Talk:OSUNY

message: While the first part of this article still needs some revision, can we please only make changes to this page that actually reflect reality? Art Cancro has repeatedly removed all mention of OSUNY incarnations that he wasn't personally involved with. The osuny.com domain is currently registered in his name, and his bias is explicitly revealed by his actions here at Wikipedia.
Note: I am not the owner of osuny.com.  My name appears on the domain registration because I am the DNS administrator at the ISP where the site resides.  The owner of the domain holds a legitimate claim to it.   "OSUNY" "UK" is neither descended from the OSUNY community nor located in the UK; it does not belong on the OSUNY page.  Art Cancro 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

message: Art Cancro: Let's hash it out here. What part of the current article is inaccurate?
It is untrue that "OSUNY" "UK" has anything to do with the original OSUNY (nor is it in the United Kingdom). Art Cancro 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's hash out the inaccuracies

message: saturn.osuny.com has been offline since late 1999. The placeholder page at www.osuny.com warning of a "fraudulent" OSUNY went up in 2001, months after OSUNY U.K. came online. 1 2 75.16.232.22 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: saturn.osuny.com

message: The dispute over who was a user on the "original" OSUNY is misleading. There have been several distinct incarnations of the board since its inception, including the late 1990s saturn.osuny.com, operated by "The Joker." Both saturn.osuny.com and osuny.co.uk counted users from incarnations that predated them, and both counted users who used the 914 OSUNY in the 1980s. It's not clear why Art Cancro is so determined to insist that no users from previous OSUNYs are users at OSUNY U.K. Art, what is the deal? The admin of OSUNY U.K. was a user at saturn.osuny.com, and never claimed to have been a user at the 914 OSUNY. However, some of the current users at OSUNY U.K. were. 
75.16.232.22 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Users from previous incarnations of OSUNY

message: The Wiki link to Citadel/UX was cited properly in its first usage in the article, and not linked again elsewhere in the article after it first appeared, which is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines. Other terms used in the article follow the same style. If Art Cancro thinks it's necessary to include the wiki link for every mention of Citadel/UX, I don't have any objection. 75.16.232.22 00:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of style in the article

message: Wikipedia mgmt has requested an end to the edit war.  Please see User_talk:Art_Cancro.
The reason I removed the names of the original sysops is because I honestly believe it's not accurate.  I don't know if Tom Tone was a sysop, but I'm fairly certain Milo Phonbil was not.  In any case, the article ought to mention that for the longest time, the sysop was known only as "sysop".
I really do feel that the compromise version of the page was objective -- it mentions that the lineage of OSUNY UK is disputed, without making an assertion as to which side of the dispute is correct.  It also retains the link to OSUNY UK.  Furthermore, it uses the verb "assert" rather than "claim" in order to keep the language somewhat more civil.  Exactly which language do you feel is unfair in this version? Art Cancro 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remediation of edit wars

message: Anonymous and Art Cancro: Check out my latest revision. I've tried to remove all of the inflammatory language. I think this version is accurate, while still allowing readers to make up their own minds as to legitimacy. I do admit it's strange to have an editor objecting so strenuously to their own sources. 75.16.232.22 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards a new compromise

message: The name of a BBS is something important.  I wouldn't expect that any user of the original Sherwood Forest ][ or Plovernet or RACS III or Blottoland would just throw up some software and have some claim to the name....
 
While Tom Icom was no doubt a very active OSUNY user, he was not in a position to "bless" another incarnation.  That is the crux of the dispute.
 
While naming the board osuny.co.uk was clever, the fact remains that it is a far cry from the original in terms of software and user base.  
It is a wholly different system, and its name *should* reflect that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.131.207 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Simply Put

message: Which previous incarnation of OSUNY lasted as long as the present one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.228.80 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heh