Interestingly familiar sounding paragraph in Unicron's Wikipedia entry...

Text relating to Unicron and the "Multiverse".
Hmmmm, now then, the whole "This HAS to be right because the Ultimate Guide says it is and a FEW facts back it up, and I'm ignoring the others that don't" style of writing leads me to wonder if a certain individual we all know and loathe wrote that article? (I know he said Wikipedia entries are unreliable. But that part is far too similar to HIS writing style, minus the bolding.) Strange.
Wikipedia Entry wrote:This concept began with the release of a series of Transformers: Armada trading cards by Fleer. The biography printed on Unicron's card presented him to be one of two heralds created by the Allspark to explore the newly-birthed universe. Inspired by his Marvel Comics origin, the other herald was Primus, and the brothers set about this task, until they came upon a region of space teeming with pure Energon. Unicron wanted this power for himself, and cut Primus down before he could report it to the Allspark, casting his brother's body into the orbit of a nearby star. And so Unicron went on to become the engine of destruction that menaced the universe in recent years.
Not long after this, the publication of Transformers: The Ultimate Guide by Dorling Kindersley cemented this notion. Writer Simon Furman incorporated the various aspects of the Dreamwave Comics story, some elements of the Fleer storyline and his original Marvel Comics origin to create what is now essentially the "definitive" origin for Unicron. In this version of events, Unicron and Primus were again twin heralds, giant metal planetoids created by the "One", who were sent to explore the universe. But Unicron was an imperfect being and turned to evil, adapting his form to transform into a giant robot. To battle him, The One gave Primus this power also, but Primus opted to remain in planet mode, and passed the Transforming abilities on to thirteen robots that he created from himself; the first Transformers. One of the thirteen turned on Primus and sided with Unicron, however, and the war culminated in a battle that saw Unicron and this traitor, the "Fallen," sucked through a black hole into another universe.
Another bit of evidence supporting a Multiverse-travelling Unicron is that all of his incarnations in the various animated series and comics have little to no difference in terms of both background and physical design. This is contrast to other Transformers who have had alterations ranging from significant changes to complete overhaul of the design (a good example would be Optimus Prime, Prowl, Megatron, and Hot Shot). He also invaribly retains his history as a feared planet eater that almost destroyed Cybertron. Other Transformers, with the exception of the various incarnations of Megatron and Optimus Prime, have almost completely different backgrounds in each universe.
This new origin is part of the G1 timeline laid down by the Ultimate Guide, which is apparently being taken as the "official" G1 timeline for future projects that require it. This means that canonically, there is only one Unicron who has travelled from universe to universe across all the assorted Transformers continuities. This interpretation of the character is evidenced by the parallel universe spanning Transformers: Universe toyline and convention-exclusive comic books — in which the singular Unicron captured Transformers from various alternate realities and pitted them against each other, feeding off the energies released — and the Transformers: Cybertron comic strip in the Transformers Collectors' Club fan magazine, which depicts Unicron's actions in the various realities in a chronological order and claims that Cybertron is the stable heart of the Multiverse.
The idea of a singular Unicron and Primus has met with mixed reaction from fans, but for now, the idea remains the official take on the subject. Nevertheless, it does require some alteration of established storylines to properly function, most notably the Generation 1 animated series.
Hmmmm, now then, the whole "This HAS to be right because the Ultimate Guide says it is and a FEW facts back it up, and I'm ignoring the others that don't" style of writing leads me to wonder if a certain individual we all know and loathe wrote that article? (I know he said Wikipedia entries are unreliable. But that part is far too similar to HIS writing style, minus the bolding.) Strange.