And it largely relies on a single source, namely the web site of the publisher, which is clearly not a reliable independent source. It is written like an advert or press release, with lots of non-encyclopaedic detail, uncritical commentary and puffery. The article is not fine, and the tags identify it's main problems. Tags like these (unlike certain others) may be removed at any time. Please also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. In short, the consensus is that the article is fine and you’re continuing to raise a settled issue is tendentious and disruptive. In fact, the grand total of two citations referencing the publisher (the citation) are for pure-facts issues such as the number of items (149,000) that are in the parts library. Anyone can do an in-text search for thru and see the article does not rely mainly on one source (the publisher).

and he reviewed and made numerous edits to the article here, below. Just because one thinks something, doesn’t make him correct, does it? Tony, who is one of Wikipedia’s most influential wikipedians, is a professional writer with a Ph.D. There are tens of thousands of editors.

duncan.lithgow ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC) They should stay there as long as they are appropriate, probably until more reviews are published or more knowledgeable users contribute to the article. 1 It's not appropriate for you to remove the tags.Please stop taking it personally and reacting as if the 'wikipedia community' is persecuting you for actually having first hand knowledge of something. This does not _in itself_ reflect badly on the product or your article - it's just a reality. It just reflects the reality that your close to the only author and have ahad trouble finding published reviews. 1 Just because some wikipedians tag this articel as 'one-source' and 'advert' does not mean it is a bad article.I would like to point out what I think are are some important points:

Never the less I have again added these two banners again after you removed them once before and from what I can read quite a number of times in the last year or two (I didn't read this entire page though). A quick read of your earlier comments suggest you may slam me for being lazy, stupid or just generaly an annoying ass. Still talking about 'one-source' and 'advert' 12 File:Cobalt ray-tracing, high-end coffee tamper.jpg to appear as POTD soon.11 Bulleted list and the same list again?.7.1.1 So I skip down from level two to level four.1 Still talking about 'one-source' and 'advert'.

Sheepshaver just go with it