Changes

* He does not really understand the basics of neutral editing (although he claims to<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=94646652#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29 This] edit by FT2 clearly shows the problem.  FT2 accuses two academic researchers with "persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards".  FT2 was instrumental in getting both of these experts banned.  For the contributions of one of these, see [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Flavius_Vanillus here]</ref>).  He cites websites and self-published sources.  One academic said that "his promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google". 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<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=94646652#Comment_to_sceptics_society_.28if_any_others_are_asking.29 This] edit by FT2 clearly shows the problem.  FT2 accuses two academic researchers with "persistent cognitive inability to comprehend WP:NPOV and a dozen other standards".  FT2 was instrumental in getting both of these experts banned.  For the contributions of one of these, see [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Flavius_Vanillus here]</ref>).  He cites websites and self-published sources.  One academic said that "his promotion and advocacy is unsophisticated and lazy in the sense that it is apparently exlusively based on Google". 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 persistently misattributes material.  For example, 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 also misunderstands the Wikipedia policy prohibiting 'synthesis'.  See [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Studies_on_Neurolinguistic_programming this] for his citations of papers that do not mention Neurolinguistic programming, simply because they are evidence for facts that are claimed by Neurolinguistic programming. Synthesis is a type of original research that is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia.

* He persistently misattributes material.  For example, 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 misunderstands the Wikipedia policy prohibiting 'synthesis'.  See [http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Studies_on_Neurolinguistic_programming this] for his citations of papers that do not mention Neurolinguistic programming at all, but are cited as if they ''did'', because they are consistent with some aspects of it.

Synthesis is a type of original research that is strictly prohibited in Wikipedia.

*  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 an impenetrable thicket of words.  This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible.  At the same time he assumes an aura of righteousness by means of his interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets.  He tends personalises all editorial discussion with ''ad hominem'' attacks.

*  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 an impenetrable thicket of words.  This makes any reasonable discussion of the subject matter impossible.  At the same time he assumes an aura of righteousness by means of his interminable invocation of Wikipedia rules and tenets.  He tends personalises all editorial discussion with ''ad hominem'' attacks.

* 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.  

* 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.