Changes

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

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

* 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 published 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 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.

* 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.