User talk:Sonorra

OLA fire
Hi, I've noticed that you've been deleting information from the "Investigation" section of the OLA fire page. There's been a discussion on the talkpage about it - current consensus seems to be that since the possible arsonist's name isn't available in a verifiable source, it needs to be left out, but since there are sources stating that someone confessed, that part should be left in. Can I ask what your rantionale is behind that? NekoKatsun (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Official investigations of the cause of the fire all ended as beginning in a cardboard trash barrel at the base of the stairwell. How the fire began and/or who set the blaze is unknown. That's it. Any text other than 'the cause of the fire officially remains unknown' is pure speculation and not appropriate for in a space under a header label 'Investigation.' That's not investigative it's speculative. Were there another header label something like 'Speculative Cause' I'd be fine with that and would leave it alone. Including his name only serves to feed the delusional speculations of a small cult of fire groupies I'm aware of that insists his name be forever enshrined in some public space. It shouldn't. Sonorra (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that the name should be left out. However, you previously deleted sourced content stating that there was an investigation (one source was the OLA Fire website, the other was the Chicago Tribune, I believe). Do you think this should be removed too? I'm personally of the opinion that since it's sourced, it should be left in. NekoKatsun (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)