FANDOM

The Holder Of True Omnipotence

aka The One Above All

  • I live in I'm Omnipresent and Omnilocked soooooo...
  • I was born on September 17
  • My occupation is Being Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent (as well as being Omnilocked)
  • I am Omnipotence
(Difference between revisions) | User:The Holder Of True Omnipotence
Line 619: Line 619:
   
 
Please don't make up lies about saying you got approval to change things, especially when there are no messages on your talk page that say so.[[User:SageM|SageM]] ([[User talk:SageM|talk]]) 00:50, February 7, 2018 (UTC)SageM
 
Please don't make up lies about saying you got approval to change things, especially when there are no messages on your talk page that say so.[[User:SageM|SageM]] ([[User talk:SageM|talk]]) 00:50, February 7, 2018 (UTC)SageM
  +
  +
Your contributions to the wikia can easily be viewed and there are no recent messages to the admins or moderators about you getting approval for any changes, which means you made that up.[[User:SageM|SageM]] ([[User talk:SageM|talk]]) 00:53, February 7, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Revision as of 00:53, February 7, 2018

https://discord.gg/TfQMH

No it cannot.

It cannot slice through reality, time, space, omnipresential entites or dimensions.

It literally says right on the wikia that all it does is give you the ability to kill gods. There is nothing at all the states it can cut through everything.

Sorry, but it doesn't count.SageM (talk) 22:39, October 18, 2017 (UTC)SageM

When you add to Users, series should be in italics. --Kuopiofi (talk) 04:52, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

On the right side of Edit area is Add features and media, first icon on left is photo. It's pretty clear after that. --Kuopiofi (talk) 05:23, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order. --Kuopiofi (talk) 18:56, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Its not considered an attack

Undoing actions is not considered an attack. its considered a form of defense.

Attacks are considered moves that actually harm the target. All that GER does is bring actions to 0. His form of attack is simply a normal attack, its not considered absolute in any way.

So no, he is not a user of absolute attack.SageM (talk) 03:43, October 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

ending or stopping a process is still not considered an attack.

An attack actually has to actually cause a form of physical harm, preventing something from happening isn't considered harm, its the exact opposite of harm.

GER is an absolute defense stand, end of story.SageM (talk) 04:02, October 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

The first limitation pretty much covers that already.SageM (talk) 19:29, October 22, 2017 (UTC)SageM

it doesn't matter.

I am the one that made the page, and I don't believe it counts as a limitation as the first one basically covers it.

Talk with Kuo on the matter, as he has final say on everything, as he is the main admin not Imouto.SageM (talk) 19:34, October 22, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Are you basing this idea of "Truth" on something actual or is it just something you made?

Sorry if that comes out bluntly/unclear, pretty late here so I'm getting fuzzy. --Kuopiofi (talk) 20:10, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Thats not what the power is based on.

Thats only one definition of a principle, the other is the original foundation or basis for something. Which is what the power is actually based on.

Your thinking of the Principle as the foundation for a system of belief. Which is not what the power is based on.

Principles in Principle Manipulation are based on the foundation and basis for something, not the fundamental truth. that is Axiom Manipulation.

So no, its not an accurate limitation.SageM (talk) 23:38, October 22, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Did you explain to Imouto how you defined that before she said yes?

That said, I have to agree with SageM about Axiom Manipulation. --Kuopiofi (talk) 04:18, October 23, 2017 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello! How Are You Doing? David (talk) 16:50, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Their the exact same power, the only real difference between the two is the number of attacks one can evade.

Other then that, there is no major difference between the two powers.SageM (talk) 04:00, November 9, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Aside the little detail that DE wasn't even on the WE page? As a rule, no adding Embodiments, Lordships and few other powers as Sub-powers of other powers. That's why I added them into Associations. --Kuopiofi (talk) 22:02, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

Omnipotence = Metapotence. MP is just simplified version of OP. --Kuopiofi (talk) 08:55, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

No its not. Stop changing the definition of the powers.

You are changing the powers based on your opinion of how they work, which is against the rules of the wikia.

They would have been changed back even if I didn't do anything.

Your making the powers more powerful then they actually are. Don't do it again please.SageM (talk) 18:50, November 14, 2017 (UTC)SageM

It doesn't matter what you think on this. Thats how its defined as. And if you changed it, it would only be changed back in the end.

It might be your cup of tea, but your just going to have to live with it because thats simply how it works. Some powers are defined differently then others and the admins and the page creators have final say on the matter, and thats simply how they decided to make the page. 

So try to keep that in mind in the future.SageM (talk) 19:42, November 14, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Series isn't optional in Gallery/Users.

Links go to Users, not to Gallery. --Kuopiofi (talk) 20:33, November 14, 2017 (UTC)

Explain that to SageM. --Kuopiofi (talk) 06:26, November 15, 2017 (UTC)

They don't embody their aspects.

The gems do not embody their aspects. And there is no mention anywhere that they do. You are making stuff up.

I checked both the marvel wikia and wikipedia and the word embodied or representation is never used once.

They are not embodiments.

Double check your facts next time you post something. Because its not true in this case.SageM (talk) 07:14, November 15, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Read the marvel page on the infinity gems, not once is it mentioned they represent there aspects.

And just because they were originally Nemesis, doesn't mean that they embody anything now.

They simply control the aspects they are named after, they don't embody them and they never did.

If they truly embodied them like you say, then their destruction during the Incursions should have wiped out their aspects from existence.

They only control them. Sorry but they remain off the embodiments page.SageM (talk) 08:26, November 15, 2017 (UTC)SageM

No, the mind gem doesn't have Omnipathy. Its limited to only a single universe. Omnipathy is the power to be telepathically connected to infinite minds across all universes.

Omnipathy- The power read, sense, communicate with, and control an infinite number of minds across all universes, planes and dimensions

Cosmic Telepathy- The power to read/sense, communicate with and/or affect minds on a cosmic scale

When has the Mind Gem ever been shown to effect minds on a multiversal or omniversal scale?

Its nothing but cosmic telepathy. no more, no less.SageM (talk) 20:57, November 15, 2017 (UTC)SageM

You can't restore something that has ended.

Once something has ended, it can never be restored. As there is nothing left to restore. Conclusion Dominace trumps Absolute Restoration. 

After all, if something has ended then what is there left to restore? 

Absolute Restoration is not a limitation and it never will be.

And that limitation is already covered by the existing limitations. So there is no need for it.SageM (talk) 02:36, November 21, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Its right here-

"Users of Conceptual Attacks and Reality Warping may be able to affect the user.

Certain substances/energies may be un-phasable"

As you can see its unnecessary.SageM (talk) 02:39, November 21, 2017 (UTC)SageM

i'm not going to argue about this anymore. The limitation stays. Don't remove it again.SageM (talk) 04:39, November 22, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Also stop adding unnecessary limitations to the various powers. As most of them not only don't fit the power, but they are either already covered by existing limitations or they are unnecessary.

Meaning its totally unnecessary to add omnipotent beings as a limitation, as thats already considered a limitation for every power on here. So adding it every power is not only pointless but also against the rules.SageM (talk) 04:42, November 22, 2017 (UTC)SageM

The power doesn't work on an omnipotent scale though. As Protege didn't actually become the new AAO.SageM (talk) 20:27, November 27, 2017 (UTC)SageM

The official position on the beyonder as described on the Marvel wikia doesn't list him as Omnipotent.

In fact the only true omnipotent being in marvel is the One-Above-All, and he has always been the only true omnipotent.

Thus the edit is not valid. It would only be valid if he truly had the powers of the One-Above-All.

Also Ultipotence would already be covered by Nigh-Omnipotence, so there is no need for ultipotence at all.SageM (talk) 05:15, November 28, 2017 (UTC)SageM 

Transcending all concepts means that you transcend everything by definition.

Without concepts to define you, you are beyond everything. Concepts are how everything that exists is defined, without them you are beyond anything and everything.

So yes, its completely unnecessary.SageM (talk) 02:54, November 30, 2017 (UTC)SageM

It doesn't matter, thats how the power is defined. And it will remain that way.SageM (talk) 05:33, November 30, 2017 (UTC)SageM

And you are wrong.

Everything is defined by a concept. Nothing could exist without concepts. 

Time is considered a concept and without it nothing we know of would be able to exist, as everything would exist in a single moment or everything would happen all at once.

Without the concepts of boundaries everything would exist as a single object, and thus we would no longer exist as separate beings.

So you are wrong when you say concepts don't define everything. Because without them, we wouldn't even be here.

Without any form of concept, perspective or logic to define you, how would you truly exist?SageM (talk) 05:38, November 30, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Think about this for a second, if all concepts disappeared from the universe, then how would the universe function?

Answer- It couldn't. there would be nothing left to define anything. It would be the same as total non-existence.

You couldn't recognize anything nor recognize yourself, you wouldn't be able to say this is "Me" or say that is "Mine" or anything else along those lines. Because nothing could be defined any longer.

Sorry, but when you get down to it. Without any concepts nothing could or would exist.

And Principles only apply to certain things, not everything has them. So it wouldn't matter in the end.SageM (talk) 05:51, November 30, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Lol

Forgot to use the signature Quartzmaser (talk) 21:49, December 13, 2017 (UTC)

The attack isn't being evaded though. the target simply can't be targeted by the attack. It ignores them.

So its only a maybe limitation, not a certainty.SageM (talk) 05:36, December 14, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Made of Something- Physiology/Mimicry

Represent/are the Personification of something- Embodiment

They are not the same thing at all.

Thats why we have physiology and embodiment powers as separate categories.SageM (talk) 22:59, December 18, 2017 (UTC)SageM

stop making stuff up

No it cannot! Stop making stuff up.

It never says that anywhere in the lore. It doesn't say that it can do anything like that on the Marvel Wikia or Wikipedia.

You are making up stuff that has never happened or been stated anywhere in the lore. 

Read the marvel wikia on the Soul Gem, all the powers it has ever demonstrated are listed there. it has never been shown to create souls or destroy them, it only absorbs them into itself. 

It is not a user and never has been.SageM (talk) 04:08, December 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong WRONG!!!!!

You have to offer actual proof that it can do that. The Marvel wikia's information comes directly from the comics themselves, and it doesn't say anything about what you are claiming.

You can't prove your point and you are just making assumptions.

Here are the only powers that the Soul Gem ever demonstrates or is said to possess-

The Soul Gem is sentient; it has a desire to collect souls The gem can attack another's soul in various ways The gem can reveal information by peering into another's soul or using the 'Cold Light of Truth' The gem can trap souls inside itself in an idyllic world. The gem's wielder can access the memories and skills of those imprisoned within Soul World The gem can revert beings to their natural state. The gem protects its wielder from soul-based attacks. The gem can disrupt the anima of a soul with a karmic blast rendering the target temporarily unconscious. Certain beings are immune to this attack.

These are the only powers it has ever shown or is said to have. This information comes from the Marvel Wikia page on the Soul Gem, and all the information on that page comes from the comics themselves.

Your point is invalid. So please stop posting it back.SageM (talk) 04:16, December 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

I can find no mention whatsoever of any of the facts you are claiming. There is not a single mention that the Soul Gem has ever created or destroyed a soul, it only says its steals and controls them.

But there is no mention of destruction or creation in anything related to it.

Thus you are making stuff up.SageM (talk) 04:26, December 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Once again you are making stuff up.

It never once states that it allows infinite manipulation of souls. I double checked all the different sources on the Soul Gem, it never claims to create or destroy souls. It says that it steals and control them. There is no mention of bringing souls back to life or anything else like that.

You have not proven anything, you are just stating things without offering a source of info. I already offered several sources of info but you disregard them and claim you are right.

Since you cannot offer me a single valid source for your information your point is invalid and will always be so.

The Marvel Wikia is the main source for all the information on the infinity Gems, it was created based on actual information taken directly from the comics themselves. And it considered the canon source for all the info on Marvel Comics. It doesn't post made up claims or false info, its all double checked and valid.

You have no claim, you cannot prove your point and you are just saying things that have never been said anywhere in the verse.

Sorry but its not happening.SageM (talk) 04:50, December 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Also if the Infinity Gems were truly infinite in power and manipulation, then they should have been able to prevent the Living Tribunal from separating their powers or prevent their destruction by the Beyonders.

They are not truly infinite, the name Infinity Gems is only a name. Its not truly infinite in power as there will always be something that can match or surpass it.

For example, the Hulk actually overpowered the user of the Power Gem once. Even though that shouldn't be possible.SageM (talk) 04:57, December 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Also the Infinity Gem's were destroyed during the Beyonders Incursions. Meaning that they truly cannot be considered infinite in their power or level of manipulation.

Since they no longer exist, any claims about there power are no longer canon regardless.SageM (talk) 05:08, December 20, 2017 (UTC)SageM

No. I want proof. You have offered none. and its never been proven.

I am not going to let this slide because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

When has the Soul Gem ever been shown to create a soul from nothing? WHEN? The answer is never, because it can't.

Also you seem to be mistaken about the Infinity Gems power. You say they have infinite power over all the aspects they represent, and yet they have not only been overpowered on more then one occasion, they were also completely destroyed entirely during the Incursion arc.

Infinite means limitless power, if they were truly infinite in power and scope that that couldn't happen. And yet it has. Something that is infinite in power cannot be overpowered or beaten, thats what Infinity means after all.

Sorry but the INFINITY in the infinity gems is just a name, it does not have absolute power over all aspects it represents, and it never been claimed too ever in the marvel verse.

You made all that stuff up without offering me any shred of evidence, It doesn't matter what you say or what you think you say. If you can't give me evidence to back up your claims then you are making stuff up. 

I am sorry but until such time as you can offer me prove then the gems will remain off the page. And since you cannot they will stay off.

Do not add them back until you are ready to offer me proof directly from the comics instead of facts you just made up.SageM (talk) 00:31, December 23, 2017 (UTC)SageM

You really don't get it do you? Unless its stated in the comics, the databooks or by the author then its not considered part of its powers. Its not even implied to have that power, and no. those aren't just examples on the wikia, thats literally what its capable of doing and what it has ever been shown to do. 

If it truly had the power you suggested then why didn't they ever bother to show it? or even mention it? All the other Gems showed what they are fully capable of doing and they were all used to their maximum effective power and range. So was the Soul Gem, and it still never showed the power to do anything like your suggesting.

Hate to tell you this, but you are just exaggerating the power of something that never had the ability to do what you say.

And no, I am not wrong or missing the point. I have read the comics, I have read the marvel wikia. I have seen the Infinity War arc, I know what the gems are capable of and what they have been shown to do. And no, it cannot create something from nothing. The Space and Reality gems could possibly do so, but the Soul Gem has never had that power.

Also, if the Soul Gem did have the power to recreate souls or even create souls, then why didn't Thanos bother to use that power when he had the chance or any of the other users as they had various reasons and opportunities to do so.

It can't. And there is nothing you can say that suggests otherwise.

If you want further proof then ask the People who edited or posted the Soul Gem's page on the Marvel Wikia, as they would be able to offer you the proof you need.

Also when I say proof I mean actual Physical evidence, as in a Link to a website or picture from the comics or databooks that shows otherwise, Not just Statements from you. 

You say you offered me proof but that is a lie, You have not offered even a single shred of it.

Offer me a link to one of those mentioned above or you no longer have a case and I will simply remove it from the page when its unlocked.

And no, I don't want to hear anymore arguments, I want Actual conclusive proof from a wikia or the comics/databooks, I won't accept anything else.SageM (talk) 02:48, December 23, 2017 (UTC)SageM

Appear as in get close enough that the difference is practically meaningless/non-existent. Might be phrased bit better but RW is one of the older powers and existed long before IO. --Kuopiofi (talk) 05:58, December 23, 2017 (UTC)

No full page edits. Edit the only the section you are planning too. As otherwise it ruins the gallery.

Plus that addition to the capabilities is completely unnecessary.

Just add in the also called and leave the rest of the page alone.SageM (talk) 04:53, January 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

12. No repeated Editing/Undoing of the same thing. If this becomes problem take it to Comments/Talk and talk it out instead of repeatedly messing with the page. --Kuopiofi (talk) 22:14, January 3, 2018 (UTC)

Its unnecessary.

All absolute attacks are conceptual by their very nature as its the only way they can be considered truly absolute. It literally says that right in the capabilities of Absolute Attack-

From Absolute Attack- 

"This ability is not dependent on physical factors like strength, but is instead based on the properties of the attack.

As you can clearly see, its already covered by Conceptual Attacks and thus there is no need for it as a limitation, as your basically posting the same limitation twice otherwise.

So it doesn't belong there.SageM (talk) 22:22, January 3, 2018 (UTC)SageM

In fact every single user listed on Absolute Attack is absolute because their attacks are conceptual. So my point stands, Absolute Attack is already covered by conceptual attacks.SageM (talk) 22:25, January 3, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Knowledge Erasure is a limitation

Knowledge Erasure is a limitation for Infinite Creativity. it even says so right in the capabilities of Knowledge Erasure-

"User can erase knowledge, wiping any/all traces of an idea, subject, or other form of knowledge from existence."

As you can see it is a valid limitation, as Infinite Creativity is nothing more then infinite ideas.

So it belongs.SageM (talk) 06:04, January 4, 2018 (UTC)SageM

How does knowledge start? With an Idea. An Idea is the basis of all knowledge. You literally can't have knowledge without an Idea first.

All infinite creativity does is give you access to an infinite amount of ideas. Its the literally the definition of the power and clearly says so right on the page.

Knowledge Erasure can erase ideas and thus the basis of knowledge. So it is and always will be a valid limitation.

Seriously thats literally what it does and what its supposed to do. 

Since you are apparently ignoring what it says right on the page and trying to change the very nature of the power even though its clearly posted what it actually does, then you are breaking the wikia rules. As you are changing the power for your benefit.

So just leave it alone.SageM (talk) 06:24, January 4, 2018 (UTC)SageM

here is a quote taken from a user of knowledge embodiment that shows my point-

"Knowledge, particularly the raw knowledge of ideas, is supreme."- Oghma's Dogma from Forgotten Realms

As you can clearly see, Ideas and knowledge are one and the same, and Infinite Creativity is nothing more then infinite ideas.

Sorry, but you can't argue with the facts.SageM (talk) 06:28, January 4, 2018 (UTC)SageM

No, he is not a user until its actually demonstrated.

Sorry but no. He actually has to physically demonstrate the power in the series to be able to count as a user. The databook isn't good enough resource.

Plus if you read the most recent comments its already stated that he not proven or provided any feats that show that he is capable of destroying the planet.

All the current known users have actually demonstrated the power to destroy planets in their series themselves. Saitama has not shown anything remotely along those lines.

Until such time as its actually demonstrated in the story, he is not and will not be a user.SageM (talk) 04:07, January 13, 2018 (UTC)SageM

No. Read the most recent comments.

Also Boros's planet destroying attack is anime only

The actual attack can only destroy the SURFACE of the planet. Not the actual planet itself.

Do not add him back again.SageM (talk) 04:13, January 13, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Its literally posted right on his wikia page. And its taken from the One Punch Man: Hero Perfection encyclopedia. Which was the very first one punch man encyclopedia that went on sale.

Sorry. but the facts stand against you on this one. As both the Wikia and an officially licensed book on OPM clearly state otherwise.

You might as well drop it. You can't win this argument.SageM (talk) 04:26, January 13, 2018 (UTC)SageM

hahahaha!!! 

Yes the anime is non-canon. As one of the villians has a power in the anime that he doesn't have in either the manga or webcomic. 

So yes, the anime is considered non-canon.

They exaggerated everything in the anime because they could get away with it.

And the link I gave you was to the officially licensed encyclopedia that was written by the author himself. which is considered canon.

And you are disputing the facts that were all taken from those very books which is the source of information on the wikia. in other words you are saying that the proven facts are not canon.

There is nothing you can say that can win this argument. Because its already been stated by the author himself,SageM (talk) 04:52, January 13, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Yeah, no you haven't. He's going off. End of story.

Conceptual Attacks is all that is needed.

Even the capabilites of Conceptual Attacks basically states they are absolute, not just the applications.

And some of the Conceptual Attacks are in physical form and take the form of a physical attack, the Thompson Contender is one such example.

So please stop arguing about this, its getting pointless.

Conceptual Attacks are literally the only thing thats necessary for the limitations.

Also if you actually read Absolute Attack's capabilities it says this-

"This ability is not dependent on physical factors like strength, but is instead based on the properties of the attack."

Also nearly all the users of Absolute Attack use conceptual or non-physical/non-tangible forms of attacks, so again my point stands.

The properties of the attack doesn't mean it has to be physical. So your argument is meaningless.SageM (talk) 06:58, January 19, 2018 (UTC)SageM

It even says Absolute Attacks are not based on Physical factors, which means that according to the capabilities the attacks are not technically considered to be physical, and thats true. As most of them are entirely non-physical, energy-based or conceptual.

So unless your going to dispute what its stated right on the page and in the capabilities, you might as well leave it alone.SageM (talk) 07:06, January 19, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Vergil's attacks are space-based weaponry.. So he isn't a good example.

Saitama actually belongs on One Hit Kill. And Garou has survived several of his so called Absolute Attacks, and it clearly says attacks cannot be "Reduced". And since Garou has survived many of his punches even though he shouldn't be able too.

Also he has shown the power to block, dodge, counter and escape from Saitama's attacks. Which pretty much means that Saitama isn't a user of Absolute Attack.

Also the Sword from cardcaptor sakura isn't even a true physical object. Its a magical construct that simply takes the form of a sword.SageM (talk) 08:07, January 19, 2018 (UTC)SageM

read the entire sentence, it says Less then. 

We have 9,000 powers now. which means we update the number so now its less then 10,000.SageM (talk) 05:26, January 21, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Complete Arsenal caption-

"Ajimu Najimi (Medaka Box) possesses 12,858,051,967,633,867 official abilities. As a comparison, this wiki has less than 10,000 recorded"

As you can clearly see we already have 9000 powers, so I changed it as we have less then 10,000 now.SageM (talk) 05:29, January 21, 2018 (UTC)SageM

its because they are contradictory powers.

Its not because there separate powers, its because there contradictory powers.

Reanimation is nothing more then creating undead. While resurrection is bringing someone back to life fully, with everything that they originally were intact.

Thats the reason why the users of Reanimation are not on Resurrection's page and vice versa.

So yes, you have to choose which it can do. One or the other.SageM (talk) 07:22, January 24, 2018 (UTC)SageM

I don't really care of the argument you two are having, but keep it on Talk/comments instead of undoing constantly. Why do I need to remind of this every time?

You might also want to note that Reanimation simply animates a corpse, nothing else. --Kuopiofi (talk) 08:00, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Nekron2 (talk) 11:13, January 24, 2018 (UTC)Don't add nonexistence to limitation of life and death transcendence ,erasure immunity is an application of it and it is superior version of absolute immortality,so it is unaffected by nonexistence and like powers.Please read the capabilities of a power before adding limitations to it.

Use alphabetical order. --Kuopiofi (talk) 05:52, January 25, 2018 (UTC)

Nekron2 (talk) 18:04, January 25, 2018 (UTC)Life and death transcendence is to be beyond life and death and thus they can't be categorised as living,dead, etc.You have understood the power in the wrong way,what you are saying is amortality

Also,go through the whole capabilities as it clearly says that it makes the user not only absolutely immortal but also immune to all life and death based powers,thus the point of superior version of absolute immortality. And the point that they are neither living nor dead comes from the fact that they transcend life and death.

As for nonexistence it can't even touch erasure immunity as the capabilities of erasure immunity clearly states that it is immune to nonexistence. So,the point is that life and death transcendence is completely immune to nonexistence.

Nekron2 (talk) 13:56, January 26, 2018 (UTC)Firstly,I am not twisting things

Secondly, nonexistence may seem like that but variation of omnipotence doesn't mean they can defeat transcendent powers.Also,right on the top of the application of erasure immunity see that the very first thing it is immune to is nonexistence. Even logic manipulation is an omnipotent power still conceptual anchoring is immune to it despite it being an omnipotent power and remember that nonexistence is not even marked as omnipotent power as it is nowhere near to that,this gives my argument a bonus.

And,higher being means that beings with powers like metapotence, omniarch,omnipotence,after all it states higher being not higher power.A normal human being with erasure immunity can't defeat erasure immunity but an ultipotent being can surely erase.A higher being means a being with higher status.

Also,adding may to a thing you are completely immune to is not justified as it is like saying that telepathy may defeat phsycic immunity without immunity bypassing or any other power,so I am undoing your edit after giving you valid reason do not add it again.

Nekron2 (talk) 14:12, January 26, 2018 (UTC)Also,capabilities of erasure immunity outrightly state that they are not affected by nonexistence ,if you don't know go and check the page properly first before arguing or adding unnecessary limitations. The power of erasure immunity was created in the first place to counter nonexistence and null energy manipulation.You probably don't go through everything but I do.Like absolute access is omnilock opposite despite not being anywhere near an omnipotent power similarly erasure immunity is a perfect and absolute counter to nonexistence, go check the capabilities of erasure immunity first then come and say anything else.

19. No deleting page contents even if you disagree with them. If you disagree, take it to Comments and stake your position there. --Kuopiofi (talk) 14:47, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

No, your thinking of Parachronal Cognition. Omnichronal Perception was already defined as a sub-power of omniscience when it was made. And it already listed on Omniscience as a sub-power of it.

So its going to be changed back regardless.SageM (talk) 03:35, January 27, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Omniscience is also known as Infinite Knowledge. And Omnichronal Perception is perceiving time across Infinite timelines at the same time. So of course its a sub-power of Omniscience.

If you can perceive infinite information, knowledge and events across an infinite number of timelines, then whats stopping you from being considered Omniscient?SageM (talk) 03:43, January 27, 2018 (UTC)SageM

It doesn't matter what you say or think on this, thats how the power was defined from the start. Your trying to change the nature of the power.

As you already said before, infinite means infinite. It doesn't matter whether or not its outside of the omniverse or not, after all we have Meta Event Manipulation which allows you to manipulate events outside of the omniverse and beyond, and its already got some of the temporal cognition powers as associations to it. Which means its already connected to Omnichronal Perception by default.

So yes, it is and always has been a sub-power of Omniscience. So please stop changing it. You can't win this argument because thats literally how the power is defined as.SageM (talk) 04:03, January 27, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Also if you bothered to check, you will see that some of the users of Omnichronal Perception are also considered users of Omniscience as well.

So that pretty much defeats any argument you might have at this point.SageM (talk) 04:09, January 27, 2018 (UTC)SageM

You can make all the arguments you want, but its not going to change the power. And if you change it, its just going to be changed back by someone else.

Its the same with your arguments with Nekron, no matter how many times you argue there are just some situations that you can't win against.

So you might as well just move on to something else for now.SageM (talk) 05:46, January 27, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Nekron2 (talk) 15:35, January 27, 2018 (UTC)Firstly absolute immortality wikia clearly states that even if the user is completely erased they will will still restored back to life without exceptions which applies to life and death transcendence as well as they are absolutely immortal and the absolute immortality wikia nowhere states that the user needs to be alive as it is the power to be eternal and indestructible. SCP-682 and lich are prime examples of this as they are not alive but are still absolutely immortal.

Secondly for immunities from established powers like erasure immunity have two levels-one the immunity is equivalent to invulnerability and second it is equivalent to absolute invulnerability. For example psycic shield is psycic equivalent of invulnerability and psycic immunity is equivalent to absolute invulnerability. In erasure immunity only few have the absolute immunity to all erasure based powers.I will take the example of oblivion from marvel, he is the origin of nonexistence and is by all means and purposes nonexistence itself and thus has all powers related to erasure.As for erasure based powers you cannot go beyond this level but still he can't be erased even by his own abilities as he is the origin of nonexistence which makes him completely immune to nonexistence. Even origin manipulation wikia states that by becoming origin of nonexistence you become completely immune to it as you cannot erase the origin of erasure itself.Go and visit the origin manipulation page if you want.So,this time no matter how potent the user is it can't erase oblivion.

Sorry but I can't find a single piece of evidence stating that its ever been shown to create something other then wormholes.

Its just manipulated the fabric of space and distance and allowed for teleportation and switching the positions of things. It hasn't shown the power to create anything.

If it truly created something, then why is there no mention of it doing so? I did a search to see if there is any mention of it creating things and I can't find a single picture or paragraph saying that it can. All it says is it just manipulates space, but doesn't actually create things in space.

If you can find a picture of it creating something or saying it can create something then you can repost it, but since there isn't evidence to back up your claim for now, it will remain off the page.

The reality gem on the other hand can both warp reality and create things, but the space gem has not been shown to do so.SageM (talk) 02:58, January 29, 2018 (UTC)SageM

There are no pictures or mention anywhere that suggest the Space Gem has the power to create things. And I did several searches and researched several different sites.

I can't even find any pictures that say so either. So unless you can find me an actual example of it creating something other then a wormhole, it won't be considered a known object.

The only pictures available of the space gem are either by itself with no context given on its powers or grouped together with the other gems. There are no pictures showing it creating something.SageM (talk) 03:07, January 29, 2018 (UTC)SageM

You do realize the difference between Creation and Manipulation right? Just because you manipulate something doesn't mean you can create it. In fact its one of the main limitations for virtually every manipulation power on this wikia.

And yes, while Comicvine does say that. They have also exaggerated the powers of characters and objects in the comics before.

I also used comicvine as a research example aside from both wikipedia and the marvel wikia. I also visited Marveluniverse.com and the marvel appendix as well, which aren't wikias and instead are sites with only comic information.

And out of all of those sites, only comic vine mentions the "limitless" part.

And yes, the point of the matter is it has to have actual examples of its capabilities. Sure a site like comicvine can say that it has limitless manipulation, but we don't know for absolutely certain that its true or not.

After all, like everything else on this and every other power, its a matter of OPINION, not an absolute fact.

An absolute fact is one where the creator or author confirms it without a shadow of a doubt, or offers proof that confirms it that can't be ignored.

So yes, you are making a leap in logic that says, oh it has limitless power so it can automatically do whatever it is I say it can.

Also, the other Gem's powers have actually been shown and confirmed in the comics with actual examples of all that they are capable of, so your argument about the author not showing all the capabilities and so-called infinite powers is a bunch of bull. The truth of the matter is that they didn't bother to decide if it can create anything or not. So its simply your opinion that because it says it can do anything on one site, it automatically can.

The main thing about users on this wikia is that they have evidence of some kind to back up their powers, now don't they? Usually actual pictures taken from the comics.

So your basically doing what you said I did, saying it can do something because one site that isn't a wikia says it can.

You also agreed with me on the matter, then turned around and said that you didn't.

So you can't even make up your mind on this discussion on whether or not it fits.

Besides, the people at marvel have managed to do a pretty good job in the past of showing what something with infinite abilities is capable of doing before. So your arguments about them not doing so are not helping your case.

I like to have evidence when I add something to a wikia, not just some random someone elses opinion on the matter. Usually pictures/video or something that the creator has said in person or in an interview or actual honest to god authors notes confirming the situation.

Yes you said that because comicvine is not a wikia is a reliable source of information, except for the fact that one of the variation sites like comicvine was shut down because all the information on it was proven to be totally unreliable and most of it was falsefied, and a lot of pages on comicvine have been removed because the information was notably incorrect.

So its all a matter of opinion on comicvine, just like it is with the wikias. Nothing on any site is an absolute fact without the pictures or authors notes to back it up. 

But hey, you can believe whatever you want. Whether or not its actually true or an absolute is another story though.

Well thats all I have to say for now. Though in the future, please try to provide some evidence other then making a leap of logic based on one sites opinions. Like actual pictures or video of it happening if you can find them.SageM (talk) 05:23, January 29, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Also Limitless Manipulation of something does not automatically equal limitless creation. 

After all, thats the entire point of Absolute Will. Which is true limitless manipulation, but without the ability to create. So unless its officially stated otherwise, limitless manipulation does not mean that it can truly create something.SageM (talk) 05:30, January 29, 2018 (UTC)SageM

The entire deal with Doom and him beating the beyonders and gaining their powers so he became supposedly omnipotent was just a joke the people at marvel made.(and they even outright confirmed it too)

Yes, the beyonders killed the tribunal, that much we know about. but Doom killing the Beyonders and taking their power is an entirely different situation altogether. 

Meaning that doom wasn't technically all-powerful. His power was still less then the One-Above-All and beings such as Oblivion and the First Firmament are still far greater in power then him.

So saying doom had infinite power is a misnomer.

Also it took several of the Beyonders to kill the LT, not just one. And these Beyonders are post-retcon versions of the original. Meaning they aren't nearly as all-powerful as the original one was.

So the situation with those pictures are only semi-accurate if you take into account these facts.SageM (talk) 06:44, January 29, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Then why wasn't TW under "Users are not invincible" as specific example?

?"If they were not on that level then they would be nothing more the divine weaponry."? --Kuopiofi (talk) 05:20, February 2, 2018 (UTC)

A toyline doesn't count as a canon product.

Besides Marvels Heroclix is a retired product. Which means its not longer a valid resource. So it still doesn't count.SageM (talk) 05:45, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Also the product line was not created by Marvel either. It was made by Topps. So its not an official product of Marvels.

Sorry but it doesn't count. Try again.

Plus none of the designers of it work for/with or are even affiliated with Marvel.SageM (talk) 05:50, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

And its not official at all-

"While a Marvel license "to manufacture figures and card games" had been acquired by Upper Deck Company, that license specifically excluded the HeroClix game and concept."

Please stop trying to prove otherwise now.SageM (talk) 05:52, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

It was never licensed by marvel.SageM (talk) 05:53, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

They didn't approve Heroclix. It clearly states those facts.

The answer is no. Drop it already.SageM (talk) 05:56, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

"Scott Silverstein, CEO of Topps, said “This was an extremely difficult decision. While the company will still actively pursue gaming initiatives, we feel it is necessary to align our efforts more closely with Topps' current sports and entertainment offerings which are being developed within our New York office.” Hmmmm, well, I could speak more about this `company decision` but I will desist, and stay on topic, and restrict myself to talking about the game itself. Except briefly to conclude: The HeroClix property was expected to be sold off to a 3rd party in May 2009, but the two parties were unable to come to an agreement. While a Marvel license "to manufacture figures and card games" had been acquired by Upper Deck Company, that license specifically excluded the HeroClix game and concept."

Its listed here-

http://thegamerscupbard.blogspot.com/2016/05/by-hilary-gilbert-may-2016-thefirst.html

The CEO of Topps said it himself. So its not valid by any means.SageM (talk) 06:06, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

If Marvel didn't approve it, then it doesn't count as a valid resource. Its as simple as that.SageM (talk) 06:08, February 2, 2018 (UTC)SageM

So why not argue with him before the first undo? --Kuopiofi (talk) 09:24, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Please stop removing every power that has a connection with Omniscience.

You have already done it with several powers, so please knock it off already.SageM (talk) 05:03, February 4, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Nekron2 (talk) 17:49, February 5, 2018 (UTC)See the limitation first, it doesn't state that they can't replicate Omnipotence as a power but it states that they can't replicate the powers of a truly omnipotent being .Also,this point is already confirmed by both DYBAD and Koupfi who are both admins,so,leave the page as it is.

12. No repeated Editing/Undoing of the same thing. If this becomes problem take it to Comments/Talk and talk it out instead of repeatedly messing with the page. --Kuopiofi (talk) 18:48, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Nekron2 (talk) 15:26, February 6, 2018 (UTC)See,I already said that admins confirmed the limitation, there already has been an argument on this page,if you hadn't read the comments section,DYBAD confirms my point, also will you stop removimg things, even admins are getting angry now,I will tell Koupfi to lock down the page now.Even SageM has stopped arguing but you are acting like a stupid stubborn child!Please read the comments section,when admins confirm my point then you are wrong.

Please don't make up lies about saying you got approval to change things, especially when there are no messages on your talk page that say so.SageM (talk) 00:50, February 7, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Your contributions to the wikia can easily be viewed and there are no recent messages to the admins or moderators about you getting approval for any changes, which means you made that up.SageM (talk) 00:53, February 7, 2018 (UTC)SageM

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.