I engaged in no personal attack. What I did what point out that Headbomb's edits were illiterate and incoherent (and incompetent in the sense of being unobservant of literacy and coherency). Headbomb himself admitted as much by correcting merely some of the illiteracies and incoherencies which I pointed out to him (while leaving most of the problems he introduced intact), of which corrections are totally unneeded if Headbomb would stop repeatedly introducing them. Headbomb's edits are purely destructive. He has added no information to the article; he has simply deleted information, and that while introducing illiteracies and incoherencies.

 He also has issued bizarrely false statements about his edits, such as stating that "Tipler is not known for either the 'purported physical proof of God' nor any recognized quantum theory of gravity/TOE." Yet that's what the only two sections in the "Academic work" section state that Prof. Tipler is known for claiming.

 Along with the deletion of the links to free book chapters (of which edits had previously been reverted by the Wikipedia administrator Irishguy), the pattern of Headbomb's edits show a clear intent to damage the article due to Headbomb's ideological dislike of Prof. Tipler and his work, of which is further reinforced by the personal information on Headbomb's user page. That is, Headbomb is attempting to get rid of information that would be helpful for others to learn more about Tipler and his work (such as the links to free book chapters; and the infobox "Known for" field which, in the useful form in which I had it, would quickly let people know what Tipler is known for claiming: whereas listing books names and the Omega Point Theory's name would only make sense to someone if they already knew of them, and so they are either purely redundant or unhelpful; etc).

 Whereas I have an actual history of adding value to this article by writing most of the article's text, adding sections, and adding most of the references. I don't point out this fact as a claim of ownership over the articleunlike Headbomb, who has effectively argued to the effect that the supposed "hard work" of his illiterate and destructive edits entitles him to keep the article the way he edited itbut rather to point out that I am actually literate and competent, and that I actually care about making it easier for people to learn about the subject of the article; unlike Headbomb's illiterate and incoherent edits, which get rid of highly useful information in order to make it harder for people to learn about the article's subject.

 The article was doing fine until Headbomb came along. He has acted purely as a troublemaker in regard to this article, due to his ideological dislike of the article's subject.

 You're rewarding a vandal and punishing the one person who has, by far, the greatest proven history of adding value to the article (as most of the article's text was written by me).