Talk:Beyonder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I'm definitely not up to it right now, but this article is so far from NPOV that it's ridiculous.

And 'learnt' is not a word.

-- Dodger

learnt (lûrnt) v. A past tense and a past participle of learn.

Could someone please explain why the article "Beyond-Realm" is gone? Scorpionman 22:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be said about the Beyond-Realm that couldn't be said in the Beyonder's own article? -Sean Curtin 00:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Beyonder and Molecule Man[edit]

Is the Beyonder still merged to the Molecule Man?

  • I'm wondering what, if any, the Beyonder's retconned "he's just a Mutant Inhuman" status will bear on Molecule Man's origin. --Dr Archeville 12:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Universe[edit]

I removed the reference to the end of Secret Wars II creating the New Universe. Officially, my reason is that there was no reference for the statement, although I can unofficially add that I was an avid NU fan, and I remember vehement denials in the letters columns of NU books that this was the origin of the NU. (Of course, they also vehemently said that there would never be a NU/616 crossover, but, hey.... ) CatherS 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:SecretwarsII3.png[edit]

The image Image:SecretwarsII3.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is confusing, please clarify[edit]

  • The Beyonder then fights the Puma, believing that the only purpose left in his life is to help the Puma find his by allowing Puma to become one with the universe and slay him- having been convinced of the Beyonder's nature as a malicious threat-, but a casual comment by Spider-Man about the Beyonder's manipulations causes Puma to lose faith in himself at the crucial moment, and the Beyonder survives unscratched. [9]
To help the Puma find his.. what? His purpose? His purpose was to merge with the universe and get killed? Or his purpose is to be slain by the Puma after helping him become one with the universe, so he was strong enough to do so? Someone who read this please clarify the meaning. Dream Focus 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he immediately sensed a strange mental presence and attempted to mind-scan the Beyonder, revealing him as one of the Inhumans previously ruled over by fellow Illuminati member Black Bolt. The apparent secret behind the Beyonder's seemingly godlike abilities was also deduced by Xavier, who recognized that the Beyonder had been a mutant Inhuman...
The first sentence is referring to Xavier, the strongest telepath there is. He sensed who he was, and then it says it was deduced by him also, as though he was a second person. Was there someone other than Xavier who sensed this, perhaps Mr. Fantastic using some sort of device? Dream Focus 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clarified both portions. I believe I have the comics with me so I will double-check and make sure I have the meanings correct but I think I do. Arrow of Thyme (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Spider Ham portion[edit]

  • The Spider Ham reference to the Beyonder was listed under the multiple universes. Whether or not the Spider Ham universe is actually claimed as a cannon alternate Marvel universe is irrelevant (and probably not true) since it is most certainly a parody comic. Arrow of Thyme (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in The Maker section[edit]

"At some unknown point, Kosmos goes mad and assumes a mortal form, now calling itself the Maker" is wrong; Thanos explains that Kosmos goes mad because he assumes human form, not being able to cope with it. And "is finally subdued by the nihilist Thanos and several of his allies among the prisoners" again, not true: Thanos does all the work by himself, he has no allies and no one ever try to attack Kosmos; only interaction between the inmates and him is when Kosmos destroy most of the Kylm after arguing with the mad titan.

Unsourced Material[edit]

Below information was tagged for needing sources since 2008. Please feel free to re-add to the article with appropriate citations. Doniago (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The Beyonder (comics) → Beyonder – This article should be moved back to its original title, per the arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Beyonder, good move? 68.57.233.34 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undiscussed move reverted as requested; any subsequent requests can be made from this title. Dekimasuよ! 21:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonder Is Omnipotent[edit]

Except for the fact that he isnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:A200:580:95CB:73B0:BB59:6CC (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Lets start this off. Beyonder (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Who cares?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I do. Beyonder (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Beyonder[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that explicitly states your claim that this fictional character is omnipotent or is it just your personal interpretation of the work of fiction?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Comics/Jim Shooter have stated the claims and your earlier comment makes me assumed you aren't really able to debate with me but that just my assumption. Beyonder (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]
There have been repeated claims of the Beyonder being omnipotent in the comics, but there have also been other (referenced within the article) instances when he has shown limitations, or been stated to be nearly omnipotent (in the Avengers issue right after the Second Secret Wars), and Marvel Comics has a history of calling lots of characters omnipotent, including Odin, who is outclassed by many other entities. The inconsistency of the Beyonder character is the problem here, so to me it seemed sensible to list him as almost but not quite omnipotent based on the sum total picture. David A (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he is described as omnipotent in reliable sources then use those reliable sources to discuss it. Otherwise it is a violation of WP:OR to post one's own personal interpretation of a story.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have already done so, over, and over, and over. (I still have the mental scars...) And he sticks with interpeting it literally, and I stick with that I respect and used to like the character, but that there were matter-of-fact contradictions. I would prefer if you or some other neutral party made a decision to put a stop to this. Thank you. David A (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's already said we don't need to keep talking about it. BeyonderGod, if you have explicit proof of anything to the contrary provide it here and now or do not suggest a different set of information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to David A. He is a known person who can't prove what he claims I have proof he is omnipotent but they are in pictures now given the sources David A. Has no proof as BEYONDER stated he set his own limitations in the comics so ill post them. Beyonder (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

You asked for sources here you go some from Official Databooks. Beyonder (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod So i win? Beyonder (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

No.
  1. There's no "winning" or "losing", there's consensus.
  2. Also, those are primary sources. You'd need a secondary source saying that he limits himself.
  3. Those sources could have been drawn by you. We need a link to an issue where they came from.
  4. This one mentions nothing about power limiting, nor does this.

Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I already won this no point.....
  2. Secondary? ITS already posted!!
  3. You gotta CLICK ALL TH LINKS so again invalid/irrelevant.
  4. I cant draw so invalid bro try again and since you are so good you can search for the issues.

Beyonder (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Are you claiming he is absolutely omnipotent, essentially omnipotent or accidentally omnipotent (See Omnipotence paradox)? It sounds like he may be accidentally omnipotent which means he is limited in his omnipotence. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universe or Multiverse?[edit]

Could you please provide a scan where it is stated that the Marvel multiverse was a drop in the ocean compared to the Beyond realm. The way I remember it, it was stated that a universe was a comparative drop in the ocean. But I will recheck later. David A (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Realm = Multiverse (Jim shooters own words). Marvel Universe=Reference of the marvel multiverse if they would said single then yes a actual universe but they meant multiverse. Beyonder (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

I am not disputing that the Beyond realm is equal to a large multiverse. I agree with this. I just remember that the information blurb said that a universe was a drop in the ocean compared to it, not a multiverse. David A (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here it is. I googled and found the image. One of your old uploads, I believe. It is clearly stated that a universe was as a droplet in the ocean compared to the Beyond Realm. David A (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really.....go check Jim Shooter blog for more reliable source then as reference they always say the Marvel Universe but in actuality they mean Multiverse the whole sum just like Dc Universe its the actuality of the multiverse. Beyonder (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

I would like an explicit source that says that the Marvel multiverse was as a drop of water in the ocean compared to the Beyond realm, because currently it links to Secret Wars II issue #4, which clearly states that it was a universe that was a drop in the ocean. David A (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues[edit]

Regarding the other new additions, I think that it is redundant to call Death of the mid-1980s a multiversal being, rather than simply link to the profile without comments. Especially as the pre-retcon Living Tribunal of the mid-1980s was only stated as being capable of detonating stars. As far as I know, the other cosmic entities prior and during the Secret Wars were also never shown to have anywhere near the kind of power that they exhibited after the Beyonder retcon, so I would prefer if the link was left without subjective comments.

Other than this, I have no problem with keeping the additions that the Beyonder managed to recreate Death or that he managed to send the demons to hell even while stated to be weakened. However, I would prefer to fix the spellling, and to add references to being a million times stronger than multiversal scale and a universe being a drop of water in the ocean compared to him. That is all, thank you.

Contrary to what you believe, I have actually liked the Beyonder character since I first read the local Secret Wars reprints when I was very small, and I think that I have monitored this page since 2007. David A (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antvasima it point out stated that death was Multiversal about 1-3 times actually if you read the entire issue the watcher said "This will cause trouble on the Multiversal level." Or Multiversal collapse the other thing is the narrator said Multiverse Narration and also the living tribunal has never been Retcon he has stayed the same even now he has shown to go 17-Dimsional and even able to cause universes to not be traveled in and much more I like LT but he has not been once retcon not even by Stan lee. Beyonder (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Stan Lee has not had anything to do with Marvel management since the 1970s.
Multiversal scale is the same thing as multiverse.
I checked it up, and you are correct that Master Order said that the effects of destroying Death would be felt across the multiverse, so that can stay.
However, yes, the 1986 handbook of the time of Secret Wars II clearly stated that the Living Tribunal was only able to detonate stars. As seen in Fantastic Four Annual #23 (1990) and Fantastic Four Annual #27 (1994), it was first in connection with retconning the Beyonder that they started upgrading various cosmic entities to a level several degrees of infinity above trans-multiversal scale.
I also think that inserting that every time the Beyonder displayed a weakness, it was automatically self-imposed is an extremely subjective speculation, rather than matter-of-fact observation. David A (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me on the whole I also think inserting part? are you implying that to me,beyonder, or LT?Beyonder (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

To yourself. David A (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact......He said it twice and even Dr.strange admits this saying he put limitations on himself it isn't self-imposed or speculation its a fact. Beyonder (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Can you provide scans, or issue references please? In either case, we couldn't state it as a fact, but inserting it as a possibility with issue references would be fine. David A (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof has been given. Beyonder (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Okay. I will insert a reference to when he talked with Dazzler. David A (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again?[edit]

@BeyonderGod:, is English your first language? You seem to have problems with the formatting, which is one of the reasons I'm reverting you. In your recent edits, you've changed the tense of the beginning of the section from the imperfect to preterite, contrary to the rest of the examples. A comma and a space are both needed to differentiate list items, unlike Beyonder,Molecule Man, and Kosmos was and the subject-verb agreement is also iffy. You've also messed up the Cosmic Cube category formatting at the bottom of the article. "Its" is used to refer to the properties of an object, whereas "it's" means "it is". "Multiversal scale" is correct, as "multiversal" is an adjective regarding the noun "scale" while "multiverse" is a noun, which can't be used as such. The section you've been editing is extremely disproportionate to the rest of the sections. But when the Molecule Man's lover, Marsha, leaves him, Owen Reece becomes enraged with hate and pure emotion at the lost of his lover, and with his powerful cosmic abilities he would extract the Beyonder from Kosmos, with this extraction it caused her to be on the brink of death where the Beyonder and Molecule Man had proceeded to fight causing a Trans-Multiversal effect causing various amounts of effects from different planets to different realities causing utter mutations to supernatural events and within moments into the heated battle Owen would reign over the Beyonder into submission and would then verbally taunt him until Kubik intervenes and would beg the Molecule Man to undo the changes he has done as Kosmos was on the verge of dying and this caused a setback for Owen and within a minutes Molecule Man had finally realized that he beaten the Beyonder and with his own decision he finally undid his heinous crime and combined the Beyonder back into Kosmos thus she gained back her Omnipotence (Great Power) is an extremely run-on sentence. After his original creator writer is somewhat redundant. Anything you want to add, @David A:? Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I am just tired of repeatedly having to deal with Sean (BG's real name) about the same things here and elsewhere for 8 months running. I thought that the previous version was fine and that the current version is severely disorganised. He has even uploaded disgusting homophobic slur insults about my other handle "Antvasima" on "DefiniThing" and "Urban Dictionary" and created a 10 page attack thread about me on the "MovieCodec" forum. In addition, he has technically reverted 4 times today. David A (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe being a contributing Wikipedian and maybe ACTUALLY edit the text I did wrong and editing it to the point where its more readable sounds like common sense to me and not just REVERTING everything I did as you said Multiversal is correct? but the issue proves other wise stating "Multiverse" nothing Multiversal so I fixed it to the correct wording as it stated "He has the power millions of more times powerful than the entire multiverse." Nothing stating Multiversal and I would like to mention the currently given information needs details to the articles and David (Antvasima Real name) I strongly suggest you stop using Real Life theories into the articles because using such terms in the fictional community it looked upon as you've done this multiple times across Wikipedia/Wikia page's and don't act innocent where you have mentioned me more times and gave me titles which are also inappropriate because here no one cares like the Wikipedia Admin once stated THAT is on another site so don't bring your issues here when people speak the truth. Beyonder (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

@Origamite: not to sound rude its just sounds logical to fix the errors or ask what's accurate and inaccurate information than deleting everything. Beyonder (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Beyonder[reply]

I have tried to work with you on several previous occasions, but everything you added this time came out completely jumbled, including your attempt to change what higher-dimensional space means per definition. If Marvel uses the higher-dimensional space terminology, then the rules for how that works apply, in much the same manner as the dimensions of height, width, length, and time, and if it explicitly stated in the handbook that the Living Tribunal of the 1980s was only able to detonate stars, then that is also relevant to keep as valid information. In addition, you specifically removed the supervillain categories, even though the Beyonder planned to commit multiversal genocide and gleefully laughed about it. David A (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. You already have VsBattles+Tenchi Muyo wikia stick with your RL theories there because nowhere has it been stated that Marvel is based on hyper-dimensional anything that's YOUR opinion not the writers because they use NON-FICTIONAL words more than they use real life ones also he isn't a supervillian because if you knew about anything HE still wasn't regarded as a Villain also if you wanna state that didn't kami from tenchi muyo caused the death of the 22-dimensions so we can label him a villain right? Because its double standards as marvel gave what anyone who knew science terms or simple cosmology terms like you stated "The chousin exist on so and so levels and the living tribunal is 16th therefore they are higher than him." You always COMPARE different fictional communities that dont share the same cosmology you place to much on your own opinions than others which people on MVC/Comicvine agreed on because the profiles here deserve the correct given information. Beyonder (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

There is a difference between unfortunate accidents and deliberate plans of genocide. Also, I don't personally care about whether one fictional character from one franchise is higher than another or not. I just like to index and categorize things. What I do care about is that if a certain concept is used, here higher-dimensional space, which is definitely not the same as the wrong usage of the word "dimension" as meaning "pocket universe", it should be accurately described. That is all. David A (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter because the concepts you used are wrong point blank and very simple so again I will strongly agree with the 2 forums about this and I would like a source of where marvel stated they use Hyper-Dimensional anything please because if you cant it would prove me right. Beyonder (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Marvel used 16-dimensional/higher-dimensional space to define the Living Tribunal in "Fantastic Four Annual 27". "Unstable Molecules" I think the story was called. You should know this by now, as you just attempted to summarise it. Regardless, how higher-dimensional space works in relation to lower-dimensional space is defined in Projective geometry. David A (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it was to describe his realm and himself as a character not the entire marvel community! and i stated before i want a legit source of where they stated to have anything to do with the theories and terms you used here as because 16th dimensional isn't much proof as a 5th dimensional imp from DC is higher than the theories suggest! that's proof they make based work off the concepts but don't use it 100% because each theories must connect and follow yet marvel doesn't! they have a term called Megaverse which doesn't exist......nor doesn't Omniverse so you see don't use concepts which isn't 1000% correct. Beyonder (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

16-dimensional means height, length, width, and 13 dimensions more. That is how the concept of higher-dimensional space fundamentally works. There is no point to using the term at all if the writers do not understand this fact. In addition, during the JLA story "Crisis Times Five" by Grant Morrison, the 5 dimensional imp Qwsp was defined as having length, height, width, as well as encompassing planar time, making 5 dimensions in total, and to be two degrees of infinity above Earth's superheroes by the android Hourman. They are where they are supposed to be. David A (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beyonder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonder omnipotence[edit]

88.109.107.47 and @BeyonderGod: the question of Beyonder's omnipotence should be discussed here, not spread across edit summaries on the article. As far as I can tell, the question of Beyonder's omnipotence has not been conclusively brought to consensus in previous conversations on this talk page. As the issue seems to be contentious, you are both violating the three-revert rule by continuing to revert each other.—Laoris (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laoris: here you go for more proof Jim Starlin States Pre-Retcon Beyonder is Omnipotent this was in The Living Tribunal handbook in 2006 the current handbook is about his current form a High level reality warper. Beyonder (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

I am not going to interfere, but just want to inform you that Jim Starlin is the artist who drew the Living Tribunal's handbook profile image, not the one who wrote that text. The Marvel handbooks are written by their interns, and the statistics written by Tom Brevoort. David A (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then Tom Brevoort and the interne stated it then. Beyonder (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Mutant/Inhuman retcon[edit]

The Bendis retcon that he was actually just a mutant inhuman was de-retconned by Hickman (or at some point earlier?), no? This could be clarified? john k (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember Hickman providing any explanation for why the Illuminati were completely wrong in the Bendis story, so it feels like the Bendis retcon was basically just ignored? Or is there something outside of Hickman's New Avengers/Secret Wars where the Illuminati retcon was already de-retconned? john k (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Baised/Hypocritical "Undo Edits" caused by David A/Argento Surfer[edit]

These edits seem to have been performed by the banned member BeyonderGod, as he links to his page Fictional Battle Omniverse. In any case, I have tried to keep the reliable references, but not all of them a factually stating what is claimed, and the character has shown limitations in both his power and knowledge.

— David A.

For the given context/content given by David A aka Antvasima, it comes to my attention after reading the talkpage is that David A isn't just afraid of actually refuting anyone but is egoistical and believes he has to be correct all the time well clearly...here he isn't and here is why.....

  1. The biased heat you have toward Fictional Battle Omniverse website is only between you and the user if you want to discuss the information go on his forum and actually debate him I am just citing where I got my information which hasn't been debunked.
  2. It's literally in my citations that you so ignorantly ignored has the citations where he literally states he sets his own limitations "willingly" and at anytime can do whatever he wants.

The other sources I use was Comicvine and the KMC forum so before trying to say you are keeping "reliable references" you clearly aren't and don't like someone sharing actual information that are correct,factual, and overall proven by the company. 2606:A000:6514:C200:293D:48BA:CFEA:8671 (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)2606:A000:6514:C200:293D:48BA:CFEA:8671[reply]

Look, BeyonderGod, I have long since moved on from our past disagreements, personally like the original Beyonder character, and think that Jim Shooter is severely underrated in terms of the huge beneficial impact that he had on Marvel Comics as a whole, but the term omnipotence means no limitations whatsoever per definition. The Beyonder was robbed of his power by Doctor Doom, overloaded by Rachel Summers, and severely weakened from destroying Death, among other things. That means, that no manner how many calims that are made that he was absolutely omnipotent, he still had some minor limitations, which means that we need to write "Near Omnipotence" instead.
In addition, he had to learn about humanity, first through tests, and then practical experience, which means that he did not quite know everything, so "Near Omniscience" is necessary as well.
Also, your edits were generally sloppily structured, linked to your own website, which is not a notable resource, a Twitter statement, and comicbook scans that were seemingly unrelated to what you were trying to say, which doesn't work for Wikipedia either.
I tried to incorporate the useful additions into the page though. David A (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beyonder&oldid=1199951454"