Talk:Vajra

message: Note on assessment: Article is informative, but lacks any inline references. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *
**
**
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.76.245 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.76.245 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbols

message: Shouldn't there be more on the ghanta (bell) and it's use with the dorje? 72.68.162.155 (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ghanta

message: There is some dispute as to the removal of some content from this article. The IP who wants to remove it has commented on my talk page, but the discussion really needs to be conducted here, so here is a copy of that comment with my reply...
Whats to discuss, WP:V says provide RS, preferably inline, or material may be removed ? Any editor who feesl strongly about the article, and wants to save it, can provide RS. 188.116.2.127 (talk)
:Yes, that means it may be (as in "it might be", not as in "you may") removed after the appropriate policy has been followed - it does not give you permission to remove it on sight (though there are some cases where that can be done, like unsourced defamatory claims in a BLP, but that is covered elsewhere). The policy is to tag existing unreferenced material with, for example,  - see Template:Citation needed, which will add the article to :Category:Articles with unsourced statements, bringing it to the attention of editors who may try to improve it by looking for references. They need to be given a reasonable time in which to do that, and if the material in question is not contentious, the consensus seems to be that that time can be quite long. Also, you should not remove article content if a discussion shows that you do not have consensus for its removal (see WP:Consensus), and as I currently dispute your removal, that means you do not have consensus. I have reverted your removal of the content again, as you should not remove content when it is still under discussion on the Talk page. I will add the  tags myself shortly. -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've tagged the appropriate statements and sections with the relevant tags (and in the process, I noticed that your large-scale removal of content also removed some material that did cite references). If and when I have time, I will investigate this myself and see if I can find any suitable references. -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no "content dispute" with you. As I have absolutely no interest in the subject matter of this article or the actual contents thereof, the question of reaching "consensus" does not arise. My only concern is that generally this article (and numerous others like it) must be well referenced from reliable sources. Shall we wait 3 days ? Somendas (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we do have a content dispute - you say that the content should be removed quickly, and I say it should not - that's a dispute. And consensus does arise - consensus over whether the material in question should be deleted. We will not wait 3 days, we will proceed by accepted policy, and now that the content in question is properly tagged, we will wait long enough to give others a chance to improve those articles - I will seek guidance as to how long later, when I have time. If you continue your blanking while our dispute is unresolved, that will constitute edit warring - see WP:EDITWAR, and you could be blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:Boing!.  We must definitely proceed in Good Faith (on this article or if we ever cross paths again) strictly as per accepted policy which is summarised in WP:5P. Firstly, please adhere to WP:Civility, you have needlessly imputed that I am a "vandal" and have also threatened me with "blocking" notwithstanding that I have always treated you with respect and consideration while clearly indicating the policy WP:V I was following. It was my considered view when I came across it, that this article reeked of Original Research specifically concerning a WP:UNDUE weightage towards Buddhism. The applicable policy WP:EP is unambiguous that content must be verifiable WP:V, if not it "may" (which I interpret as "can") be removed. Furthermore, WP:BURDEN places the onus of proof on the editor who adds or restores material. As you have restored the unreferenced material I had deleted, the onus of proof is now primarily on you to provide sources. I think 3 days is more than sufficient for referencing a low level article like this. You may also note the following before describing me as a "vandal" (which I resent) a) I have not added or restored any content to this article but only deleted unreferenced content b) I have not "edit warred" or crossed 3RR at any stage, c) I have always described (through edit summaries) my edit actions d) I have engaged in talk with you to the extent of providing my UserHandle for better communication in the event of my IP address getting altered. Finally, there is no content dispute between us, because I don't give a s*** about the actual content of this article, as long as it is relevant and properly referenced. My editing approach is that of a regular reader of Wikipedia who is often fed up with dubious and false articles, and who knows s*** when he sees it.Somendas (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Somendas, thanks for your thoughts. I'm very happy to consider them, and having looked at a number of your previous edits, I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith. I would very much like to discuss this with you, and would be very happy to do so over the next week or so. However, you absolutely do not have the right to impose a 3-day deadline on this, and you really do need to give other people time to think and act. I also see large inconsistencies in your claims, but I need to sleep now and will expand further tomorrow. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I won't expand further now, as an admin has confirmed, below, that you should not be blanking this material, other than to point out that the "onus of proof" bit that you quoted above applies to material that has been properly removed according to Wikipedia policy, not to stuff that you have blanked on sight without a valid reason -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi dab, thanks for that. I'll try to improve the references myself as and when I have time - just a bit too busy for a while. I've also removed the section tags I inserted, seeing as you have placed a  tag on the article as a whole. (The same IP has been selectively blanking content from other Hinduism-related articles too, but I'll keep an eye on them) -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:Dab. On what basis do you presume to describe me as "badass" ?  FYI, the policy on what is termed "deletionism" here is still fluid. WP:EP states "Editors need to be aware that unsourced information may be challenged and removed (WP:BURDEN), because within Wikipedia no information is better than misleading or false information— Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopaedia depends on the information within articles being verifiable and reliable. The concerned policy then goes on to state Depending on the degree of its suspected inaccuracy or negative impact, the information may be removed either immediately or after sources have been requested and none has been provided for some time. Accordingly any editor (and admins are not super-editors) has the right to remove the material immediately if he/she considers the information "suspect". Furthermore, at the present time I dispute that Vajra is an "important concept" in either Buddhism or Hinduism. A google book search for "vajra" threw up only 10 Ghits. Accordingly, I suspected that this lengthy article on a Religious subject (alway controversial) violated WP:NOR and WP:V and after due consideration of the degree of negative impact, deleted it immediately per policy. Had I also deleted the much smaller section on Hinduism, there would have been nothing surviving in the article. I may also point out that wherever 2 interpretations / options are permissible, no editor (admin or not) can impose their views unilaterally without either achieving consensus or pursuing dispute resolution. Furthermore, nothing (except courtesy to my fellow editors) requires me to locate sources for dubious matter I have neither added nor modified. Also, anyone who reads this Talk page will observe that I am not the only editor to note that this article has had no inline references since 2008 - this also caused me to delete the uncited material immediately. Lastly, as Wikipedia's secure login is buggy with my preferred browser (Opera 7/8), I purposely dont login here if I am using a public / shared terminal, so AGF before speculating, especially as my editing is not disruptive / vandalism but policy based no matter how much we disagree on its interpretation.Somendas (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of content

message: Not a single word is mentioned here of the vajra's origin as a weapon. Maybe most editors here only know of the vajra through Buddhism but it was historically used as a weapon in Asian martial arts. Morinae (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say some editors come here not because of religion or martial arts, but because a "dorje" is a psionic implement in the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. CapnZapp (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapon 

message: Diamond can cut diamond, but vajra cannot cut itself.  Diamond can be destroyed by nuclear bomb, but vajra can not.71.251.34.184  16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "diamond" to "something more durable than diamond" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vajra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070421195923/http://www.urday.com:80/dadichi.html to http://www.urday.com/dadichi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified