Talk:Perfection

message: Is it really necessary to have all those pictures on here? I don't see how they're at all relevant, "Oh and this is how the philosophers who thought about this subject looked - ALL OF THEM"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.177.163 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of Pictures 

message: The table of contents appears as a right sidebar, as opposed to being an element in the page.  Likely the result ofd a syntax error.  Kind of ironic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Jwh335 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: I have no expertise here.  I came to this from the entry on Perfect numbers.  This section seems to be messy and lacks citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.62.85 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Perfect Number Section of the Perfection Wikipedia entry 

message: Based on my suggestions and Amory's above; starting list now to get the ball rolling. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tentative list of images to keep

message: I'd like to add a note somewhere here about perfect flowers, which is a commonly used synonym for bisexual flowers, but I don't see an appropriate place. Could I get some help? Thanks. Dcoetzee 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I've started a "See also" section with an entry for "Perfect flower (bisexual flower)."  Such flowers, I gather, take their name from the criterion of completeness.  Nihil novi (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect flower? 

message: It would be interesting to learn about this concept from the cultural perspectives of various  groups, such as the Asian philosophers and mathematicians, the original Americans, island cultures, Central African groups, the Ancient Egyptians, and so on.  I wonder if there is an absence of the concept or if it is viewed differently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global intellect (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Bias 

message: I find the concept ridiculous without a for what, like a concept that have run wild and far out of context, c.f. Free will (to what, in what situation?). Are there any authors/philosophers (except of course implicitly Ludwig Wittgenstein) that criticises the concept? Then it should be in the article.
A similar question is: what's the difference between an elephant? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I can't do it because I don't have an account, but could someone please state, in the paradox section,  after the words "("perfectio complementii").," that possibility for improvement can be considered to be an imperfection, and that unchangeability can thus be seen as a perfection?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.134.169 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: There are some major problems with the theology section.  Aquinas said that perfection belonged to God long before Descartes.  C.f. question 4 Summa Theologiae  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.226.65 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology 

message: Suggest renaming to 'Ethics and religion'. They are actually two different things.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.128.107 (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics section 

message: I was called here from WP:AN. The result of the discussion is maintain status quo. The current version of the article, which was edited about two months ago around the time of the above discussion, says the following:
The paradox of perfection—that imperfection is perfect—applies not only to human affairs, but to technology. Thus, irregularity in semiconductor crystals (an imperfection, in the form of contaminants) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of regularity, and that of utility. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful.[7]
There's nothing wrong or inappropriate about saying that imperfections in technology are sometimes necessary. It's not undue weight. One paragraph is about what that concept is worth. Chutznik (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing

message: At 14:40 (UTC), on the 31st January 2013 contributions I have made adding a Perfection#Perfection paradoxes in technology section have been completely undone by Arthur Rubin (talk) with the following motivation:</tt>
:Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro (talk): Better without your blank lines and overlinking 
It looks Point of view  to me and a violation to Neutral point of view that editors would normally expect from an Administrator which hasn't even participated in comments on this talk page Tunnel diode section about the contribution.
Comments are welcome. Thanks.
  M aurice   Carbonaro  07:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthur Rubin is right.  The "paradox of value" is irrelevant to the theme of the "Paradoxes" section of the "Perfection" article; and the section's sub-heading, "Perfection paradoxes in technology," which was gratuitously introduced by Maurice Carbonaro and has been deleted by Arthur Rubin, is superfluous.  Nihil novi (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POV|POV]] or [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]?  

message: Rousseau didn't say the perfection was in a lost "golden age". That's an old misunderstanding. He only talks about a hypothetical more perfect past when men lived in harmony with nature to deny natural law's thought and claim a less artificial civilisation. If he did otherwise, the quote in the article against chimeric aims it's wrong...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.23.240 (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rousseau & Golden Age 

message: I know this is most likely stupid but and you will deny my request. But ill still ask it mine and my fiancés 4 year anniversary.  And she's down in the dumps about her looks and i don't want that i asked her  what she said would make her believe me that she's perfect she said if i see my name next to the deffinition jokingly of course. Her name is Sarah Prehara I'm not like asking for a day here or a permeant  change five minutes  2 min anything so i can just show her it to make our anaversary better. i understand the accuracy and importance of this website and it need to be accurate. and I'm not asking this as some one wanting to deceive people I'm asking it to you as a person if you have ever cared for a loved one and would do anything to change there sadness and self image to at least consider it for your intergrity  you can not i understand, but know that this would mean a world of difference to her. i Thank you for listening to my request and if you do decide to please let me know asap so i can show her and screen shot it so you can change the page back to accuracy. my specific request is  Please chance the deffinition to include Sarah Prehara  
thank you,
Russ 
Dr.eveland (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I'm sorry, that simply isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Unless you have a reliable source indicating such..... -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014 

message: 2600:8807:C00B:8D00:2027:8A34:6706:8EF (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017 

message: Kasey Austin Scooternoscooting (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018 

message: Perfection is a state of flawlessness where there is no error, this term is often used in Technology, beauty, software, and others of that sort, an example of the use perfection is,"Gabriela is pure perfection, she is able to pull anything off", an example of technical perfection is something like, the united states has to have vehicles that are near perfection to ensure safety of soldiers." GAMEINHD (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018 

message: BTS is a great example of perfection Beritha7768 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: .  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Perfect (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: My dog (Wicket) is a great example of 'perfection' Hybrid5150yt (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024