The warning has recently been placed on the wiki page. This seems excessive without evidence. There are two warnings:
1. this design is not by Prusa, this is true but the design clearly decends from the sells/pruse mendel. Many other derivatives have been made and nobody is really confused. the designer is clearly stated in the infobox.
2. the design is too weak. This might be true or not but this is not something in need of the big fat red warning box. A separate section on issues with the current design is the right way to adress these kind of problems. There are even two solutions: make it in aluminum and build a prusa i2. the latter is a desision the person building a 3d printer, a comparison section might be usefull there.
For the record I have build a prusa i2 and am not planning to build an air2. Bitflusher 16:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Explanation of thought process in adding the warning box
This warning is just because of the questions people seem to be having toward the name of the model, as it has led to confusion already in a number of cases. This has been explained before, but was not changed. Josef and more ppl have been discussing this on IRC a few times in the last months. Today i asked him how to handle it, and he and others on the chan were OK with the warning, as it led to confusion there too.
If I call my product "Sony Walkman" and have a line in the documentation stating it is by me, would they agree? I don't think so. The name does make a difference in people's expectations.
The problem is mostly that it has the name Prusa in it, so people think it is a "Josef Prusa-approved model", while the general consensus in the community seems to be that the acrylic plates are unsuited for the task. Josef himself discourages use of this variant as well, for the reasons mentioned in the warning.
I agree that it was not the best idea to name a model after a contributor, but this is something that happened by accident, and stuck around. The use of the name would be OK to me if the person being credited would be confident with the design, but that is not the case in this variant design.
When using different material for the frame this could also be avoided, that is why I added the part about the alu.
This is not meant as an attack, just as a clarification. I think there is nobody in the project against experimentation with different models :)
I think the best idea would be to rename this variant to avoid confusion, which is common practice within open source to avoid confusion between projects. I would also be ok with restyling the warning box, but think it should stay at the top of the page. --Sikko 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)