`  == Attitude ==  ``what appears to be a rather non-controversial statement`` is in the eye of the beholder.  I have no idea how old you are, but as someone who watched the original series as it aired, it seemed to me to be an extremely unlikely statement, as it apparently did to the person who wrote the source you added (thank you, by the way), because they indicate that they inquired more deeply about it, and their inquiries were rebuffed.  I'd bet my next paycheck that 99% of the people who watched the series would find the suggestion that those two would ever reside together again to be ludicrous, and as such, it was highly questionable and not unreasonable to tag.  Furthermore, your hypocrisy is so thick it smothers.  You chide me for not leaving an edit summary here and yet you leave this edit here with no explanation whatsoever.  My intent was crystal clear; there is no other interpretation for what I did other than the fact that I question the veracity of the statement.  On the other hand, what was the reason for your edit?  Did you revert me because you think that the sourcing is already located in the article?  Do you disapprove of tags mid-article?   Or is it something else altogether?  You claim to give IP editors their due, but at least one interpretation of your actions is that you simply revert IP editors at your whim.  It was you, not I, who committed the greater error in failing to explain via edit summary.  It's not fair to judge someone based upon one interaction, but I've seen folks around here who criticize others for faults they possess themselves, dump on IP editors, and then delete critical comments like this from their talk page because their skin is so thin they confuse legitimate criticism with personal attack.  I guess we'll not need long to see if you fit in that category.    `