Changes

* He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to.

* He has no real knowledge of the subjects he edits, although he claims to.

* He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to).  He cites erotic websites, self-published sources.  He quotes authors like Nancy Friday whose work is pure pulp fiction.

* He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to).  He cites erotic websites, self-published sources.  He quotes authors like Nancy Friday whose work is pure pulp fiction.

* He does not understand the principles of peer review. He imagines the fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is of itself sufficient to merit inclusion in an article.  His understanding of the relative merits of publications is seriously flawed, e.g. in referencing journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology (which is not a recognised journal - see also the NLP journals).  The following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/List_of_users_of_NLP list] shows he is unable to distinguish between third-party training services used by a university, and a university department.  

* He does not understand the principles of peer review. He imagines the fact that someone is published in the field, or has a doctorate, or is well-known, or has had their writings vetted by somebody else of note, is of itself sufficient to merit inclusion in an article.  His understanding of the relative merits of publications is seriously flawed, e.g. in referencing journals like the one put out by The International Society for Anthrozoology (which is not a recognised journal - see also the NLP journals).  The following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming/List_of_users_of_NLP list] suggests he is unable to distinguish between a training course and a university department.

* He even misattributes material.  The most egregious example of this was when he claimed that the eminent linguist George Lakoff had endorsed [[Neurolinguistic programming]] - a significant and important fact if true, but had he bothered to check his source, he would have seen that the quote was not by Lakoff.   

* He even misattributes material.  The most egregious example of this was when he claimed that the eminent linguist George Lakoff had endorsed [[Neurolinguistic programming]] - a significant and important fact if true, but had he bothered to check his source, he would have seen that the quote was not by Lakoff.   

*  If this is pointed out or challenged, he indulges in long-winded denunciations of other editors in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or conceals his lack of understanding behind a logorrheic thicket of words.  This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible.  At the same time he assume an aura of righteousness by means of an interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets.  He personalises all editorial discussion with endless ''ad hominems''

*  If this is pointed out or challenged, he indulges in long-winded denunciations of other editors in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or conceals his lack of understanding behind a logorrheic thicket of words.  This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible.  At the same time he assume an aura of righteousness by means of an interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets.  He personalises all editorial discussion with endless ''ad hominems''