NOM. I read the original post some time ago. It's definitely worth republishing an edited version of it.

I might be too sensible if it comes such nuances in referencing sources, but the usage of "inspired" to refer to the original was surprising, since it implied for me that the post author actually created content under the stimulating influence of Craigs article, which might be not the case here. As I see the article was changed; think the relation of the two posts stated in a better way.

Speaking of nuances in wording, I agree that my initial comment could have been more tactful...