cite w/o confirmation

Matt Davis is credited with authoring page http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/ which, at the bottom, links to http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/newscientist_letter.html, a copy of a letter written by Graham Rawlinson to the New Scientist in 1999. AspasiaDemar 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the title of this page should be changed to l337, 1337, 1337sp33k, et cetera, or at least a redirect page from these keywords should be added. ty ub3r l33tz0r!n' h4x0rz! --Gizwidget 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

~ 13375p33|< is the best spelling 69.223.46.15 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a Note

Artstsym: I can't edit this as I am a new user, but I think it should be noted that the original pokemon games (red+blue) had several referances to "kekekeke" and "fufufufu" in demon possesed spirit channelers and team rocket members, respectively. Also, I didn't know any microwaves had military time. 1337 4 3\/3R!

Leet in math (Math is 1337)

1+3+3=7 ( 1 + 3 + 3 = 7)

Math is indeed leet. That is also the best math problem ever.

(added it at the bottom after "leet in the internet"... .)

I also added on to a few of the other entries.

69.223.46.15 10:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research tag

This is bogus. If the lol section has original research/unverified claims, so does the parts about suxxors, noob, and the like. An article like this will have a little original research, because this is about a trend, and not many people in the higher ups will write about this, particularly because it is slang. Either remove it or tag the rest of the art. Comments? Quatreryukami 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Small change

I took out the reference to half-life 1 and 2 in the beginning, because strictly speaking, they're not multiplayer games and Counter-Strike and Team Fortress are half-life mods, which made it seem like half-life is dominated by leet-speakers, when in fact it's not (I won't argue about CS, though. :P). Someone please add more games to that list if necessary; I myself haven't had any experiences that would warrant mentioning here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.212.188 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC).<

68.44.212.188 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

heh, sorry. Forgot to add the sig.