User talk:JRT2010/Talk Archive 1

 Find archived discussions here: 1 {| id="w" width="100%" style="background: transparent; "
 * valign="top" width="50%" style="background: silver; border: 2px solid #000000; padding: .5em 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em"|

Welcome, JRT2010!
Hello and welcome to Wookieepedia. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Wookieepedia aspires to be a reliable source for all Star Wars fans to read and draw information from, and as such, fan-created continuity and fan fiction are not allowed within our articles. All in-universe material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Please do not remove talk page and forum comments, as they are part of the public record. Remember that you should always sign your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wookieepedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Senate Hall, visit our official IRC channel, or ask one of our administrators. May the Force be with you!
 * }

Re:Starkiller (clone)
What you could do, and should have done, is discuss the issue with the IP in question rather than engage in an edit war with him. Now you've violated the Three-Revert Rule, and have come extremely close to being blocked. Keep this in mind should any additional disagreements arise in the future. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 03:13, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Aberrant clone
I made the page simply to have an excuse to upload that concept art. In the process, I completely forgot to add any categories. You seem to have an interest in it, so I hereby charge you with the holy mission of Categorization. Also, you can move it to a new name if you want. SinisterSamurai 23:53, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Signing
Hey there, please sign only using four tildes, not  or something like that. Cheers. 1358 (Talk)  18:22, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Revan
Yes, and as you've pointed out, the main point here is that others considered him to be a great tactician. You should clarify that this was how he was perceived by others, and avoid using absolute phrases like "the greatest military tactician of his time" and "unrivaled mastery of warfare," unless those exact words were used in the game, in which case you must mention who said them. As for the Cathar section, there is no need to go into such exact detail in the intro, especially when a great amount of detail concerning the incident is mentioned below. Another small note, it's typically best to avoid describing persuasion and charisma as skills, we don't want to reference game mechanics in our articles. Most of the changes you've made now fix the problems, so I wouldn't worry about it, just keep these ideas in mind in the future. Happy editing! JethLordMaster  (Xia Order) 22:15, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Starkiller (clone)
I've semi-protected it for 3 months. In future, you can request article protection here, where you may get a quicker response. Hope that helps. Cheers -- Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 09:46, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Dark Apprentice's Eye Colour - Red or Yellow?
Would you say the Dark Apprentice's Sith eye colour is red or yellow? I already had this discussion with Grand Moff Tranner, and I only succeeded in making him mad because it degenerated into a disagreement over whether or not details of his physical appearance from the non-canon ending should be allowed to be included in the info box. 173.180.89.129 11:39, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with you, but Tranner probably won't, so let's wait and see what the future holds. The only problem is that whether or not there will be a The Force Unleashed III is up in the air due to the restructuring of LucasArts.  173.180.89.129 04:12, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Tarkin edit
If you take a look at your addition to the Tarkin article, you will see that it's very play-by-play. While the article itself is not a featured status or at least high in quality article, basic policies, such as writing quality, still apply. Hope you understand now.  JangFett  (Talk) 18:44, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always go back and shorten or remove any redundant detail. Sorry if I discouraged you in any way. :)  JangFett  (Talk) 19:14, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and I agree. However, it's not very encyclopedic to add-in redundant or unnecessary fluff within the article, and we try to avoid this.  JangFett  (Talk) 21:25, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Bane
As Darth Bane is a featured article, please consult with the nominator before making major edits. Thanks. 1358 (Talk)  19:08, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to the original nomination, which can be reached via Bane's talk page, you'll see it's . 1358  (Talk)  19:22, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about it. 1358  (Talk)  19:38, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fel Empire
Hey there! Just letting you know that I removed the info you added to Fel Empire. The Fel Empire ceased to exist in 130 ABY, and saying that it began to exist again in 138 ABY is, at this point, speculation. The comic that was released this week makes reference to only one new Galactic Government at the end, and it's neither the Fel Empire nor the GFFA, but what's seemingly a new entity that combines three other ones. We don't know anything, anything at all about the Galactic Federation, and we can't add speculation on it to our articles. I hope that helps. Also, a reminder to add Majorspoiler to the top of any article that you add major spoilers to. Cheers. Menkooroo 15:04, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should have its own article, yeah. I'll make one tomorrow if I have time. I just edited the GFFA page; I'll edit Second Imperial Civil War now. Thanks for the heads-up. Menkooroo 15:13, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey JRT2010,

I watched you edit the article and was very pleased and impressed by the fact that you chose to do something that had been neglected for whatever reason. Thank you for your effort, it is greatly appreciated. I hope to see more good work from you in the future.  —Tommy  9281  Saturday, July 9, 2011, 11:29 UTC 

Nemesis-class
Hey JRT,

Good work on the Nemesis-class gunship. You've added a significant amount of information; would you be interested in a GAN or FAN nomination? If so, I can guide you down that path. Let me know what you think.  —Tommy  9281  Sunday, July 10, 2011, 15:54 UTC 
 * Great. Start here, where you will learn the formal layout for, among others, starship articles. Also consult the manual of style, which will give you additional pointers on article subtleties. Once you're all set, let me know, and we'll go from there. Depending on the final product, you may end up with an FAN if the article is large enough (1,000+ words), but if not, a GAN is just as good. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.  —Tommy  9281  Sunday, July 10, 2011, 17:00 UTC 
 * You are doing very well. You will find many times that there are no "sources," as we define them, for many topics. This is okay, as you have the "appearance," which is the game itself. So long as you've included all applicable information, you'll be good. The in-game databank is part of the game, and would therefore count as part of the game, so you would just list the game as the "appearance" without any necessary specification of the databank. Another thing, you'll need to eliminate the redlinks per nomination rules.  —Tommy  9281  Monday, July 11, 2011, 00:31 UTC 
 * Make sure you add the rebellion era with a reference to the infobox. By chance, are you able to access IRC?  —Tommy  9281  Monday, July 11, 2011, 00:56 UTC 
 * That's fine about the era, I saw your edit summary. As for IRC, while it is a chatroom for this Wiki's users in it's simplest sense, it also is a very effective and useful tool for Wookieepedians to communicate quickly with regard to articles. You should stop by sometime, I'm often around, and you and I can work with each other in real-time that way. Just a thought.  —Tommy  9281  Monday, July 11, 2011, 01:34 UTC 
 * No problem, I'll help you with that. Give me a bit of time, as its middle of the night here right now. In the meanwhile I want you to read up on IRC, because I'd like for you to access it at some point so you and I can work together in real-time.  —Tommy  9281  Monday, July 11, 2011, 08:25 UTC 
 * Okay, so click on the IRC link to connect. It should lead you to either #wookieepedia or #wookieepedia-social. Either one, I'll be in, and will see you when you arrive.  —Tommy  9281  Monday, July 11, 2011, 16:52 UTC 
 * Are you still interested in this project? If so, are you capable of accessing IRC to discuss?  —Tommy  9281  Saturday, July 16, 2011, 20:36 UTC 
 * Get on now, if you aren't already. Tell me what username you are using, and what channel you are in, and I will attempt to locate you.  —Tommy  9281  Saturday, July 16, 2011, 20:47 UTC 

Thanks
Thank you for you contribution to Nemesis-class gunship. Anakin Skyobiliviator 23:32, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

That right.
Have you ever wondered why this article haven't showed up within three after the game's release? I waited and waited with no results, then I got a bit angry and decide to submit it to the senate hall, but they ask me to send it to request list...and *POOF* it happens. Anakin Skyobiliviator 23:55, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Editing Jedi Exile
Hi I've recently added a comment on the talk page for the Jedi Exile, since I'm kind of new perhaps you could help me editing the article, so please check the talk page and advise me. Kittor 15:08, July 11, 2011 (UTC)Kittor

Unverified Information
Before I get into the major issues I see in the P&T addition you added into Ahsoka Tano article, going back to what you said with Wilhuff Tarkin, you do not own the article. Simply put, your explanation for my reverting&mdash;"Yeah, considering the fact that I wrote the TCW section here. It was fine then. I don't see how my last edit made it less than before, so why undo it?"&mdash;was very much uncalled for, as you do not own that section or any of the article because you simply wrote in it. While it may be fine for a nominator of a FA/GA to take care of his or her promoted article, nonpromoted articles may be edited by anyone. This does not mean someone cannot edit in promoted articles, however. Unless your edits are in good faith, follows all official Wookieepedia policies, adheres to either the FA or GA rules, then it's more than fine. In the case of Tarkin, anyone could edit in the article and doesn't need the approval of whomever wrote a section or part that has been edited. That being said, as for the Ahsoka case, while you may or may not know, I am currently mass rewriting the article both in-wiki, albeit the majority outside. Remembering and looking at all my notes I took, and they all came from official sources, I have never seen certain facts you've inserted in the P&T. Where in the TCWVG, Rising Malevolence, does it state "Like all Jedi, Ahsoka Tano was trained to adhere to the principles of the Jedi Order and the light side of the Force." or in familiar terms? Likewise, other phrases such as, "In combat, Tano displayed extreme determination to achieve victory at all costs.", "In accordance with her predatory Togruta nature,", "Athough Tano's Jedi training prevented her from acting through extreme hatred and anger,", "As such, her behavior was frowned upon by the more traditional members of the Order, such as Master Luminara Unduli", "Much like many of her fellow padawans,", "In spite of her shortcomings, Ahsoka Tano was also selfless and empathetic.", "Like virtually all of the Jedi,", "she fought bravely on the frontlines of the Clone Wars, often risking her own safety by leading clone troopers into battle.", "Despite being an adolescent teenager,", "Unlike her master,", "Ahsoka Tano was fiercely loyal to the Jedi Order and the Galactic Republic.", "'Her devotion to duty was part of the motivation that drove her to fight in a war," "Tano was among the limited number of people who understood Shyriiwook," are all unconfirmed, and riddled with speculation terms and viewer-pov, which, if not sourced properly, will be viewed as fanon and will be reverted. While you do have the idea and sense of how a P&T is assembled, speculation and viewer-pov is not permitted, and will be reverted by either myself or someone. Not only this, you may receive an official warning for the insertion of fanon into articles. Keep in mind, that while I am not against any of your edits, and any sort of warning I give to you is not to be taken offensively, if something does not follow any of our policies, then appropriate action will be taken.  JangFett  (Talk) 15:52, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you have any other questions regarding this, I am currently on IRC and available to talk.  JangFett  (Talk) 16:14, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you heard this or not, it is very difficult to tell if someone is being sarcastic over the internet. Regardless of humor, what I have said is true. As for Ahsoka, you must source everything instead of assuming people think as you do, and either give out examples in some cases, or in other cases contextless, sentences in the P&T that are prone to speculation and/or assumptions, which is which is against one of our policies. I do not have to correct bad edits while simply reverting is the logical conclusion for this, which you seem to have an issue with. As the 3RR rule is coming up, I will not be reverting again, unless someone else does, but please see what you can do to try and eliminate all cases of speculation. Again, please do not take any of my edits against your work offensively. I am trying to help you, not be against you. Also, please do not assume that Ahsoka acts like such and such from a comic, unless it's confirmed. Meaning, while adhering to WP:ATT, try and keep all information within TCW, so official sources, such as comics, novels, SW.com, and the series is acceptable.  JangFett  (Talk) 16:54, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, I am going to say please take a look at all of Wookieepedia's policies, as well as WP:ATT.  JangFett  (Talk) 21:14, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Polite notice
Regardless of the nature of your current dispute with, your current comments, such as this one can be viewed as a borderline personal attack, which breaches our no personal attacks policy. Please be sure to remain civil during conversations with other Wookieepedians, especially when in dispute to avoid further escalation of the dispute. Thank you for your cooperation. - Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 17:18, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Kindly cease the editwarring on Pong Krell and resolve the issue on the talk page. You and HanShotFirst are already close to breaking the three-revert rule. 1358 (Talk)  16:11, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Pong Krell
Before you break the 3RR rule with HanShotFirst, I recommend that you please cease the edit warring and talk with him on his talk page. Arguing and debating over who's correct in the article's edit summary won't solve anything.  JangFett  (Talk) 16:11, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. JRT, as I pointed out back there, the episode's entry is sympathetic to the clones. I really don't understand why you seem to think Krell is the good guy here, and I'm betting that the writers aren't trying to make him out to be such. The third episode in the arc is called "The Carnage Of Krell". "Carnage" is not a word usually associated with heroes, as in "The Carnage Of Luke Skywalker". Likely, Krell is going to end up leading the clones into the SW universe's version of Custer's Last Stand. But then, I suppose you think that none of Custer's troops should have had doubts about him either.--HanShotFirst 16:26, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Cross-posted: See, here you are telling me not to get worked up about fictional characters and then immediately say "Oh, well they go on to kill all the Jedi, so they're bad so screw 'em." You seem pretty worked up about it for somebody who says that they're fictional characters and thus unworthy of getting worked up about. Anyway, that's an incredibly simplistic way of looking at things. You are familiar, I assume, with the concept of brainwashing. Cody and Rex and all the others (you'll note that, unlike you and unlike Krell, I refer to them by their names rather than their numbers because despite being the victims of brainwashing they are still people) did not want to turn on their commanders. On the contrary, guys like Obi-Wan and Ki-Adi Mundi and Aayla Secura and all the rest had won their loyalty (unlike, again, Krell). But Palpatine said the trigger word, their programming kicked in, and they had no choice. Now, as for the whole NPOV thing goes, I have a feeling that even if I were to phrase things in a totally impartial way you would still be making a big fuss over how it was unfair to Krell. The entry for the episode, last I looked, was a very accurate recounting of what happened, but you probably find fault with the person who wrote that daring to point out that Rex said (out of earshot of the other clone troopers, IIRC) words to the effect of "I really recommend we go with the original plan, a frontal assault is not the way to go" and wouldn't you know it? He was right! The D.O.U. entry says that. Are you going to claim that's violating the NPOV rule? Finally, even if Rex and Fives weren't conducting themselves according to how a soldier's supposed to, I honestly don't care. I was taught that if somebody treats you like dirt--as Krell was doing--then you should stand up to that person. In my view, they did the right thing, and I have a lot more respect for both of them than for a soldier who just blindly follows orders, who is a sycophant.--HanShotFirst 23:08, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand why you seem to like Krell

 * This is incredibly frustrating to me, not to mention baffling. Everywhere I've looked so far--on other sites, not to mention the episode summaries written by other people--Krell is the one being criticized by fans, and you're the only one who has anything good to say about him. Why? What is it about the character that appeals to you?
 * Just in case you want to ask me the same question, "Why do you defend Rex?", here's my answer. Regardless of how Rex might be written in certain EU material and regardless of what he'll eventually do in ROTS, the Rex seen on this show is a nice guy. He treats the men serving under him with respect, and he's done his best to protect the Jedi commanders he's had in the past. Here's something else that's important to me: he cares about his troops. I respect that. Rex is not unrealistic. He doesn't believe that he can get through the war without losing anybody. But he tries not to lose anybody. He's fairly smart as well, as shown most recently by his coming up with the starfighter plan. Krell, on the other hand, seems to consider the clones expendable, and he doesn't seem to even be trying to think of strategies that would minimize clone losses. His M.O. seems to be "order the clones to charge at the enemy guns, let them get killed, but keep launching wave after wave of them at the enemy until the battle is won. There are more where they came from."
 * Now if I had to guess, I would say that the reason you're siding with Krell is because you have a strong belief that a soldier's duty is to do what he or she is told, no matter what, to follow orders. That's not a belief I share, and I'll tell you why. Let's say you're right about how Order 66 went down and that brainwashing had nothing to do with it. Let's say that the clones had a choice about whether to obey that order or not. (In fact, I believe in "Dark Lord: The Rise Of Darth Vader" by James Luceno, a group of clones refuses to kill their Jedi commander because they don't think he deserves it and they don't think the order makes any sense.) In that case, the very quality that you think the clones should have in the Umbara arc--obeying any order they're given without question, because they aren't supposed to think for themselves--would result in them doing something terrible. Obeying orders is not always right, and disobeying orders is sometimes not wrong.--HanShotFirst 02:16, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Any attempts to continue this site-wide dispute will result in severe administrative action. I'm disappointed in both of your conduct, and I hope that this will not continue to be the case in the future.  CC7567  (talk) 04:20, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation
I have been noticing this for quite sometime now. Please be careful when you're adding information into articles. If you take a look at this and this, you will notice that you were speculating, which is frowned upon, and not the correct way to do things. Unless you can source this information to a reliable source, you cannot base information on how you view things or guess that a situation is correct. Please watch out for this in the future. Currently, I haven't had a chance to fully look over Dogma, since I am planning on rewriting him in the future. However, I hope this message here and my edits in the article doesn't discourage you in anyway. You may continue to write in the article, as with any other article. Just keep in mind of avoiding speculation or original research.  JangFett  (Talk) 06:27, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Re: House of Palpatine
Unless it's directly stated that those beings were related to the House of Palpatine, we cannot assume that they are. This family is new. Until more information about it is released, we shouldn't jump and guess that certain people are a part of it.  JangFett  (Talk) 05:06, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have patience until more information about this family is released. Even though it does seem logical to put certain members of the Imperial family within the House of Palpatine article because it's said they might be related to Palpatine, it's not confirmed, and we would only be speculating that those members are part of the House of Palpatine.  JangFett  (Talk) 06:35, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for helping me to update Meetra Surik's page.--Damienpato1987 09:55, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Maul
You have been told about this in the past. Please do not engage others in edit wars in mainspace articles. Your edits in Darth Maul should be taken to the article's talk page if you feel that the information R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 is adding into the article is incorrect. However, as a warning, do not take this dispute wiki-wide, as you did with Han Solo regarding Pong Krell. Keep it civil and polite and try to resolve this dispute without any unnecessary mannerisms. Thank you,  JangFett  (Talk) 20:11, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Re:Tenebrous
Per the naming policy, that's how it should be. I've gone ahead and moved the article. Cheers.&mdash; Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 03:07, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Imperial family
Sorry, did I undo some of your work on that page? I did not intend to, I was just lost in editing. I think it was the family tree. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 12:15, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:Imperial family R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 talk page
 * I believe she is mentioned as a "remote grandniece," so I think it's neither. "Remote" probably means that she is not the grandchild of one of Palpatine's siblings, but the grandchild of one of his cousins, a distant cousin like 3rd+. But seeing that you're handy with family trees, can you also separate Volpau? There are three ways I can think of he is Palpatine's third cousin: either through Cyrano de Palpatine, as we have it now, or through Palpatine's mother, or a third cousin by marriage. We don't know their exact relationship, and the tree, as it stands, is in error. --R5-X41238-G8-R3-3124-D2 09:05, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Darth Maul lightsaber
The lightsaber were he win in the episode Revenge is the same one he used before? Because I think Savage Opress would not have gone to Naboo pick up his lightsaber to give him, Because of this I create the article Darth Maul's second lightsaber, I don't think who the two lightsaber are the same.189.106.148.103 12:36, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified stormtrooper (suicide)
Hello there, please check your objection to Unidentified stormtrooper (suicide) and strike it if you believe it's been addressed. Thanks. 1358 (Talk)  19:58, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Re:NPOV
Much of the edit I removed seemed very play-by-play and slanted towards Marek's point of view, and felt almost word-for-word in the emotions and inner thoughts. As an encyclopedia, we typically refrain from writing in such a fashion, as it's more suited to fiction than a neutral and factual point of view. It was also rather... explosive in its terminology, sort of like you would see in a novel. I appreciate how you handled this, though–that was a great way to ask for help. Though, to be honest, the section wasn't very NPOV before you edited it, either: "With the Force clearly on his side, Marek managed to endure the lightning." See what I mean? Cade  Calrayn   21:05, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Speculation
JRT, you've been told before. Please do not add in unverified information into articles, as you did in the Son article. Unless it has been said in a source that his powers were similiar and/or influenced from Sidious, it is considered to be viewer-pov and speculation. Thanks,  JangFett  (Talk) 04:18, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I strongly suggest that you double check your work in the article, so it wouldn't be another Order of the Sith Lords issue or resembling the speculation message I gave to you in November 2011.  JangFett  (Talk) 04:24, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Their interpretations =/= a source, unless there is clear evidence that indeed the Son's powers are related to Palpatine. You can, however, add those interview bits in the bts. Thanks,  JangFett  (Talk) 05:05, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not speculate or extrapolate information from the episode. You can say his descent makes the Sith stronger (as is, meaning don't extend the information given by saying Palpatine, since it was not mentioned), but please do not speculate and say he has Palpatine's powers or sounds like Palpatine, ect. That's viewer pov and has no place within the article. I don't know why this is hard to understand. Try and familiarize yourself with the other speculation messages (click the links as well) and pay attention to WP:ATT. Thanks,  JangFett  (Talk) 14:48, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Zahn wrote the novel, and I'm sure Jan was apart of the production of the Legacy issue. As for Filoni's interpretation, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said 'Han Solo cannot understand Chewie'. Witwer's comments are also just his view on the character as well. A good attributable source for 'the Son's descent' would be the episode itself, as the episode actually stated it. If a source actually says that the Son's powers were similiar to those of Palpatine's (like the TCW UK magazines, ect), then it would be fine to mention that in the article and properly source it. Filoni and Witwer's comments could be mentioned in the bts since they are related to the Son, however. I hope this all makes sense. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. :)  JangFett  (Talk) 19:26, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Senate Guard Captain
Hey! Just wanted to check something with you, is Senate Guard Captain the actual name for the character, as I know the legends is Jayfon. However according to the Notability policy these characters shouldn't get a canon page until they get a fully canon name --Lewisr (talk) 11:49, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * He was listed in the episode's post-credits as 'Senate Guard Captain' (voiced by Tom Kane.) JRT2010 (talk) 11:58, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then, just wanted to check --Lewisr (talk) 12:04, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for reminding me about the Notability policy. I went ahead and added the deletion template to the Unidentified clone trooper officer (Kamino security)/Canon which I created having forgotten about the policy. JRT2010 (talk) 12:06, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm not too sure if that policy applies to pages that are /Canon counterparts of unidentified legends characters as there seems to be a few of these --Lewisr (talk) 12:16, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Confirm
I guess maybe Yularen would get the 1stID tag although I am not entirely sure the dates for when the Encyclopedia entries were released. Or you could add it was 1stID| in concurrent with etc. For the record I was not the one who added the confirm tag onto the page (in case you didn't know) --Lewisr (talk) 01:04, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries glad to be of help! When I say in concurrent I mean like something like this this (Hope that link works for you). Although the way that you did it seems fine so continue with that way! --Lewisr (talk) 01:15, February 3, 2017 (UTC)