Talk:cyberpathy

RFV discussion: January–March 2022
– Jberkel 17:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I found quite a few hits, but this was the first I found:
 * 2004, Bangalore Theological Forum - Volume 36 page 65:
 * Cyberpathy is is the hermeneutical invasion and the emotional embracing of what is truly simulated in order to understand the needs of dislocated people in cyberspace beyond the limitations of place, race, gender and culture. PanicAtYeeDisco (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like a . – Jberkel 13:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bangalore cite is a different sense, and the other two are just list of words, not real uses (Wikipedia dumps). The other source (Oris, Iissiidiology) is machine-generated Vogon poetry: “A separate topic in the Fundamentals is consideration of near-lluuvvumic multipolarization of realizational Forms of multidimensional LLUU-VVU-Entity, role of diffuzgent Proto-Forms-Form-Creators in lluuvvumic Synthesis Scheme ”. Thanks for your efforts, but these cites aren't usable. – Jberkel 22:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. Just because something appears in a list does not mean it is a mention and not a use. The question is what the list is doing. These quotes have the list conveying meaning: the 2015 states that the elements in the list are superpowers "which have been brought into human FD from other Synthesis Schemes", and the 2019 quote states that the elements of the list are the psychic powers of "scanners". Neither is a list that merely says "Here is a list of names for types of psychic powers". RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you actually look at the stuff you're citing? It's machine-generated crap based on content from Wikipedia. Compare the 2019 cite with w:Special:Permalink/832680602: " plans to showcase a powerful new potential weapon: "scanners"; psychics with powers including telepathy/mind-control, empathy, biopathy, cyberpathy/technopathy, and psychokinesis/telekinesis". – Jberkel 23:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the cites provided do not meet the requirements to pass this RFV, only one of them seems to match the definition (which might be wrong, or incomplete, or one of many) and that matching cite is certainly not usage, it is a definition. - TheDaveRoss  13:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reopened the RFV. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed – Jberkel 07:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)