I'm aware. Please point to the part where I specified a 1 hour (or any) deadline. They're free to do whatever the damn well please quite frankly, but as they've made multiple assurances that said sources do exists, I was just explicitly stating that we would like those citations. EDIT: And while typing this, they delivered.

Deadline? You wrote as if they were stalling or an unreasonably long time has passed, when hardly any time had passed at all.

Incorrect. They were waiting for someone to explicitly ask. And I Did. See their comment. You're the one that's reading far too into this and need to chill.

I'm not criticizing you for asking. That phrasing is accusational and expresses annoyance, I'm reading it normally.

The author was clearly making a point to make us ask explicitly even after we expressed concerns about their and their publications sources. Yes, I was annoyed by this. You however grossly misinterpreted as me being upset and demanding sources IMMEDIATELY, which wasn't the case. I made a single request to follow up on what the initial commenter in this thread said to reinforce that there are multiple of us in the comments that are highly skeptical of the claims in the paper, especially in light of a lack of byline or citations by the publisher.

The author then happily obliged in a timely and respectful manner and addressed my concerns. You, however, are the one that took issue with it.

I interpreted it normally. It seems you wrote it wrong.