User talk:Legalese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RE: Amazing !

Dear Rishabh, Thanks for your kind words; I see you are from India, I've visited India twice over the last ten years but sadly never got to Rajasthan as yet. I am planning to visit again possibly next year at festival time; I spent Diwali 2003 in Deli, it was quite an experience, I have never seen so many fireworks! Where in the EU are you going? I am from London, UK, and have travelled quite a bit in the whole of Europe, and lived in Paris for a while as well. Wherever you are headed, good luck, I'm sure it will be an amazing journey. Best wishes - Solar 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santhara Perspectives

Rishabh,

Thank for your excellent edit to the Santhara paragraph in Jainism. The first paragraph of what you wrote is superb.

I have several requests, however. First, please do not impugn the abilities or motives of other editors. I strongly suggest that, when you calm down a bit, you review WP:FAITH and WP:CIV. WP:KC also has info that might help you. More on this subject below.

I did not say that the practice of Santhara is illegal. Dozens upon dozens of sources said so and I placed that information in an appropriate place within an appropriate article. I am neither a scholar on India's legal system nor Santhara and would be perfectly willing to acknowledge a mistake, but the prohibition on suicide in §309 (which I am amused to note you claim is in §307) is not the only thing at issue.

Dozens of protestors across India are charged with a criminal offence for taking a fast to the point where death is likely. In many cases, especially protests that embarrass local officials, the definition of "likely" is extremely subjective. Rajasthan is something of an exception due to the respect most local officials have for Jains. That does not make the difference of treatment fair, equitable or appropriate in the eyes of many Indians, especially those prevented from attempting to enter Rūpadhātu by an official who finds their fast inconvenient.

On to more substantive and contentious issues, the tone and substance of your talk page posts:

(1) You accused me, amongst a host of other things, of religious intolerance and "…hurt[ing] the religious sentiments of Jains…". Perhaps you may want to contemplate the effect of your own assertions that it is not comprehensible that anyone could see Santhara is illegal or that no question [can exist] regarding its illegality on Hindus prevented from a similar exit from this world, or on Fundamentalist Christians who view any self-release from "this mortal vale of tears" as an abomination and a direct insult to their god, or on non-secular Indians suffering from any number of diseases who are actively prevented from surcease of suffering by the Penal Code.

(2) Your additions (the two paragraphs you created after your excellent edit of my inadequate Santhara paragraph) are in my opinion so abysmally POV that your talk page statement about adding a "neutral picture" is astonishing. To me, they seem about as neutral a defence solicitor's brief. I would propose that they violate WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:FAITH and WP:CIV.

(3) Your snide little aside about "writing anything [I] feel like in the main page" is both insulting and condescending, and quite wrong. I spent several hours researching and distilling info prior to posting my Santhara edit; I would suggest that you do the same in future. I have yet to come across a single source supporting your concept of legality that was not authored from a Jain POV. Please provide your sources. I would also like to suggest you visit WP:KC. It has some excellent ideas you might be able to use.

(4) It is not a normal practise in Wikipedia to subject every edit for "prior approval" to some cabal on the talk page, especially if the new information is widely represented in respectable sources. My edit certainly falls into that category, whereas yours relies on a very creative interpretation of the Penal Code and a rather inflexible Jain POV.

(5) Claiming that my post was not reasoned is equally insulting and offensive, and a clear violation of WP:CIV and WP:FAITH. I would thank you not to repeat them. Againa, I'd like to point you toward WP:KC

(6) Editors, like BOTH of us, need to keep ALL users in mind, not just the subjects of articles. Remember that the primary audience for an article on a religion is those outside that faith; to present info that denigrates all other ideas is counterproductive, offensive and wrong. To claim that Christians perpetrated the Crusades and slaughtered Muslims is upsetting to Christians, but nevertheless accurate. If we only include comfortable information, we are not encyclopaedists, but propagandists.

I respect your contributions to articles on a host of Jain-related issues, and hope you will continue to help us build a superb and worldwide resource in Wikipedia. I understand your core objection to the substance of my post and like the edit you made to correct it. I do not, however, appreciate a public flogging over an edit that essentially reflected the general consensus view of hundreds of millions of people (and as many non-Jain sources as I could find) on the legal status of Santhara. Kevin/Last1in 04:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Status of Jainism as a Distinct Religion

I've cleaned-up and wikified the article Legal Status of Jainism as a Distinct Religion. Have a look at it. Some of the content still looks like original research and POV, though. utcursch | talk 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about use of swastika

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism#Same problem with the swastika on Jainism articles. Thank you, IZAK 09:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint against you

I have complained against your unscrupulous actions on the Talk-page of Dharmic religion to admin Jossi over here.

[edit] Discussion re the Complaint

Mr. Jossi, please have a look at this talk-page. An editor called Legalese has opened 2 entire sections that are deicated solely for my personal criticism, instead of having anything even slightly to do with the article itself. The sections are, "Be Civil IAF", and "On IAF's response to replying 10 times". I think this guy deserves at least a warning.

The "civility" that he professes, pertains to not making a Contempt of Court.

Also, for every edit that I have made in the main article, I have provided a rationale on the talk page. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)At the outset, I seek an apology if using some "name" in a sub-title is against wiki ethics or standards. (I confess, my ignorance if there exists any rule against it).

But, I do not accede to the allegation levelled by IAF in as much as he holds that the 2 sections are "solely for (his) personal criticism". You may please see the entire conversation taking place on that page, and also please note that while I tried to bring to the attention of the editor in question, several notable scholars' opinion, not just being indifferent to them, the editor continues to keep the article in question only as per his own point of view.

Furthermore, if you see what I actually wanted to point out was the mere fact that the kind of words, the editor in question used, were amounting to an offence of "Contempt" of the Apex Court of a Country.

If the user in question finds them to be personal attacks, then he is failing to appreciate the whole spirit of all of my submissions made on that page.

In any case, I submit to you that I do not believe in the "word-play or war", and if the user in question holds them offending, I seek an UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY. But at the same time, I stand firm on my point that the user in question is not being a good editor in deed or spirit, by the kind of changes the user is making to the article. It is highly objectionable.

I contend that in the first section, yes Legalese makes a valid point that he does majorly include points to support his edits also, but my assertion that the second section ("Be civil IAF") is meant solely for a personal attack. It merely has the cloak of redundant information i.e. which was already posted earlier by Legalese in another section, and its main aim (as the title itself suggests) is to lecture me about what he percieves is "civility". On this, Legalese definitely deserves a warning . Again, I may repeat that I have dealt with utmost consternation AND with due respect (while mentioning the Hon'ble SC) my opinion on the judgement which may qualify as Contempt of Court----something which Legalese has not and probably does not even bother to looking on the Talk-page. The purpose of repeatedly levelling baseless charges of Contempt of Court, despite my clarification on the same in the talk-page earlier is beyond my comprehension.

The charge that I am not being a "good" editor can only be levelled as a matter of opinion only, (which I too can leve back at him) and not as a complaint because Legalese is NOT an admin, has no authority, has had no authority on wikipedia on matters related to the judgement of the quality of articles, and even final arbitration on what constitutes as "good editing" or "Objectionable behaviour".

His lecture to me on civility (that too publicly on a talk-page and not on my user:page) is itself very appaling to me---who has been contributing to wikipedia since more than a year now. What is even more appaling is his assumption of a role as the Moral Guardian and as someone who discerns the quality of edits. For attempting to accuse me of AND impose the norms of "civility" and that too incongruous on a talk-page of an article and not personally on my own talk-page, Legalese deserves a warning.

Again, he talks of a noncoherent discussion on my part when it is apparent (by the date of edits) that he has taken the liberty to open section after section discussing either me, or my edits without replying where I had already given the reasons for my edits in another section. So who is being incoherent ?

Besides, I never said that I find the "word-war" offending to me on part of Legalese. So an Unconditional Apology on my part does not arise at all. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Dear Jossi, I am sorry for using so much of space on your talk page, as I do below. I am not too sure where am I am supposed to reply. Do please correct me if an admin's page is not the correct place.

Response to IAF 1. “Be Civil IAF” for personal attack? I pointed out, that the kind of language you are using “perceivably” for the judgment of a Court of law, is unsuited, and transgresses the “freedom of expression”. To this, you “clarified” that you intended to use it for some other editor’s arguments and not for the Court’s judgment. Though seemingly, your own original statement defeats such explanation (to quote you, you said Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement again and again to chew. I've trashed it already on this very talk page) because:

a. “Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement” , the use of “garbage” refers to the jugdgment and not to anyone’s arguments.

b. “. I've trashed it already on this very talk page” , the use of “it” refers to “the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement” which again is directly pointing to the judgment.

c. the whole of your statement does not make reference to any user, but for the use of the verb “salvaging”, thus you say for the user that he or she "salvaged" the “garbage” (which your statement uses for) “Supreme Court’s Judgment”(my point “a” above), and you hold that you “trashed” the “garbage” (my point “b” above) again implies that you hold that you “trashed” the Supreme Court’s Judgment.

In light of this, I still hold you committed a contempt of the Court, under Sec. 2 subsection (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, India (available for your reference at indiacode.nic.in). Even if you feel I intended to have a “personal attack” …so be it, (your feeling) for I still find it very important to point out a gross misuse of freedom of expression.

2. “Repeatedly Levelling baseless charges of Contempt”? It is only that section “Be Civil IAF” where I brought to your attention the fact that you need to be careful, where did I repeat it? But for now, where I had to “explain” it because ( I felt that) you did not understand it previously.

I tried to show above, how the “charge” was not baseless.

3. I never “complained” to anyone about your edits. You made the complain, and I merely put up my stance, not even a counter-complain. It is surely my opinion, but please keep in mind, as I already stated, I have concern only with your edits, and not with you. So, be it good or bad, is your edits, and not you. Hence, you would always remain a “ good editor” for I am in deep appreciation of everyone who contributes to Wiki, for I personally feel it is the most majestic (and largely well functioning) manifestation of the “freedom of expression”. (Though, a “good editor” like you, may have certain “ bad edits”, to which I pointed out).

4. Do I deserve a warning? I might or I might not, for I am unaware of the benchmarks ….as to what may attract a warning. But, as I said above, I still hold you as a “good editor”. And I point out certain bad edits, ...out of the billions on this earth, why should I even bother to have ill-will against one random being. If the supervisor may so find that I have committed a breach of any rules, I might be liable for a warning. However, let me again reinstate that in good faith, whatever I said, if it hurt you, or offended you, I withdraw and hold an apology.

5. Please explain: I still do not understand, of all things, why would you just DELETE the 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court, from the article. Isn’t that being really “unfair”, that you simply erase such an important piece of information only because it goes against how you want the article to be?

The following is how you explain, why you deleted it: “”Again before blatantly and base-lessly accusing me of deleting something simply because you say that I don't like it, I may point the finger back at you for never reading what I've commented earlier. I repeat, that is a judgement pertaining to a STATE, and not the Union of India. The Bal Patil judgement pertained to the Union of India (the case was Bal Patil vs. the Union of India) and it was therein that the SC made the observation that "Jainism is a sub-religion of Hinduism etc...." .””

But as I have already shown, you are neither aware nor trying to accept, the concept of implied overruling, or how the mere name of a case, does not limit its application to subjects. I detail below again, for your kind reference.

5.a You tried to insist that there is no “implied overruling” whereas, you were not even aware of what this legal concept is…and had I not mentioned that I am a student of law, you would perhaps have still insisted that “implied overruling” is how you define it to be (viz. in your words, “The SC's latest opinon is NOT an overruling implied, otherwise it would have been explicitly mentioned as it is in other cases. The judgement itself makes no mention of it anywhere as it always is in case of overrulings of previous judgements. It simply says that its an "interesting observation". That by itself is no implication of an overruling”)

5.b You tried to show that because the Bal patil judgment has “Union” in the name title, and the UP Shiksha judgment has “State”…the former applies to the Union, and the latter applies only to the “State”. This was a most inarticulate, and wholly illogical (also infra-legal, and incorrect per the established jurisprudence) explanation. I submitted to you how the “Supreme Court of India Rules” govern how a case is named, and illustrated how the case of "M.C. Mehta v. UT of Delhi", should apply, only to the territory of Delhi per your logic, BUT this is a Supreme Court Case , which governs the application of precautionary principle of Environmental Law THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

The above, that is 5.a and 5.b are illustrations, why I hold that you are not being FAIR. You will give an argument absolutely only to suit your stance(viz, the explanation of implied overruling and the explanation of “state” and “union” in the name title”, and try to explain it in such whimsical fashion, devoid of facts and evidence rather going against what are established principles(which I showed how you are being totally incorrect). Only because I revealed that I am a law student, you witheld and said “you will reply later”( you wrote on the talk page, “OK so you reveal only NOW, albeit "nonchalantly", that you are a student of Law. So I'll discuss the legal part later on”), if you were unaware, why did you try to give such explanations at all (on, your explanation of implied overruling and the explanation of “state” and “union” in the name title”), while you knew that you do not know how it really goes.

6. Objections to methodology: Apart from the above illustrations, on how you try to use anything and everything just to support your stance, I also do not understand how can such blanket statement be made at all…as you wrote "because these core ideas of Jainsm & Buddhism are ideas that have clearly been loaned from Vedic Sanskrit literature and were NOT developed independently" What do you know about these core ideas of Jainism, and Buddhism to make such a statement? What do you know about how Jainism and Buddhism developed, in such comprehensive way, that you hold that these ideas “did NOT develop independently” at all? Kindly explain? What do you know about the concept of "Moksha" and "Nirvana" in Jainism? How do you know if the theory of "rebirth" is not different in Jainism?. Please do not impose so vehemently such blanket statements on wiki users.

[edit] the discussion for which the matter arose

Legalese 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Hey, merely repeating 10 times in a noncoherent way would not change the fact of the matter. Have you taken the pain of going through the opinions I submitted for everyone's consideration? If not, please do it now. "The stuff" you wrote on SC's present judgment is not correct in as much as the doctrine of "implied overruling" is applicable. Please understand that judgments of a Court of Law hold more water than the statements of "a degree in Chinese Medicine Holder's". Of course, needless to say that the Supreme Court has only clarified the stance which Professors from Yale and other "reputed universities" have already stated. Please IAF, do not, for the sake of making a point, overrule all notions of logic, or even plain civility. We all are here to make WIKI a better knowledge and information system, not just to prove our points. I hope you will appreciate. And I still wait for your reply, as to WHY did you simply DELETE the latest judgment which goes, as it seems, against the shape you want this article to take. Only because it goes against you, you delete it outright? That is not good in the spirit of WIKI.

If I have repeated something 10 times then have YOU read it ? I have even replied to all your,points above.

Legalese, why can't you keep the discussion only on one section (the one started by Vassyana) ? Why do you and AnishShah start separate sections altogether to rebuke what I said ? "On IAF's response to 10 times...", "On IAF's edits....". Do you even know how to use a talk page or simply like creating newer sections ? So you're the one who is actually being noncoherent. If I'm not mistaken, I gave you the link to the appropriate section also earlier. If you still haven't read it, or can't read it or don't want to read it is not my problem. I don't expect you to see the old Dharmic Religions talk-page. Besides, do point out for everyone's sake where have I held a private hobbyist's opinion to be legally bindng on all of the Indian Republic.

Anyway, I'll write it all over again and in the process, teach YOU some Legalese... The SC's latest opinon is NOT an overruling implied, otherwise it would have been explicitly mentioned as it is in other cases. The judgement itself makes no mention of it anywhere as it always is in case of overrulings of previous judgements. It simply says that its an "interesting observation". That by itself is no implication of an overruling.

Again before blatantly and base-lessly accusing me of deleting something simply because you say that I don't like it, I may point the finger back at you for never reading what I've commented earlier. I repeat, that is a judgement pertaining to a STATE, and not the Union of India. The Bal Patil judgement pertained to the Union of India (the case was Bal Patil vs. the Union of India) and it was therein that the SC made the observation that "Jainism is a sub-religion of Hinduism etc...." .

DO recall that Nationally Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are NOT religious minorities, but only POPULOUS minorities. That's why the judgement in agreement with that.

Now I hope you know that that different states in India have accorded minority status to Jains/Buddhists. So was the case in the state of UP, of which the SC has pronounced its latest judgement.

And for the last time, I repeat :- Jainism and Buddhism have a liturgy that is in Sanskrit---which was originally not just used, but developed for composing the RV, AV, YV and the SV. Ideas like Moksha and rebirth occurs in the Vedanta first and then simply rephrased by the Buddha and Jain tirthankars later on. They DO NOT predate or were even synchronous with the composition of the Vedas. They all were documented much later onwards.

Sanskrit is the key-word, which was originally developed for the Vedas and later on whose usage and liturgy was copied by latter cults which grew into religions like Jains and Buddhists. Anyway, forget Jains, even within Hinduism also there are many protestant groups like the Arya-Samajis (who don't worship idols or other gods & goddesses), the Vaishnavites (who can't tolerate anything else but Vishnu; they don't even read the Vedas), the Shaivites etc.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Legalese I'll respond point wise to you, IAF. 1.Implied Overruling: May I please bring to your kind notice, that the doctrine of "implied overruling" is exactly about the ABSENCE of an " explicit mention" of the previous case, hence it is "implied" and not "express". I hope this clarifies to you that your stance is not correct. Though, I welcome your effort to teach me some legalese. 2. Whether Judgment pertains to a "state": and on what basis do you conclude that the judgment pertains to a state, and not to the Union...only because of the name title? Please have the Supreme Court of India Rules 1969 which explain how the name titles of cases are kept. If I go by your logic, than the case of "M.C. Mehta v. UT of Delhi", should apply, only to the territory of Delhi. (This is a Supreme COurt Case of 1987, which governs the application of precautionary principle of Environmental Law THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY). Also, if you may please read the case at hand, the paragraph where the observation in question has been made, the Supreme Court Judge who wrote the judgment did not really qualify his statement with the words (that this observation would apply to the State of UP, ONLY). 3. Liturgy in Sanskrit: I am sorry, but the Jain texts (Aagams) are not in Sanskrit at all. They are in Prakrit and Pali. Also, the Buddhist (tripitaks) are in Pali and Prakrit, and not sanskrit. Perhaps, you might wish to check again with your sources on which you say that these texts are in sanskrit. 4. The concept of Moksha is drastically different in Jains and Buddhists, qua the Hinduism belief. Infact, even amongst Jains and Buddhists, there exist differences. On the 4 points that I submit, if you have any clarification, you may please revert. I request you again to withold your edits, on the question of whether Jainism or Buddhism existed prior to Hinduism, for you still not have been able to resolve how you are going to counter the consistent version of several professors who specialise on the subject, and some of whom are from Universities as prestigious as the Yale. Largely, may I request you to take all of this in good spirit, and I proactively say a "sorry", if you may find any of the above offending, however not at all would it be any of my intentions. While you analyse a judgment of a court of law, please bear in mind that they are not pieces of literature, but could be technical pieces based on concrete evidence laid before the Court. In any case, once the Supreme Court pronounces something, atleast for India, it becomes the "law of the land" per Art. 141 of the Constitution.I thank you again for your offer to teach me legalese, and would be glad to...for I am surely wanting to do a PhD in law, after my present masters and my previous five year law graduation.

OK so you reveal only NOW, albeit "nonchalantly", that you are a student of Law. So I'll discuss the legal part later on. I don't want you to apologize for anything because I never asked for an apology though I did complain against you to an admin. I'll discuss the 2 remaining points here :-

Pali & Prakrit : The very fact that the liturgy of Jaina literature is in Pali proves that the Jain pantheon does NOT predate the Vedic religion. Vedic Sanskrit was the oldest language of the sub-con and is a member of the Indo-European familiy and the Proto-Indo-Iranian language family. The RigVeda is the oldest attested composition of literature of the Sub-con (along with the other 3 Vedas of course), and it is in none other but Sanskrit.

Pali is a Prakritic language and originated at a much much later date (around the time of the Buddha). Prakit itself has a much latter date of development than Sanskrit.

Moksha and Rebirth : I never refered to the finer nuances of Moksha and re-birth. I refered to its being originally a Vedic concept that has been fully expounded earlier in the Vedas in its absolute meaning. Same goes for rebirth, which holding the virtue of being a Sanskrit word and having being elaborated in the Vedas, is an idea which clearly predates the Buddhist and Jaina pantheons.

Hence the statement >> Dharmic religions....which encompass the Vedic religion (now Hinduism) and the 3 other religions that have spawned from it..... I can say spawned from it because these core ideas of Jainsm & Buddhism are ideas that have clearly been loaned from Vedic Sanskrit literature and were NOT developed independently. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Again, this is not fair. 1. Only because I am a student of law, you would reply later? Which means, had it been otherwise, you still would have held "your version" on the judgment, and kept on repeating it as you did above? Please, IAF, this is not fair. 2. Only because something goes against, the way you want it to be, you can use any means to put your point? (viz. your explanation of the doctrine of "implied overruling", which you did just to support your stance? Whereas, in its present frame, your explanation most clearly reveals that you are not aware, even a bit of these nuances.) 3. Jain literature is in Prakrit, and a. your argument that Prakrit came subsequent to sanskrit, b. because prakrit came subsequent to sanskrit, Jainism came subsequent to Hinduism...is logically flawed. It is, analogically, similar to an argument, where if I was born in 1900, and you were in 1950, and because you started talking in 1951, and I did in 1952....I become "subsequent" to you? Literature is only an expression. Infact, Jains are colloquially called "Nirgranths" i.e. one without granths or religious texts. 4. Further, for your information, the first Veda, Rigveda, has a mention of Tirthankar Rishabh Dev. Hence your version doesnt stand at all. (if you want, I can supply you the exact citation from Rigveda...if you so wish, you may also do a little bit of googling to find it). Again, I have no benefit in levelling anything against you, and let me please make it clear, I am writing this, not against you, but against what you wrote. 5. I strongly object to your statement "because these core ideas of Jainsm & Buddhism are ideas that have clearly been loaned from Vedic Sanskrit literature and were NOT developed independently" What do you know about these core ideas of Jainism, and Buddhism to make such a statement? Kindly explain? What do you know about the concept of "Moksha" and "Nirvana" in Jainism? How do you know if the theory of "rebirth" is not different in Jainism?

Hold back, do not go to the extent of being RIDICULOUS, please. Just because you want to make a point, you will say anything and everything to support your stance? Again, at the cost of repetition, let me say, PLEASE, BE FAIR.Legalese 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done Legalese !!! You have pointwise replied to IAF. All scholars agree that Jainism is a unique and a seperate religion from Hinduism. We have nothing against Hinduism and have an equal respect for its philosophy. But to say that Jainism is an offshoot of Hinduism would be great travesty of Truth. It may be difficult to accept the truth but the evidence is there if one removes ones ideolgical blindfold . Thanks Legalese for carring out the debate rationally and in a polite and cultured manner that reflects the principles of Jainism.--Anishshah19 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar proposals?

Propose or vote for a barnstar for WikiProject Jainism at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jainism#Barnstar: Propose.2Fvote. --queso man 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jainism_and_non-creationism

Jainism_and_non-creationism has been rated as Start class Article. I bvelieve that it to be at GA class and should be rated atleast "B" Class. Please provide your comments. Thanks --Anish Shah 06:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little context in Jain Community Associations/ Study Centres in the West

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jain Community Associations/ Study Centres in the West, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jain Community Associations/ Study Centres in the West is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jain Community Associations/ Study Centres in the West, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)