Changes

* He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to understand).  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 understand).  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).  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 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).  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.  An egregious example 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 in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or he 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 interminable ''ad hominems''

*  If this is pointed out or challenged, he indulges in long-winded denunciations in a way that is guaranteed to escalate hostility, or he 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 interminable ''ad hominems''

* He seems to many to be driven by a personal agenda.  One person said that his editorship "absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations", and that his claim of making an article "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which he himsel may not be fully conscious". Another said that he carries "an ideological stench wherever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169].

* He seems to many to be driven by a personal agenda.  One person said that his editorship "absolutely stinks of partiality and POV motivations", and that his claim of making an article "more neutral" is tantamount to watering it down to suit an agenda of which he himsel may not be fully conscious". Another said that he carries "an ideological stench wherever (s)he seems to go in "Wikipedia World". There is a clear advocacy and promotion in FT2s edits. Furthermore, the promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google. FT2's edits are replete with unsubstantiated opinion -- the "NLP and Science" article is a particularly egregious example of this tendency, it is a mass of unsubstantiated verbiage"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=94646652&oldid=94631169].