User talk:TulsaTV

UNCLE Tulsa

Try this search on google... if you can't find enough there, let me know. Pedant 08:46, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

the Northridge, Oklahoma reference is because they filmed a whole lot of scenes in Northridge California, and the Oklahoma bit is just a running gag. Someone, or so I remember from when it was on the air, someone from the show's production staff was from tulsa. It's funny that its your site that you find when you look for info. I was just now looking up Mills Mess on the internet to show my nephew, and its the wikipedia article I worked on that I found at the end of it. Pedant 11:23, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

I think you could very well be right about choosing a random town 'in the boonies' to pick as an unlikely locale. You seem to have done some really good research. I haven't looked in on the article lately. A question for you: I used to have a book in the UNCLE line called The Catacombs and Dogma Affair, any chance you have seen it? Apparently there is some doubt as to whether it exists, every time I added it to the UNCLE article, the reference was removed. I KNOW it exists, its the only book I ever had from the time. I was a big fan, and I actually watched some of the filming {"the ice-cream truck scene") from my friend's back yard. Glad to see such a good article on what some consider a minor show. Pedant 04:52, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

this was John Heitland's response:

"Catacombs and Dogma Affair" was an episode of the Girl from UNCLE TV series, not a paperback or digest magazine. Hope this helps.

Jon Heitland "

but it was a book, it was the only paperback Man from UNCLE book I ever owned, so I can't say I place much credence in Jon Heitland being a "definitive" resource. I'll stick with my own eyes as far as whether the book existed or not. Wikipedia can do what it likes, but just for the record, the book did exist, you heard it here first. I'm not going to put the book back in the list, though, so I guess one more truth disappears from Wikipedia via the 'original research' loophole. At least the Star Trek continuum is well documented, wouldn't want to lose the Bajoran wormhole. What would I use to gauge notability then? (sigh) Pedant 17:32, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mwanner | Talk 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "I see that you added the Rsm99833's boilerplate above to my Talk page in reference to a link to a Tulsa Coffee Houses of the Past external link on the Coffee Houses page. There is now only one external link on that page, where there were about a dozen previously. Many of those offered unique supplemental information. The Guideline in a nutshell is "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."

First, it is not Rsm99833's boilerplate, it is a standard Wikipedia template, {{spam}}, that he posted on my page due to an editing error I made that re-added some spam that he had removed from a page. I added it to your page as a (lazy) shorthand way to point out to you that your adding tulsatvmemories.com to many Wikipedia articles is in violation of Wikipedia's External links policy, which prohibits editors adding links to their own sites. You should read the policy, along with WP:Spam#How not to be a spammer. I didn't remove any of your external links because most of them are of long standing, but you really should be aware of the above policy before adding any more. It would be far better if you would add your expertise directly to the contents of the articles, rather than more links to your site. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't be doing any further work on Wikipedia articles. I'll save that for my own pages. When I see an egregious error related to my site, I will edit that. TulsaTV 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all external links that I can find. TulsaTV 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tulsa TV Memories web site

Hi TulsaTV,

Thanks very much for your note. I'm guessing you saw the Featured Article Candidacy of Wikipedia's article on the DuMont Television Network. The article used the 1960s thesis that you so carefully scanned and fixed up as a source, and one user objected to your site as a "blog". Clearly, Tulsa TV Memories is not a blog, but the confusion was enough to cost the article its candidacy. I've given up trying to get the article featured, where it would appear on Wikipedia's main page, as it became clear to me that Featured status is somewhat arbitary, if a single user's clearly invalid objections can derail the Feature process.

This is, of course, no reflection of your wonderful site, and the care you took in scanning the original thesis, which was quite a helpful research tool (I did see the original paper as well). Most of the publications I have been able to find on DuMont are from the 1990s or later, and it was really nice to have material from nearly contemporary sources. I know you do not plan to edit Wikipedia further, but if you notice anything amiss on TV station articles, please feel free to correct the problems. Thanks again for your note. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)