Talk:Shanti virus - Revision history

imported>Referos: /* Afflicted character status */

2010-01-23T19:18:02Z

Afflicted character status

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:18, 23 January 2010
(No difference)

imported>Referos: /* Afflicted character status */

2010-01-23T19:18:02Z

Afflicted character status

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 23 January 2010
Line 122:		Line 122:
	*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)		*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	**** Sounds good to me. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 13:54, 23 January 2010 (EST)		**** Sounds good to me. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 13:54, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			***** Ok, I'll change it.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 14:18, 23 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Intuitive Empath at 18:54, 23 January 2010

2010-01-23T18:54:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 23 January 2010
Line 121:		Line 121:
	** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)		** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)		*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			**** Sounds good to me. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 13:54, 23 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Referos: /* Afflicted character status */

2010-01-23T18:50:24Z

Afflicted character status

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 23 January 2010
Line 120:		Line 120:
	* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)		* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)		** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Intuitive Empath: /* Afflicted character status */

2010-01-23T17:41:09Z

Afflicted character status

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 23 January 2010
Line 119:		Line 119:
	I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)		I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)		* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Referos: /* Afflicted character status */ signature

2010-01-23T17:36:20Z

Afflicted character status: signature

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 23 January 2010
Line 118:		Line 118:

	I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)		I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?		* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Referos: /* Afflicted character status */

2010-01-23T17:35:59Z

Afflicted character status

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 23 January 2010
Line 118:		Line 118:

	I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)		I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?

imported>Intuitive Empath: /* Afflicted character status */ new section

2010-01-23T17:27:57Z

Afflicted character status: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 23 January 2010
Line 114:		Line 114:

	* I changed it for now, ut would like to open discussions about it. What I removed stated that Sylar could use his intuitive aptitude while infected with the Shanti virus, using his apparent understanding of Maya's ability and claim that he displayed the "hunger" after killing Candice as evidence. I can't recall those exact circumstances, but there is a good amount of counter-evidence to this claim. First, he was unable to take Candice's power, which implies he does not have access to the power, since intuitive aptitude is what he uses to acquire other evolved humans' abilities. Second, it was stated (iirc) several times in interviews that after Sylar was cured, he regained only his base ability (IA) and telekinesis. If he never lost IA, this would be a false statement as one can only regain something once it has been lost. Sylar himself tells Alejandro that he doesn't have his ability, and that when he does regain it, he will kill both he and his sister (and that even if he is unable to regain it, he will still use Maya as a weapon). My questions would be what to do about these seeming contradictions (though I've already done something for the moment ;)); if his desire to gain Candice's power constitutes the hunger, and if his claim that he understands how Maya's ability works (if he wasn't lying) is enough to say he is using IA. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 15:05, 2 May 2009 (EDT)		* I changed it for now, ut would like to open discussions about it. What I removed stated that Sylar could use his intuitive aptitude while infected with the Shanti virus, using his apparent understanding of Maya's ability and claim that he displayed the "hunger" after killing Candice as evidence. I can't recall those exact circumstances, but there is a good amount of counter-evidence to this claim. First, he was unable to take Candice's power, which implies he does not have access to the power, since intuitive aptitude is what he uses to acquire other evolved humans' abilities. Second, it was stated (iirc) several times in interviews that after Sylar was cured, he regained only his base ability (IA) and telekinesis. If he never lost IA, this would be a false statement as one can only regain something once it has been lost. Sylar himself tells Alejandro that he doesn't have his ability, and that when he does regain it, he will kill both he and his sister (and that even if he is unable to regain it, he will still use Maya as a weapon). My questions would be what to do about these seeming contradictions (though I've already done something for the moment ;)); if his desire to gain Candice's power constitutes the hunger, and if his claim that he understands how Maya's ability works (if he wasn't lying) is enough to say he is using IA. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 15:05, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

			== Afflicted character status ==

			I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)

imported>Stevehim: /* Intuitive aptitude */

2009-05-02T19:11:56Z

Intuitive aptitude

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 2 May 2009
Line 113:		Line 113:
	== Intuitive aptitude ==		== Intuitive aptitude ==

	* I changed it for now, ut would like to open discussions about it. What I removed stated that Sylar could use his intuitive aptitude while infected with the Shanti virus, using his apparent understanding of Maya's ability and claim that he displayed the "hunger" after killing Candice as evidence. I can't recall those exact circumstances, but there is a good amount of counter-evidence to this claim. First, he was unable to take Candice's power, which implies he does not have access to the power, since intuitive aptitude is what he uses to acquire other evolved humans' abilities. Second, it was stated (iirc) several times in interviews that after Sylar was cured, he regained only his base ability (IA) and telekinesis. If he never lost IA, this would be a false statement as one can only regain something once it has been lost. My questions would be what to do about these seeming contradictions (though I've already done something for the moment ;)); if his desire to gain Candice's power constitutes the hunger, and if his claim that he understands how Maya's ability works (if he wasn't lying) is enough to say he is using IA. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 15:05, 2 May 2009 (EDT)		* I changed it for now, ut would like to open discussions about it. What I removed stated that Sylar could use his intuitive aptitude while infected with the Shanti virus, using his apparent understanding of Maya's ability and claim that he displayed the "hunger" after killing Candice as evidence. I can't recall those exact circumstances, but there is a good amount of counter-evidence to this claim. First, he was unable to take Candice's power, which implies he does not have access to the power, since intuitive aptitude is what he uses to acquire other evolved humans' abilities. Second, it was stated (iirc) several times in interviews that after Sylar was cured, he regained only his base ability (IA) and telekinesis. If he never lost IA, this would be a false statement as one can only regain something once it has been lost. Sylar himself tells Alejandro that he doesn't have his ability, and that when he does regain it, he will kill both he and his sister (and that even if he is unable to regain it, he will still use Maya as a weapon). My questions would be what to do about these seeming contradictions (though I've already done something for the moment ;)); if his desire to gain Candice's power constitutes the hunger, and if his claim that he understands how Maya's ability works (if he wasn't lying) is enough to say he is using IA. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 15:05, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

imported>Stevehim: /* Intuitive aptitude */ new section

2009-05-02T19:05:35Z

Intuitive aptitude: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 2 May 2009
Line 110:		Line 110:
	****It is a fact that the virus does not take away powers, it only supresses them in a manner that stops them from useing their powers. in the cases of [[Sylar]] his powers may be gone for the moment but they are still hard-wierd into his DNA, as they are with all 'specials'.		****It is a fact that the virus does not take away powers, it only supresses them in a manner that stops them from useing their powers. in the cases of [[Sylar]] his powers may be gone for the moment but they are still hard-wierd into his DNA, as they are with all 'specials'.
	***** Still it makes no sense for it to "delete" abilities. The way I understood it was that it suppressed the abilities. This is simply a case of the writers ignoring fact and depowering Sylar to make it far more interesting than a character still at full potential, killing.--{{User:Steelymcbeam/sig}} 07:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)		***** Still it makes no sense for it to "delete" abilities. The way I understood it was that it suppressed the abilities. This is simply a case of the writers ignoring fact and depowering Sylar to make it far more interesting than a character still at full potential, killing.--{{User:Steelymcbeam/sig}} 07:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

			== Intuitive aptitude ==

			* I changed it for now, ut would like to open discussions about it. What I removed stated that Sylar could use his intuitive aptitude while infected with the Shanti virus, using his apparent understanding of Maya's ability and claim that he displayed the "hunger" after killing Candice as evidence. I can't recall those exact circumstances, but there is a good amount of counter-evidence to this claim. First, he was unable to take Candice's power, which implies he does not have access to the power, since intuitive aptitude is what he uses to acquire other evolved humans' abilities. Second, it was stated (iirc) several times in interviews that after Sylar was cured, he regained only his base ability (IA) and telekinesis. If he never lost IA, this would be a false statement as one can only regain something once it has been lost. My questions would be what to do about these seeming contradictions (though I've already done something for the moment ;)); if his desire to gain Candice's power constitutes the hunger, and if his claim that he understands how Maya's ability works (if he wasn't lying) is enough to say he is using IA. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 15:05, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 23 January 2010
Line 122:		Line 122:
	*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)		*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	**** Sounds good to me. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 13:54, 23 January 2010 (EST)		**** Sounds good to me. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 13:54, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			***** Ok, I'll change it.--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 14:18, 23 January 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 23 January 2010
Line 121:		Line 121:
	** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)		** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)		*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			**** Sounds good to me. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 13:54, 23 January 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 23 January 2010
Line 120:		Line 120:
	* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)		* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)		** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			*** What about (deceased due to unrelated causes) for cases like Niki and (succumbed) for people who died from the disease?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 13:50, 23 January 2010 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 23 January 2010
Line 119:		Line 119:
	I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)		I don't think it's a good idea to list the status. While there is only one case, putting the deceased next to Niki would imply that she died due to the Shanti virus, something untrue. While she did die because she didn't have an ability during a moment that it could have saved her life, it doesn't mean that Niki succumbed to the virus. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:27, 23 January 2010 (EST)
	* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)		* Ah, yes, true. Is there a medical word for when a person dies specifically of a disease he or she contracted? Or perhaps we could try something like (deceased due to unrelated causes)?--[[User:Referos\|Referos]] 12:36, 23 January 2010 (EST)
			** Due to unrelated causes seems good to me, I don't think that a word to specify cause of death the way you proposed exists. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 12:41, 23 January 2010 (EST)