This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.
The error I am talking about was not immediately 'corrected at the time'. Do you remember this page
which you created when I nominated one of your NLP articles for deletion. You said the AFD had been 'created by a user with little knowledge and minimal research, who has recently been proxy editing for a banned user who used to virulently sock war on this topic', and that there were plenty of independent and reliable sources that would prove me wrong. You then proceeded to list all the sources that proved that 'Damian has not done his work'. Among 'serious users of NLP'
you cite Lakoff. When I first saw that I reacted with shock. Perhaps my whole campaign about NLP had been a mistake, and perhaps we should take it seriously? The other citations were piffle (self-published sources, other forms of miscitation) but if anyone of the stature of Lakoff was endorsing NLP, then we should really be thinking again.
I wondered about this for a few days then decided to do some further research. In fact it was not Lakoff at all.
The other 'citations' about NLP were mostly selective sourcing, usually from self-published non-independent sources. A substantial number of the sources did not mention NLP at all, i.e. were blatant miscitation. If I had not had the charge of harrassment against me I would have taken this to RFC. Persistent and wilful misuse of sources is far worse than any of the bad things we are talking about here (at least, if it is encyclopedias we are talking about).
No comment on any of the rest of it ....
La la la la Lar can't hear you.