By reverting, you caused the loss of weeks of good-faith editing. After a month of nobody bothering to source the information, it was just and correct that the unsourced material be removed. In the event that a contributor spots unverified information and original research, it is to be deleted. GoldDragon 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC) You are utterly wrong. I will keep the reference tags nonetheless. It does have enough credibility to remain in the article since all of the contributors up to a month ago did not challenge it. I remember that it has been in the article for a long time, starting with the release of Doom 3. That is pretty inappropriate to just get rid of it without any debate or anything. Captainktainer * Talk 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summaries, please do not revert the edits or reinsert the unsourced material without first providing excellent sourcing.

I have now removed the 'offending' material with this edit and this edit. It has now been over a month with no serious effort made to source the statements in the sections removed. Captainktainer * Talk 09:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Update. I have left a few external links unformatted, because there is no great purpose in formatting them in the footnoted style, and they serve solely as links to other content and not to support facts or state that someone had an opinion. Sound fair? Captainktainer * Talk 08:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC) As part of my general cleanup of the article (understanding that the deadline is rapidly approaching), I've reformatted the references. Let's give it a month to find sources for the unreferenced material at the end of that month, I'll delete all of the unsourced statements. There are plenty of contributors interested in this game, but little effort has been made to find sources. This article is exceptionally poorly referenced. 1 General problems with lack of references.

Doom 3 resurrection of evil final boss