I know you quoted FAQ_Man directly, but the bit where he says "since the schism is essentially from your subconscious" is factually wrong. This will lead people to thinking that their tulpa is their subconscious and only into further misinformation and misunderstandings (that I can see bringing about issues). "The subconscious" is not a location and there's nothing that can come "from" there, it's only things you are aware of but not consciously aware of. (Quote from Wikipedia
: "In psychology, the subconscious is the part of consciousness that is not currently in focal awareness.")
So, my advice would be to leave out that last bit, as it also implies that making a tulpa is like gaining a "superpower" of sorts ("allowing near-perfect memory recall, strong and fast math-cranking and other feats") which, in practice, is actually rarely seen.
"Most people always fuck up their first time and that's OK."
I don't like this. This is a form of frontloading and might make new people afraid of "fucking up". I believe the only mistakes you can make are either doing the complete opposite of what a legit guide advises you to do, or not forcing at all. This will only bring about questions such as "Guys am I doing this right?" "I've made no progress, I think I'm doing it wrong" etc.
It'd be better to change this into something along the lines of "Most people have trouble with this practice at first, but that's OK." It'd be much less frightening for a new user who is prone to do something ineffectively than telling them they might fuck up with a process where measuring progress is extremely hard at first. The rest of the page is fine to me.
I wouldn't recommend posting a link to Bluesleeve's tumblr, as the very first post on that tumblr basically says .info has turned to shit, and he is therefore leaving. Makes it kinda odd if that's what follows a link to tulpa.info saying it's "The greatest tulpa website ever". I'm also not sure about why you mentioned the fiction you're writing in your pastebin. I don't mind that it's there, but it seems kind of irrelevant to tulpas, and therefore not really necessary to mention.
I do like how you mention that you've read every guide you've found multiple times. Sets a good example.
I know you quoted FAQ_Man's definition of tulpas in the beginning of the guide, but it'd be nice if you started off this section with your own definition. I know it might be confusing if it's too different from FAQ's (but if it's too different, why quote him anyway?) but a more expansive explanation of what you think tulpas are would be a nice addition to this guide, seeing as you have no glossary. This is just a suggestion, I'll still approve of this guide without this if you decide not to add it.
Your definition of forcing is very weak. You don't have a glossary, and since you stated that you wanted the guide to be helpful to everyone, it'd be nice if you could give a slightly broader definition of both active and passive forcing. People also passive force outside of imposition, and people can also take the "sitting down and visualizing" bit very literally. On top of that, in my experience, there's way more to forcing than just visualizing. In a creation guide, it's essential to explain what forcing is properly. For this point specifically, I can't approve of this guide unless this is fixed.
"If you think of them just like that,
the Tulpa with its own data and you with yours, but you are able all of the data together!"
I don't like the computer analogy but it works for some, so it's fine with me. That black box approach seems rather out of place, though, and I'm not sure how it fits in between forcing and personality, layout-wise. Also, you should fix that typo.
"Alright, this is going to be a bit longer, but I would appreciate if you would read it, as it is very important."
This should be self-evident for the entire guide. I think you can remove this sentence, if someone doesn't want to read they won't read it anyway, and seeing as the guide itself is already expansive, you should try making it as short as possible without diminishing quality.
"The main question here is - what exactly is a personality?"
You literally asked the same question three lines above that. Once again, this is self-evident.
"To be honest I don’t know it myself. I’m not a psychiatrist and I am not a biologist (even though I’m quite interested in these sorts of things)."
This is just a suggestion, but you should look up what a personality is and include it in a guide. Outside of guides, there's nothing worse than reading something where the writer poses a question and doesn't know how to answer it, unless that's exactly what leads them to their point, which isn't the case here.
"The personality as a product of its experiences"
I like the black box analogy, but I feel as though the wording here is poor. If other GATs don't feel the same way, I'll ignore this point, but I'd honestly like to see this worded better. If you don't know how to do it, I could give suggestions, but I won't right now to not make this post any longer. The typos, grammar mistakes and excessive use of commas really shouldn't be there though. Also, the cause of phobias has little to do with tulpa creation, you can remove that line.
My last statements sorta bled over into page 5, but I'm continuing here starting from "The human black box"
This is where the analogy starts getting complicated and hard to follow, at least for me. Analogies, in my opinion, should always be kept short, simple and straightforward. Adding many details to them to go deeper into your explanation only confuses the reader. And even if it's understandable, it can turn into trying to keep up with the analogy rather than trying to understand what the analogy is trying to explain. This entire section needs a revision.
"What the hell is a Tulpa then?" is followed by "What happens when we create a tulpa?". Your header questions should be relevant to what follows them, changing the original question only looks messy. What follows it, though, makes sense, even without reading the "human black box" section.
I really like how you included Phi's Pre-Creation stage. I did this myself (albeit not his version) and it's very helpful. Do remember to add a second quote at the end of the piece of text you're quoting, though.
Your personal approach to it is frontloading. It's too direct (even though it's an example, people love following examples when they don't know what to do) and leaves LITTLE room for open interpretation. I know what you're trying to achieve here, and the intent is great, but the example itself is too literal and personal for anyone to benefit from in my opinion. Using this example is like telling the reader what to do, step by step, rather than letting them figure it out for themselves. I suggest removing that whole piece and changing it to something MUCH vaguer that is easier to interpret subjectively.
(it's late right now and i'm tired, but I'll finish the rest tomorrow.)