Talk:Six Corners
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editwhat about six corners in springfield, massachusetts??? it's a famous neighborhood, with Mulberry Street (Dr. Seuss story) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWM83 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Six Corners / Wicker Park
editThe name is certainly being applied to this intersection commonly, and I do believe that DNAinfo is a reliable local news source in Chicago, despite John from Idegon's recent reversion of my edit. Paradoxsociety (review) 20:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Paradoxsociety: What basis are you using to determine reliability of that site, or the other one you added? Chicago is a big city, with two daily newspapers, several television stations and a national magazine dedicated just to the subject of the city. If the viewpoint you are trying to get in the article were significant, surely at least one of the above named actually reliable sources would have mentioned it.John from Idegon (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- John from Idegon: My basis is that I'm a Chicagoan and I read both of those sites on a regular basis to get my news. Since that wasn't good enough for you I have added a link to a video of a FOX reporter referring to yet another Chicago intersection as "six corners" from this morning. We good now? Paradoxsociety (review) 17:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I lived in Chicago for years too, but I base nothing I add to Wikipedia on my personal knowledge and neither should you. In case you have never read policies around here, everything in the encyclopedia must be based on information previously published in reliable sources. Lose the chip on your shoulder; no one is picking on you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Who are you to dictate how I should base my additions to Wikipedia? I base most of my edits on my personal knowledge - but if and only if I know they can be backed up with a legitimate source. Do I always have the perfect source readily available? Not always, no. But if I'm adding something that I believe has the potential to be disputed, I will at least try to leave something behind so that hopefully someone else can come along, do their own research, and improve upon what I've started. It saddens me to find people who will simply revert productive changes without even taking the time to Google for a "more" legitimate source if the current one is not to their satisfaction. And yes, in my nearly 10 years of editing Wikipedia I have found time to read and understand the policies, thanks. Paradoxsociety (review) 01:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I lived in Chicago for years too, but I base nothing I add to Wikipedia on my personal knowledge and neither should you. In case you have never read policies around here, everything in the encyclopedia must be based on information previously published in reliable sources. Lose the chip on your shoulder; no one is picking on you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- John from Idegon: My basis is that I'm a Chicagoan and I read both of those sites on a regular basis to get my news. Since that wasn't good enough for you I have added a link to a video of a FOX reporter referring to yet another Chicago intersection as "six corners" from this morning. We good now? Paradoxsociety (review) 17:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Six Corners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510152322/http://chicagoist.com/2013/05/29/dont_call_wicker_parks_intersection.php to http://chicagoist.com/2013/05/29/dont_call_wicker_parks_intersection.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420015934/http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130529/portage-park/six-corners-which-is-real-one-portage-park-or-wicker-park to http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130529/portage-park/six-corners-which-is-real-one-portage-park-or-wicker-park
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)