Recently a group of IP 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 IP addresses engaged in vandalism and other disruptive behavior with one person  with possibly this same person using one or more of the other IP addresses ending the dispute with an act of vandalism in addition to the message You know what fuck off some AngloSaxon 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 WPNPOV 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 neutralpointofview language such as According to Tipler from a  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 CategoryPseudoscience 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 WPTruth and WPNPOV Prof Frank J Tiplers Omega Point Theory has been peerreviewed and published in a number of the worlds leading physics journals and so under WPReliable Sources does not qualify as pseudoscience Your phraseology of who the hell also violates WPCivility   You claim WPUndue Weight for the latest factuallyincorrect edits yet almost the entirety of the peerreviewed 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 Tiplers 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 Theorys correctness Tipler cites this article in support of his Omega Point Theory in his  Reports on Progress in Physics article   Regarding critical reviews of Tiplers 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 ideologicallymotivated 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 factuallyincorrect and Wikipediapolicyviolating edits   I will start a Criticisms section which details the above information but do not add factuallyincorrect and Wikipediapolicyviolating tags to this article