Talk:LOL/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about LOL. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The section "Spread from written to spoken communication" refers to a study in which "Out of 2,185 transmissions, there were 90 initialisms in total, only 31 CMC-style abbreviations, and 49 emoticons." I can't find any definition in Wikipedia or anywhere else (including the referenced source for that study) of "CMC-style abbreviations." What are they? Jim10701 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

CMC is "computer-mediated communication." I agree, it's a flaw in the article if that's not clear. betsythedevine (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The two sections "Analysis" and "Spread from written to spoken communication" contain a lot of information that is relevant to Internet slang in general, not just to "lol." I copied that information to Internet slang. I think it would also be a good idea to remove from this article material that relates only peripherally to "lol." Any discussion from others, pro or con? betsythedevine (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has been spammed with rofls on the LOL page. Because of semi protection, it's uneditable for me. Can anyone change it? --82.13.216.194 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to sign up. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe kik should have a disambiguation page, since it also redirects to bass drum. Kik is a usual typo among fast typers. Kausill (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've solved the problem. Type KIK to see. Kausill (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

in the sub-article "Corruptions of "Lol"" theres a part that says lqtm is widely used, and i've been using the internet thru games for 4 years and have never herd this term, can anyone give a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.37.202 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've never heard lqtm ever used, i've been on the internet for 5-6 years, this SHOULD BE REMOVED - BuLl3t

"Variants" would be better than "Corruptions". --Thnidu (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

what about "lulz: a corruption of L O L which stands or laugh out loud" quote in the lulz section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.13.138 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the page it says that lolz can sometimes be used instead of lol. I've always heard that that it means "laugh out loud zealously". Can anyone confirm/deny whether this is true and find citation of it? earle117 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's rubbish. Lolz is the plural of LOL, as in "I did it for the lulz" which is it appropriate spelling. It's actually not an acronym. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

it also sais that lolz is used as "mockery" of the word lol, stupid and it belongs on urbain dictionary, it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.228.175 (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that Wikipedia should not be so mercilessly abused by internet gamers, who purposely try to embbed profanities into good articles. Or not very good articles. Anyway, we all know that LMFAO has a vulgarity, which is the F, which is F***. We all know that this is very bad, especially for innocent children who go browsing wikipedia, and because their friend said lol, they search what it means. LMAO is safer, and you should change it to LMAO. I'll change it.

Wikipedia isn't censored for the protection of children. :P Kausill 06:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Hopefully nobody would change it to LAMO.

Please don't second-guess the motivations of other editors. It is entirely possible that the paragraph contains "LMFAO" because the source being cited contained that spelling and/or because that is the term kids use to disguise their reference not only to its F-word but also to its A-word. betsythedevine (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT censored so profanity is allowed if it improves the article.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page after googling for a definition of lmfao. lmfao redirects here, so it really should be mentioned somewhere.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

just in case someone still wanna know, LMAO means "Laughing My Ass Off", and LMFAO means "Laughing My Fucking Ass Off"--TiagoTiago (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL means "Rolling On The Floor Laughing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.154.179 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But you see, no one uses ROTFL, it's just ROFL. The T is not included. This article is serious bullshit. — Shy Guy Gunzel~Talk 07:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Lots Of Laughs or Lots of Laughter also something that LOL stands for? The article doesnt even mention them. Apoyon (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in Lol (disambiguation), which is linked at the top of the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no it's not. And even if it was, shouldn't it also be mentioned in this article? Apoyon (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LQTM isn't mentioned, but redirects here. Why redirect here if it isn't mentioned? LtDonny (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually use this acronym? Google search turns up Blackwing Lair, apparently something from WoW. I personally have never heard it used.

From another user, I would also like to say that across my many years of being on the internet, I have never, ever seen BWL. For this reason, I would like to request its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shimo1989 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ROFFLES redirects here, but the article doesn't mention it once. Can't figure out what the extra letters mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.207.140 (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Do we even need this article? Shaunsomeone (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet lingo is immature, and stupid. It's hardly worthy of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.40.115 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This article falls completely within the requirements of Wikipedia articles per Wikipedia standards. It, however, does require work to become a more complete and constructive encyclopedic entry. As noted above all previous attempts to have this article deleted have resulted in a "speedy keep" verdict. It may be prudent to discuss a merge of this article into common internet lingo if there is enough of objection to LOL being a separate article, but this move would have to be discussed at length and would not be an overnight outcome. Chris4682 January 1, 2009 6:59PM

Could someone please delete the line "Teenagers now sometimes use them in spoken communication as well as in written, with ROFL (pronounced /ˈroʊfəl/ or /ˈrɒfəl/) and LOL (pronounced /ˈloʊl/, /ˈlɒl/, or /ˌɛloʊˈɛl/), for example"? I am a teenager and am highly offended by this line. No one I know uses lol in spoken communication and few use it in text messaging or IM.It is also used various times when there is an awkward situation on hand.

But it's teenagers who use this slang more often than older generations. It's from a neutralz point of viewzez. Kausill (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know plently of people who use it, both spoken and written. Depends on the people, I guess.

98.169.249.232 (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LMAO means "laugh my ass off" or "laughing my ass off, its much used in games like World of warcraft, runescape, minecraft, and Leauge og legends —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.246.37 (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it derived from the 4chan community? I thought Encyclopedia Dramatica started it before 4chan did.--Deitrohuat (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source?--Megaman en m (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ED says it was coined by a LiveJournal user, "Jameth". How is it known that it is derived from the 4chan community, where does it say that?--Deitrohuat (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this article LOL mentions 4chan in the context of a NYT article that talked about the use of "lulz" in the 4chan community. I am removing the claim that it originated there unless somebody provides a reliable source for that claim. betsythedevine (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol is used mostly by young adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.191.225 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Lulz is laughter at others expense, and originally it was coined by a Live Journal user, "Jameth" and 4chan started using it. On note of what someone said, Encyclopedia Dramatica was around after 4chan from what I understand DrSinn (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously almost nobody will notice, but this is slightly inaccurate/contradictory in my opinion:

"It is one of many initialisms for expressing..."

"/ˈloʊl/, /ˈlɒl/, or /ˌɛloʊˈɛl/"

Initialisms are solely pronounced letter-by-letter, and therefore, "LOL" which can be pronounced letter-by-letter but is also pronounced commonly as a whole, is more accurately defined to be an acronym.

If you find that I am wrong about this case, then kindly fix the then contradictory Wiktionary definition(s) for acronym and/or initialism.

74.109.136.32 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to you for noticing! Thanks! Kausill (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete it (It is a part of modern culture as much as many other things are), kkdevakck

please, the entire first section of the article is garbage. At least create a new section about all of these "studies" or better yet, delete them and replace it with a history of the word. Seriously, though, the first section has to go.

98.169.249.232 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

lol is laugh out loud and lmao is laugh my ass off As much as the acronym 'LOL' is in global use, it belongs more on Urban Dictionary than a fully-featured encyclopedia. Please delete the article or at least get somebody else to do it as it is quite pathetic with details. They're not wrong, just a little bit inaccurate and the article is very unprofessional. It's already been nominated for deletion once; keep Wikipedia to the informal articles, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzTeTT (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And why isn't an acronym encyclopedic?--Megaman en m (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully-featured minus "LOL"? How is the article "quite pathetic with the details"? Did you request the deletion just for teh lullz? --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(LOL means Lots Of Laughs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.44.237 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the previous discussion resulted in Speedy Keep. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"LOL is a common element of Internet slang used historically on Usenet". Do we really need to use the word USENET? --Fuzzyhair2 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that before the Internet LOL also meant Lots of Love. Shouldn't this be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunger993 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Heph8 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC) kek: Cross-faction rendering of lol in the MMORPG World of Warcraft. Though most words are not translated directly across factions, lol is always faithfully rendered as "kek". When a member of the Horde says the word lol, nearby members of the Alliance see the word as "kek". Kek is derived from the Korean ㅋㅋㅋ, or kekeke, which is used to express laughter.[citation needed]

http://projectazeroth.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/LanguageOrcish is a website devoted to translating the various tongues used in WoW. Bur is commonly heard by horde when alliance say lol, and kek is what alliance hear when horde say lol.

Granted this is true, they use an algorithm to translate the words, and is theoretically possible for the word 'bur' or 'kek' to come up with a different three letter word. They (Blizzard) never made a complete dictionary translation and only went with an algorithm to do it. Though I'm sure they would never admit it Kalbintion (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There's something wrong with this article; abbreviation "lmao" redirects here, but it doesn't even appear in content. I suppose this should be fixed, maybe by creating new article (if it's too vulgar for innocent children who are searching the meaning of "lol" ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.178.165 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"LMFAO" also redirects here, and also is not mentioned in the body of the article. 86.133.48.238 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

This does not constitute a proper wiki page... 'lol' is an abbreviation created by children - like millions of others - so why not have pages on them? you don't decide on celebrity pages based on popularity, neither should you here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 09:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The existence of a Wikipedia article about some topic does not constitute an endorsement of the topic's value, merely its notability. If scholarly papers, news articles, or other reliable sources discussing a topic can be cited, it most likely merits either an article of its own or inclusion within the scope of another. betsythedevine (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

LMFAO redirects here, but is never mentioned in the article. Is that due to its profanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.198.77 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol as a non-abbreviation. “Lol” or Lolian are both words that exist and are used. The exact origin of the Celtic language is un-known but is written in the Welsh Dictionary!!! (Yng Nghmraeg y de) (In the Welsh of South Wales) Lol- “Nonsense” Lolian- “To talk nonsense”Serpant8 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is not h not these are other forms of LOL

LOL Laugh(ing) Out Loud LOL Lots Of Love LOL Land O' Lakes LOL Lots Of Laughs LOL Lots Of Luck LOL Labor of Love LOL Loss of Life (insurance) LOL Land of Legends (Canandaigua Speedway, New York) LOL List of Links LOL Little Old Lady LOL Loads of Love LOL List of Lists LOL Love of Life LOL Language of Love LOL Lady of the Lake LOL Lowest of the Low LOL Locks of Love (Lake Worth, Florida charity) LOL Lack of Love (game) LOL Lots of Laughter LOL Lord of Lords (Jesus) LOL Learn Online LOL Land of Lincoln LOL Leg of Lamb LOL Live Out Loud LOL Lightolier (Genlyte Group company) LoL Lands of Lore (game) LOL Lord of Life (Church) LOL Loss of Light LOL Live-On-Line LOL Love Our Lord LOL Legend of Legaia (video game) LOL Labels or Love (song by Fergie) LOL Life of the Land LOL Laws of Life LOL Lots of Lag (on-line gaming) LOL Load of Laughs LOL Life of Loan (banking) LOL Loyal Orange Lodge LOL Lord Oh Lord LOL Log On Later LOL Love On Line LOL Loss of Lock LOL Land of Love LOL Lots of Losers (Rocket Arena 3 clan) LOL Limit of Liability LOL Language of Literature LOL Love Out Loud LOL Laughing On Line LOL Ladies of Lallybroch LOL Lord of Lies (gaming) LOL Lack of Laughter (less common) LOL Loser on Line LOL Living on Line LOL Lords of Legend (gaming) LOL Loss of Load LoL Line of Learning (UK education) LOL Lips on Lips LOL Lautes Online Lachen (German: Loud Online Laughter) LOL List Of Lights LOL Lower Operating Limit LOL Last or Least LOL Lot of Lamers LOL Loss of Line (telephony) LOL League of Losers (wild 17 chess team) LOL Length of Lease LOL Lying Out Loud LOL Lawyers on Line LOL Love of Literacy (teaching) LOL Lewd Obscene Language LOL Leaning Over Laughing LOL Limited Operational Life LOL Lunatics on Line LOL Less Of Lip LOL Longitudinal Output Level LOL Legend of Lothian (computer game) LOL Limited Operation Life LoL League of Lightness (gaming clan) LOL Low Order Language LOL Liar of Lies LOL Lovelock, Derby Field Airport, Nevada (IATA code) LOL Lord of the Lambs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjyotibaba (talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This article commonly calls all abbreviations (including LMAO) acronyms, which is incorrect. An "acronym" is a set of initials which is pronounceable (like S.W.A.T. or S.C.U.B.A.). LOL can be pronounced (as "lawl"), but not all of them can. Please don't further corrupt the language by using the wrong words. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.208.203 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some dictionaries agree with you that "acronym" should be restricted to initialisms that make a pronounceable word, others do not. But I agree that this article uses acronym too often, so I changed it. betsythedevine (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} ia:LOL Ondra.cifka (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a very descriptive request, but  Done. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a redirect to the League of Legends article could be introduced, since it's abbreviated LoL. Igiarmpr (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK -- the relevant template is "for" rather than "redirect", but I did add a connection to the game. betsythedevine (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To: Editor-in-Chief of Wiki "LOL"

"PFF" means Pretty Fucking Funny.

PFF is worth adopting as an official variant to LOL because like WTF it adds a suggestive characterization to an otherwise sanitized or sterile LOL, which many authors detest and want to avoid.

Authors want and deserve a total range of making and delivering commentary even with abbreviations.

When I use PFF I do so because I want the license to make a vulgar or suggestive comment with the ease of an acronym, and without the labor and wordiness of expressing it long hand, without which many of us may not comment at all.

Please add PFF as a variant to LOL.

Thank you.

Definitions of slang terms in wide usage can be found in wikt:Main Page, however. betsythedevine (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, just want to clarify that my one line of comment above was a response to somebody else's query about PFF. Not sure what happened to the sig of whoever that was, but ... not me. betsythedevine (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has used ROFTL for a long time. It is a bad example in the first paragraph of the article, and should be replaced with ROFL immediately due to the fact that people actually use the term ROFL. Thanks guys, and sorry that I am too lazy to log into my account and change it myself, but then I would start fixing other articles. You know how that goes. --207.118.214.56 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is parochial. Maybe no one in your circle has used it for a long time, but it's still around. And BTW, it's ROTFL, not ROFTL "Rolling On Floor The Laughing". --Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

yea, on games i play, and with my freinds, we all us it alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "au lieu of" to "instead of" because it is simply not englitsch

• mdr: French version of the expression LOL, from the initials of "mort de rire" that roughly translated means "dying of laughter", although many French people now use LOL in lieu of this as it is the most widely used on the internet.

188.115.15.164 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Lieu is one of many French words borrowed into English. While the expression au lieu is used considerably less often and is more French, the expression in lieu of is quite English and is widely used in English writing. Intelligentsium 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. "In lieu of" is unnecessarily pompous, and "this" here is superfluous. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL also stands for Loyal Orange Lodge. [1] [2] [3] [4] 188.192.232.76 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please unlock this page for renovation? I mean... The first sentence:

'LOL (also written with some or all letters lowercase, most commonly as lol or LoL)'

I've never seen anybody say LoL. Or BWL for that matter (also mentioned). This page is horribly, tragically outdated. Please let the Wikipedia community fix this! 124.177.124.250 (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I use LoL! And I'm somewhat representative insofar that I have used it before reading this article, so there is an extent of randomness in the statistical sample that I am. Don't think that what you know is the whole world.
– 6birc (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• The source documents BWL. Readers don't trust Wikipedia editors about whom they only know their IP addresses. They trust sources, and the article has to say what the sources say. Please read and familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record im 15 and i say it all the time because im pro and epic while the rest of you are all n00bs and gyro's. Thankyou and loool, lol rofl xD zomg roflctoper soi soi soi

Noot92 (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Some of the things written on the 'lol' page are WRONG. Example: ROTFL- Rolling on the floor laughing. This is meant to be ROFL as the 'T' is not written. This is false information that we are not allowed to edit.

Ridiculous.

• Again, please read and familiarize yourself with our verifiability policy. Wikipedia is not written based upon claims from people with pseudonyms such as "Noot92". It is written based upon published sources written by people such as Jiuan Heng, Guy L. Steele, Robin Williams, Steve Cummings, Tim Shortis, and Eric S. Raymond. In the event of a conflict between an assertion backed up by multiple published sources written by identifiable people who have expertise in the field and reputations for fact checking and accuracy to defend, and an assertion from some unidentifiable person calling xyrself "Noot92" with nothing at all to back it up, Wikipedia, by clear policy, goes with what the sources say. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please please please unlock this page. This is so old and every single internet acronym redirects here. Even ROFLCOPTER (soi soi soi) even when that is not mentioned in the article and is completely seperate from LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.118.42 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ISHP. This article is bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbobboblol (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

im 15 and i use lol all the friggin time in basic conversation. Just ask ali scott. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.177.46 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources presented in section Analysis, while sufficiently authoritative to be included in a Wikipedia article, apparently presume that users of these "linguistic tokens" just flatter their idiocy in using them. This is not automatically the case: while I cannot determine for sure whether I qualify as an idiot, I for one make an effort to use language consciously, consistently and orderly—in spite of employing lolspeak (sparingly). Lolspeak can not only be orthographically conservative, but it needs not even be at odds with typography, when used in such a way. While there is an incentive in the form of communication economy in using "Internet symbols" as a replacement to traditional words, I feel that it is not the chief incentive—as the researchers appear to presume—nor would this be anything new under the sun, since the whole of human language is built around the principle of communication economy. Hence, the suggestions of users' intellectual laziness, if served as accusations, must FAIL epically. Many users of lolspeak may well be immature or retards (as seen on this very talk page), but the academics aren't justified in simply taking this for granted. Perhaps they are afraid to relax a little.
—6birc (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from communication economy (negligible), other plausible benefits of lolspeak include:

1. simply a repository of cherished clichés,
2. a way to manifest enthusiasm and sympathy by an individual towards his online community, or the emerging new culture in general,
3. substitutes for missing non-verbal cues (such as body language),
4. proof of community status and "tribal allegiance".

I repeat that lolspeak need not be careless... in fact, it rarely seems so. But, now, all this is my WP:OR (to switch to Wikipedese for a change).
—6birc (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL is now a common acronym. But for how long, and what is there to say about it? At least explain the origin of LOL, why it became popular, and how popular it is. The article oversteps its bounds and goes offtopic from LOL to acronym. Given its actual content, the "Analysis" section would be more appropriately labeled "Criticism" or "Controversy". The article is also outdated. Erudecorp ? * 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ya, we used lol, wtf, wth, and many other acronyms like this when we were in grade school, long before the internet became widespread (c. 1982-84) its bizzare that younger people assume that they made them up. oh well, im too lazy to research this:) 96.238.247.130 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just too old, not too lazy, ;-).
—6birc (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

just to inform you - LOL as far as I know the origin is from the 80s.. it is possible that it dates before the 80s but it was used on BBS servers since the 80s for sure 100% .. the origin.. if you think about it.. it is not that difficult to see why this is true.. source: me (Adamson) --- p.s. - the article cites Usenet, which is true, absolutely.. the reality is, it has been used since the 80s and only more recently in the last decade or so "blew up"

In the section "Spread from written to spoken communication" it stated movable type without Capitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaspervdmeer (talk • contribs) 11:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The article briefly mentions that the term appeared on usenet forums, is there any further information such as the first appearance of the word, we have a well documented history of the smiley :) why not for lol --voodoom (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

i wud like to add LOLWA .. a BIT MESRA, INDIA version of lol..we at BIT use it instaed of lol 59.94.73.131 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a Welsh translation of the acronym "lol" (laugh out loud). The Welsh translation that is used by my friends and I (native Welsh speakers) is "cayu" standing for "Chwerthin allan yn uchel" (which translates are laugh out loud). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gethiiiiiiin (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"lol" means laughing out loud .... ow bout takin "lol" also for..."lots of love "... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.14.74 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source, and why should we add it?--Megaman en m (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

People who believe that, on the Internet, LOL means something other than "Laughing Out Loud" (e.g. Jerry: <insert funny joke here>; Frank: LOL!!!) is the result of a discussion, probably with an "adult" during the onset of the creation of what is now known as "netcronyms" (interNET aCRONYMS). The likely scenario is that the person was reading forums, chats, message boards, or some other conversant medium and struggled to understand the meaning. Then began to misuse it and thus propagated it to others who continue to misuse it. LOL does not, and has not ever, stood for "Lots of Love" or "Lots of Luck" or "Little Ovary Ladies" or anything other than "Laughing Out Loud". Such phrases are not even common in everyday speech. If someone requests luck, we say "Good Luck!" (or use the netcronym "GL") to which the asker says "Thank you!" (or "ty"). If someone ever said "I have a court date today, my daughter might be going to jail." and received the response "LOL", either the responder A) is extremely callous and cruel, B) does not take the person seriously, or C) thinks (incorrectly) that LOL stands for "Lots of Luck". In a conversation with one's tween, to say "I love you, Mom!" to which 'mom' replies "LOL" would be interpreted as a laugh for the same reason above thereby destabilizing any emotional bonding or self esteem that the tween had prior to the conversation.

Let's leave the incorrect acronym interpretations out so as to avoid confusion -or- add a section for common misinterpretations. 63.72.210.122 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

'LOL' usually expresses laughter and so do the other variants listed, the 'lots of luck' variant expresses something else. EDIT: Removed. EagleYS (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be on a list of common misinterpretations (see below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.210.122 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I start typing L.O.L. (with the dots/full stops) to denote that i don't just 'laul' but actually laughing out loud (with the transformation of the thing lately). Can this be sourced somewhere? Or am I just the 1st? :D --94.70.119.46 (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you're the first to type it, but certainly one of the first to try to analyze actually -why- they type an acronym in a particular way on the Internet. Heck, I don't even hit the shift key. 63.72.210.122 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lulz is used to describe the feeling of gratification that someone feels after they have intentionally caused another person emotional harm from a prank, cyberbullying, or any action that has put that person down in anyway. Unfortunately this term has caused much turmoil on the Internet and in reality. And in response to this turmoil many adolescents respond with the common phrase that they “did it for the lulz.”

Lulz is often seen on the internet, but it is also seen in real life. For example, a sixteen year old boy made an announcement in a Wal-Mart in New Jersey stating that all “black people should leave.”^[1] Later on people excused this boy stating that he just “did it for the lulz.” This term excuses people for performing actions that are looked down upon in society because it was done for the “lulz.”

Lulz is most often seen on the Internet, such as with websites as Encyclopedia Dramatica, and of course any other cites that allow wall posts, which allow trolls to respond to. Trolls are people who purposefully harass people on the Internet and they often do it for the lulz. According to a New York Times article about Internet trolling, "lulz means the joy of disrupting another's emotional equilibrium.”^[2] Lulz is directly related to cyberbullying on the Internet and these trolls cyberbully others in order to feel the lulz.

The necessity for lulz is a psychological tendency of people who enjoy seeing other’s pain and discomfort. In order to curb this appetite many people who crave lulz use the Internet as a way to do this. Lulz has ruined many adolescents’ lives such as with a young girl named Alexis who committed suicide because of many mean comments that were on her formspring.me.^[3] Another example is about a girl named Megan Meier who had also committed suicide. The troll was the “mother of Megan’s former friend, [who] created a false identity to correspond with and gain information about Megan, which she would later use to humiliate Megan for spreading rumors about her daughter.”^[4] In this case the mother of Megan’s former friend is the troll who is “doing it for the lulz” in order to feel a sense of gratification or revenge at the pain of her daughter’s former friend.

A lot of research has been performed on the topic of cyberbullying in order to measure the scope of this problem. Anonymous tests were given to a group of teenagers and the results showed that of the people who were cyberbullied 72% were bullied by people they had met online.^[5] The majority of victims were being cyberbullied by people they did not know which shows that they were “doing it just for the lulz.” Shanaschreibs (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How the hell is 'bfn' and 'imho' popular, as stated by the article?? I have never seen anyone used bfn, and imho only once. As a gamer's name 5 years ago. x.x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.99.70 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I see 'imho' (or its variant 'imo') probably daily and multiple times per day in various political, religious, and other controversial forum, chat room, and Facebook discussions. It is quite popular though its users are rarely "humble." 63.72.210.122 (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello wiki, I'm an italian user (sorry for my bad english) and I want to present you a fact. Yesterday I was reading Through the Looking-Glass (chapter IX exactly..) and when I read the following sentence i wonder: "It'll never do for you to be lolling about on the grass like that! Queens have to be dignified, you know!"

So, Lewis Carroll had used in 1871, the verb TO LOL. Then LOL isn't a slang word born on the Internet.

Feedback? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbarbaglia (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observation, but [sadly] a totally different meaning and not an acronym in the context you refer to. According to Chambers dictionary "loll" is an English colloquialism originating in the 14th century that means to "laze" hence lolling is literally lazing around. Dainamo (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} It should list Korea under the way other countries "LOL". On Korean forums it is common to see ㅋㅋㅋ (kkk/kekeke) or 하하하 (hahaha) to simulate laughter on the internet. Donutball (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Can you provide a refernce to a reliable source? —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It has since been added by another user. The Leet article cites this to "The Computer Hope dictionary", but there's no online version of this. —Soap— 12:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this topic up again, but a Google search gets 14,600,000 hits for ROFL & 3,770,000 hits for ROTFL. The most recent citation that mentions "ROTFL" is from 2001, and the other two citations are from 1996 & 1993, eons ago in terms of the internet. The most recent citation (from 2003) does not even mention "ROTFL" at all, but mentions "ROFL" once. I feel this is enough justification for changing the article. chad. (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that ROFL is now much more common. Our agreement constitutes WP:OR unless somebody finds a reliable source saying the same thing. Also, when the article is citing a reliable source that used "ROTFL," it is not accurate to change material based on that source to replace "ROTFL" with "ROFL." betsythedevine (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• It isn't. Find and cite a reliable source that documents this. How many more times does this have to be said? Google Web page hit counts are meaningless (as linguists who have tried to use them will tell you). Cite a source. Find someone with a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy who has actually documented what you claim to be true. Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Google Web page hit counts are meaningless (as linguists who have tried to use them will tell you)." But do you have a reliable source which states that GW hit counts are meaningless? ;-) I do believe that a difference of 11M hits isn't completely insignificant, and would justify a shift from "ROTFL (also spelled ROFL)" to "RO(T)FL" or something else which is less biased towards ROTFL. Not in a citation, of course.
  • On a more serious topic: ROFL and LMAO should probably have their own pages, which would declutter the LOL page and this talk page a good bit. Both ROFL and LMAO are very common on the net. X-refs at the bottom are always an option. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think this is clearly a case where Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules applies. Unless anybody is seriously positing that ROTFL is prevalent and ROFL is uncommon by comparison. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You are thinking incorrectly. IAR is not a get-out-of-content-policy-free card, as Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means clearly explains. Stop looking for loopholes and cite a source. We've made the effort to raise this article from the terrible depths that it once was in by working on making it adhere to our verifiability and no original research policies, in part by writing it based upon what sources we can find actually say. Any reversal of that is not an improvement, but a step backwards and counter to the project's goals. So find a reliable source that documents the fact that you assert. Others have put in the effort to find sources with the rest of the article. Anyone wanting this particular content in the article is not exempt from putting in the same effort and writing properly. It says below the every edit box that you see that encyclopaedic content must be verifiable. That is not a warning without teeth. This is verifiability in action. You are actually being held, by other people around you, to the project's standards for content. Find and cite a reliable source that documents what you claim to be true. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • To be honest this whole discussion is a bit ridiculous. Either variation can be found on a butt ton of web pages, why not just include both? (i.e. say "ROTFL (often shortened to ROFL)") I think it is in the spirit of ignore all rules (or maybe in this case, make a few new ones up) that at some point a whole bunch of independent, quasi-reliable sources constitutes a single fully reliable source. This whole argument is over ONE LETTER! Can we please use this page for more constructive discussions rather than arguing over the letter T? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • • "To be honest this whole discussion is a bit ridiculous." ROTFLOL --Nerd42 (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The only ridiculous thing here is that although sources have been requested here for at least eight months, no-one wanting this content has put in the effort to find and cite a single one, but instead we have the same request repeated, without sources to back it up, again and again, as if the request for sources to back up the claim will be any different to the last time. Proper article writing requires verifiability, and this is verifiability in action. The Wikipedia editor community as a whole, and individually, requires that content be backed up by sources. You are being challenged to show a source to back up your claim, in the normal way that happens every day at Wikipedia. Repeating the claim does not rise to that challenge. Trying to squirm out of fundamental project policy does not rise to the challenge. Finding and citing a reliable source does. Rise to the challenge and do so. Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I am not trying squirm out anything. I am trying to present a compromise after watching months of rather pointless bickering. The reason no one has found a single scholarly source is that IT'S HARD and it's not for lack of effort. I was hoping that citing several less-than-scholarly sources would be enough to satisfy everyone. I know the policy, and all I was asking is that editors consider this as a means of moving the discussion forward. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise suggestion: somebody find one linguistics or otherwise scholarly paper that talks about "ROFL" or (even more common now) "rofl". We will use that source as a reference in the summary and move the 4 or 5 earlier scholarly papers talking about "ROTFL" into external links? If we are citing a bunch of scholarly papers that talked about pteranodons, we can't write our article as if they talked about ducks just because pteranodons have evolved into ducks, IMO. betsythedevine (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Does a Washington Post article that has been cited in the The British journal of developmental psychology[5] count as a reliable source?

  Helderman, R. S. (2003, 20 May). Click by Click, Teens Polish Writing; Instant Messaging Teaches More Than TTYL and ROFL. The Washington Post, p. B.01.

  Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Also:

  Childress (2006). "Using massively multiplayer online roleplaying games for online learning". Distance Education. 27 (2): 187–196. doi:10.1080/01587910600789522. Other than the occasional use of emoticons such as ;) (wink) or other generally accepted instant messaging abbreviations such as <LOL> (laughing out loud) or <ROFL> (rolling on the floor laughing), there is little, if any visual feedback that alerts the students to the tenor of the discussion {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

  Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those seems to be available freely over the internet, but I have added a reference to one that is. I hope this addition will resolve this controversy. betsythedevine (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another laughing abbreviation that was not metioned, it is BOAL this means "buss out a laugh". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.11.82 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) lol means lots of laughs

adding "löl", an german variation of lol ? --Sims1024 (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, they do use "lmt" (lach mich tot = laughing to death) tho. löl is just another heavy metal umlaut. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} When referencing Laccetti and ***Molsk***, please change to Laccetti and ***Molski*** - changed word set off by ***. there is a typo in the by line of the Atlanta Journal Constitution article. The end of the article summary of the authors has it correct. Silvio Laccetti and Scott Molski are the authors. I know them. The footnote also has it as Molsk, should be Molski.

71.175.128.139 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done The quickest of Google searches confirms the typo. User:Uncle_G has corrected it. Regards. Fribbler (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lole : The best variation ever made of the word 'LOL' Discovered by Marina Hobday ;) x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.49.242 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

for whatever reason, the page is protected so, someone care to add the "simple english" link under languages? (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lol) Divinity76 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

.. and minutes after ^, the protection policy changed... added.

<small> {{edit semi-protected}}</small> plz lemme edit xD ok thx bai :P omg ur font is liak totaly screwd..omg my mom ish calin meh 4 diner ok bai...

Robloxguy587 (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)oh shit........ No, might have to make some constructive edits first The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how can this work on citation but you can check this article Thai numerals that contain Reliable sorce of number 5 pronouncing in RTGS that is ha and 555 is hahaha.If you agree with. I don't want you use Citation needed anymore here is a part of that article that contain reliable

Number	Thai				Khmer	Cantonese	Minnan
	Numeral	Written	RTGS	Archaic
0	๐	ศูนย์	sun	(Sanskrit śūnya)	០	零 (ling4)	空 (khong3)
1	๑	หนึ่ง	nueng	อ้าย (âai)	១	一 (yat1)	一 (it4)
2	๒	สอง	song	ยี่ (yîi)	២	二 (yi2) [雙 (seung1) = pair]	二 (ji7) [雙 (song1, lit.)]
3	๓	สาม	sam	สาม (sǎam)	៣	三 (saam1)	三 (sam1, lit.)
4	๔	สี่	si	ไส (săi)	៤	四 (sei3)	四 (si3)
5	๕	ห้า	ha	งั่ว (ngûa)	៥	五 (ng5)	五 (go.7)
6	๖	หก	hok	ลก (lók)	៦	六 (luk6)	六 (liok8, lit.)
7	๗	เจ็ด	chet	เจ็ด (jèd)	៧	七 (chat1)	七 (chit4)
8	๘	แปด	paet	แปด (pàed)	៨	八 (baat3)	八 (pat4, lit.)
9	๙	เก้า	kao	เจา (jao)	៩	九 (gau2)	九 (kau2)
10	๑๐	สิบ	sip	จ๋ง (jǒng)	១០	十 (sap6)	十 (tzhap2)

--223.207.4.182 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} the page rotfl is for LOL not rotfl, this needs to be fixed :P

Link07 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Already done The pages ROTFL and rotfl do redirect here, you're right. On the other hand, the LOL page talks about lol and rotfl together. Because of that, readers will be able to find both and think "Oh I see what you did there". --Whitehorse1 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

you should add lmfao and lmao to the article--97.100.146.210 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• You should find sources that discuss them. Uncle G (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

LMAO stands for: "laugh my ass off"; While ROFL stands for: "rolling on floor laughing". The two together are ROFLMAO; which means: "Rolling on floor laughing my ass off". These terms were coined in the late 1980s by a small group of public BBS Chat Room participants and IRC participants at a multi-line chat service known as Bullicom BBS. Today this BBS is long past but the legacy it created lives in popular culture in many commonly known popular terms.
Among those who are believed to have coined the phrase were BBS Subscribers known as "Shadow, Goldie, Pres, and other regular frequenters of the Bullicom chat rooms. Shadow (Stacy Green of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.) is believed by those present to have originally coined the terms LMAO and ROFLMAO in March of 1987 as part of a discussion thread on a local dial-up BBS known as "Phantom Zone". A few months later, during a multi-line chat room discussion with others; LOL, BRB, and TTYL became commonly used terms. StacyGRN (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires verifiabiity for materials in its articles. Does any WP:RS describe the origins of these terms as you describe them? In any case, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you will find many interesting things here to edit. betsythedevine (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

o) Thank you very much for the welcome. I'm delighted and even fascinated to be a part of Wikipedia.

I agree that all information should be credible and verifiable. Which is why I posted this information here instead of in the articles themselves. The challenge with "verifiable" is that there is no clear line between hearsay and fact when considering recent history. By saying it has to be published elsewhere before it has value on Wikipedia is obviously a good policy, but what about new information? Should If I say "I know - because I was there."; to me, and everyone else that was there - it is credible, true - and ... well... "Fact". But (and I realize this is obvious) that doesn't make it "fact" to anyone else. At the same time; a lack of published substantiation does not (at all) relieve the facts from existing.

The problem with this logic can be related in this way... "Did the tree make a sound even though no one heard it fall?" Quite honestly, by definition: "no" - it may not have made a sound, because sound can be defined as something which has been heard. In fact - the tree "most likely" did make sound waves as part of its journey to the ground - but because no one heard it - we cannot say that it did. Or at least - that is one potential pitfalls wikipedia obviously faces.

Ok so there you have it... we know that LMAO, ROFL and ROFLMAO exist because we typically use them in the same manner, and for the same purpose. But if we are going to write an article, or include statements of "FACT" on the history of the terms - then to do credibility justice - how can we ignore the actual creation or reason it was created in a particular context? I don't mean to claim "First dibs" on the terms at all. In truth - I am simply saying - I know where it may have originated in this particular context... can anyone recall it being created before - or in other locations? This would be vetting out more credible information - and to my knowledge, that is exactly what WikiPedia exists to do.

Enough of my banter... My intention here is to offer information, nothing more. I could have several signed legal and sworn oaths which could substantiate the claims of origin of those terms. And I will happily provide them if it is deemed necessary. But by "necessary" I mean "If it matters to the purpose of the article". It would seem to me - that every encyclopedia, dictionary, thesaurus and other reference media - try to determine the origin of words and ideas based on understood historical fact that "may" be credible. Many dictionaries say "May have originated from..." In which case - it would seem a logical practice here as well.

I believe I have credible facts to contribute. Is it worth contributing? Is it worth pursuing? Does it even matter "why" we use these terms if we aren't going to compare that to why they existed in the first place? :o) These are thoughts and questions on the matter... I have no desire to pose this as a challenge or otherwise. I simply want to contribute where I am able and credible in doing so. StacyGRN (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody actually use "mdr" to replace LOL in French language. I am a French speaking Quebecer and as I can see, everybody around here use LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.147.93 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We sort of do use it but not to replace "lol", you're right. But since it's not so common anymore it has a stronger value. I don't think the article is wrong though when it says it's the french version. Skwiz (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur: in Quebec (and by extension: for french-canadians), "lol" is commonly used, instead of "mdr", which is rarely (if ever), used. I believe it to be due to the fact french-canadians are typically bilingual and commonly discuss in English on the Internet [unsourced]. Contrastingly, people from France and the area, who are typically unilingual, use "mdr" as the very common replacement for "lol", as well as other french equivalents for English-derived abbreviations. Salvidrim (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think jejeje should be mentioned in this page as well. jejejejejejejejeje... Simoncpu (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"lol" is now so hackneyed and worn out that it often scarcely conveys any meaning at all. This should probably be mentioned in the article. 86.133.48.238 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to find a reliable source of that?--Megaman en m (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be in black and white. Go to any chatroom or play any online multiplayer games with chatting function. The term 'lol' is used often without discretion as a neutral reply, and it only gains meaning when people type it in caps.--219.74.99.70 (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Lol is often used in place of um, as a casual reply of agreement, or in place of okay. For example a person could say: "I had orange juice for breakfast." most often someone would just reply "lol..." in meaning okay. As the person above me said it is only really meant when it's in caps. People only usually say LOL when they are really laughing. Ratkinzluver33 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the articles in references 12 and 13 don't seem to exist - the former lead to a blank article and the latter returns a 404 Error.

I figured I'd point out those less objectionable bits first, before I blabber out some opinions. Without any sources, I can't say much besides that it feels awfully false at the moment. Freedom of speech, hey.

I'd like to point out that none of the sources are written by people who actually read and use expressions like lol on a regular basis, nor have they asked what goes on in the minds of those who do. The people who do are teenagers who don't exactly spend their weekends writing scholarly hours on LOLing, and adults who are not linguists. I don't know how much of an authority some fellow with a website has, so to throw out an idea: perhaps the combined opinions of the Urban Dictionary teens could actually be a somewhat legitimate source? *ducks head and hides under hands*

That said, I have to take sides with the teenagers calling this article bullshit, except say it in a slight more civil and rationalized way. I find the sources here outdated, inaccurate, and unrepresentative of what you actually mean when you type "LOL", or other common internet acronyms such as ROFL, OMG, or LMAO. To me, LOL is an expression of excitement. I am almost never actually "laughing out loud" - i'm only excited and happy. Lol is, to me, a word (pronounce "lole"), a replacement for the nod (lol), grin (LOL), or laugh (LOL!!!) I would use in a face-to-face conversation. In way, what the Shortis has said, but to a greater extent ("Or indeed, I may not actually laugh out loud but may use the locution 'LOL' to communicate my appreciation of your attempt at humor.")

99.144.235.142 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Just wanted to point out something else real quick. Lol can also be used not only as a nod of agreement but also as a replacement for "um" or the most often used term, "okay". Ratkinzluver33 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to include the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary recently approved 'lol' as an entry. I have both a source from CNN online and the OED itself.  Question: Could you add them (the source info) below this message?--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I read about it at CNN 25 March 2011, and the new edition of the OED is for 24 March, 2011. You can read about it on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LugalbandaUruk (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done See here. The wording may do with a little tweaking though. And thanks for the suggestion. :) --Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please take out the apostrophe in "1960's" under the "Acceptance" heading? The correct form is 1960s. Thanks. 115.70.166.194 (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can i edit this page because i want to add what lmfao(laughing my fucking ass out) to the page because it redirects here but there is no mention of it

27.3.102.100 (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Baseball Watcher 20:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar to above... can someone please take out the apostrophe in "1980's" under the "Acceptance" heading? The correct form is 1980s. Thanks. Also: there is a mistake under "Acceptance" wherein a quote begins with double-quotation marks while its ending is marked by only one quotation mark (""" then "'"). Additionally, under "Variants of LOL" in the definition of "LOLOLOLOL", an apostrophe is used as a pluralising tool, as in "LOL's", where the correct form is "LOLs". The same error is made shortly after in the definition of "Lolocaust", using "LOL's" again as a plural of "LOL". Also, in the corresponding image, the description says ""Lolocaust" is often controversially illustrated with four LOL arranged to resemble a swastika", should that say "four LOLs"?115.70.166.204 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done You really should think of getting an account, heh. Once you're four days old and have made at least 10 edits, you can edit semiprotected pages like this. :) --Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)