User talk:Arkillion

Type here if you want to talk to me >:3

• - As we can currently see from the "orange-glow" that occurs when he touches an evolved human, he takes their power until he is exposed to another power (through physical contact).

When Arthur was shot by Peter (yet the bullet was actually let go and launched, by Sylar) we saw Arthur on the floor with an orange-glow surrounding him as if his power was leaking out of him. What I suspect in my theory is that Peter saw his dad as the strongest of them all and wanted to be the same because he thought Peter was a disgrace, this changed his genes (or the glow affected his genes) and his new ability from the formula is most likely Power Absorption but with the ability to do it without permanently taking the ability.

He can use the ability of anyone he physically touches (even without knowing it) and loses it when in contact with another ability, I guess he has Power Absorption but in an early stage where he can't manifest it correctly. After-all Arthur had just telepathy because he probably couldn't manifest more than one ability and mentally taught himself how to take more than one? If he doesn't have power absorption, then he has Power Mimicry (via physical touch). --Arkillion 10:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)

(Just so I can put it somewhere later).

Block

As I guess you have found out by now, I have blocked you for three days so you could cool down. You have repeatedly cleared out other people's user pages and a section of Talk:Empathic mimicry, and you had been warned more than once not to do so. You also were repeatedly uploading another image without first discussing it on the related talk page as you had been asked to do so. All of those things constitute vandalism. I was lenient because you have contributed for several months and this is your first block. I hope that you can take the opportunity to return and act responsibly, remaining a constructive part of our community. However, if you return and repeat any of these actions, you will most likely be blocked permanently.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Images

The character images are to be of the right size (200x250px), and we try to stay away from .png files. That's the reason we won't use Image:Alex.png. Feel free to upload a better quality pic of Image:Alex.jpg if you like to, though! Thanx for understanding :) --Pierre 07:54, 17 February 2009 (EST)

• all my PNG images are still PNG images but with the scaling fixed, the image will be fixed by someone later (Ryangibsonstewart) has put it on his to do list as I can't scale images to a specific size. --Arkillion 07:56, 17 February 2009 (EST)
  • You have to let me know, though. My to do list has items on it that have literally been there for years. I'll gladly rescale or reformat images for you, but I need to know specifically which ones. If you could save the Alex image as a jpg and then reupload it over Image:Alex.jpg, that would help tremendously, rather than uploading a new image that has to be deleted later on--if I remember to catch it. Thanks, Arkillion! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2009 (EST)
    • Usually using paint and JPG doesn't mix well, kind of like paint and a shirt >_>... But okay.. Also since I was "vandalising" the empathic mimicry page with the precognition image (since it looks way way better) I've stopped and started to write recaps again (The one you see is all mine, took me a while >_>). Didn't you used to do synopsis' when they were on TV? Well someone did and I used to wake up every morning with the whole summary of the episode, now I don't :( --Arkillion 08:04, 17 February 2009 (EST)
      • File:Alex2.jpg - Done. --Arkillion 08:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)
        • Please mind your language. And not only is Alex2.jpg in the wrong format, it also include a watermark, wích need to be removed. Please behave. --Pierre 08:22, 17 February 2009 (EST)
          • Language? I'm not swearing? I said open your eyes because clearly you're not looking. I think ANYONE would rather have an image that has a GOOD QUALITY and doesn't look like he's just blinked or been pixelated then the current image there is. And a watermark is nothing serious, it can be removed, LATER. --Arkillion 08:23, 17 February 2009 (EST)