": Recently a group of I.P. addresses were used in order to engage in vandalism, disruptive edits and nonsense edits against this article, in addition to engaging in harassing behavior, apparently due to ideological motivations.

 In the edit summary of your second edit of this article, you incorrectly state that ""Clearly there is some dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved."" What there was was this group of I.P. addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior, with one person (69.230.175.35, with possibly this same person using one or more of the other I.P. addresses) ending the ""dispute"" with an act of vandalism in addition to the message ""You know what fuck off [some Anglo-Saxon name]. I want to see how much you can take before you crack.""

 So in fact there had been no authentic ""dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of this article"". The ""Omega Point (Tipler)"" article is accurate in describing the Omega Point Theory, with thorough citations provided. The article follows Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, as the article does not claim that the Omega Point Theory is true, but instead is written in the neutral point of view: it describes the Omega Point Theory, but it does not claim that it is correct. The article uses neutral-point-of-view language, such as ""According to Tipler from a 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, he outlines the following reasons why he maintains ...""

 In the edit summary of your first edit of this article, you state ""Obvious really, who the hell is repeatedly removing this categorisation?"", referring to the ""Category:Pseudoscience"" edit added by said person or persons engaged in vandalism, nonsense edits and disruptive edits. Your edit summary falsely makes it seem as if this edit has long been in the article, and that it has just recently been removed, which is incorrect. Your edit here also violates Wikipedia policy, such as WP:Truth and WP:NPOV. Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals, and so under WP:Reliable Sources does not qualify as ""pseudoscience"". Your phraseology of ""who the hell"" also violates WP:Civility.

 You claim WP:Undue Weight for the latest factually-incorrect edits, yet almost the entirety of the peer-reviewed paers in science journals are in support of the Omega Point Theory. There has only been one refereed paper in a physics journal that was critical of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, but the authors of that paper unwittingly gave an argument that unless the Omega Point comes about then the laws of physics are violated, and so thereby actually gave a powerful argument for the Omega Point Theory's correctness. Tipler cites this article in support of his Omega Point Theory in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics article.

 Regarding critical reviews of Tipler's books, none of them have been refereed in science journals. They are book reviews that have not undergone the referee process that is required of actual papers.

 Prof. Tipler and his Omega Point Theory have been in the news recently. This has drawn the attention of ideologically-motivated people who upon hearing of it take an extreme visceral dislike to it. Because of this, this article and its associated talk page have recently been subject to vandalism and other disruptive behavior.

 Therefore, due to the foregoing reasons, you are here requested not to further engage in such factually-incorrect and Wikipedia-policy-violating edits.

 I will start a ""Criticisms"" section which details the above information, but do not add factually-incorrect and Wikipedia-policy-violating tags to this article.  

"