Talk:India discontinues ₹500, ₹1000 denominations; releases ₹2000 and new ₹500 bills

Redlink

Just a note, that one of the gallery images is a redlink atm. --Pi zero (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notes

• ATMs remained closed on November 9.
• Many shops did not accept 500 and 1000 rupee notes.
• Holders of the notes were tensed and waited for hours to exchange money of Friday.
• When I purchased goods worth 10 and 20 rupees but gave a 100 rupee bill, they were not happy.
• Some ATMs were unguarded, but at one ATM, I was asked not to take the photo.
• Other ATM ran out of cash and the guard asked us to come next day. To avoid rush, he suggested to come at midnight.
• Though money could be exchanged till December 30, people were trying to get rid of the old notes as quick as possible.
  Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 20:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: extensive materials related to the jeweler shop were communicated via scoop and other off-wiki means. --Pi zero (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of external link

Well, the video is available on Narendra Modi's website which is listed in the source. So, please add the YouTube link to external source.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 05:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add that

Indian currency is also used in Nepal and Bhutan. I will add it later, src to consider:

• http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/nepal-again-bans-use-of-rs-500-1000-indian-notes-4368224/
• https://thehimalayantimes.com/business/requested-reserve-bank-of-india-facility-exchange-inr-500-inr-1000-notes/
• http://thewire.in/79001/nepal-and-bhutan-feel-ripples-from-modis-war-on-corruption/
  Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 06:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4262931 [Passed]

Revision 4262931 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The new notes, 2000 and 500 were obviously mean to be included in the article — mentioned in the headline, first image, and one source was dedicated to the topic — but somehow didn't find its way into the article text, except for an indirect mention of the 2000 note. Since it obviously had to be done, I cautiously made a minimal change to that effect, centered closely on the passage in the text that requires it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4262931 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The new notes, 2000 and 500 were obviously mean to be included in the article — mentioned in the headline, first image, and one source was dedicated to the topic — but somehow didn't find its way into the article text, except for an indirect mention of the 2000 note. Since it obviously had to be done, I cautiously made a minimal change to that effect, centered closely on the passage in the text that requires it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

• Although I've generally understood the 24-hour archiving horizon to be when substantive changes have to be published, just as freshness is about when an article is published rather than when it is written, in this case I've been relaxed about it. The late edits had, so I understand, been intended by the reporter from around article publication, but there were no reviewers around when the late edits were submitted (a matter of time zones). I scaled back the changes a bit, and kept in mind that the added material is well down the inverted pyramid of a fair-sized article. I don't mean to set some sort of precedent; if we treated each thing that sometimes gets allowed here as a "precedent", our standards would just gradually fall to pieces — sice there's no way to tighten up a particular article later. --Pi zero (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} Replace the images from Wikimedia Commons with the ones available in Wikinews, tagged under fair use.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 07:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC) +

@Pi zero: the images of the notes have been tagged for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Please replace them with the fair use images. Or probably the fair use media has the same name and the deletion would not cause any trouble?
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 06:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• On hold These will need a fair use rationale; the Indian Copyright Act is a nice touch, but extra; Wikinews is hosted in the US. I could quite easily write one up, but it's always good to get some practice in if you'll be using fair use images from time to time. Strictly, it's supposed to be a separate rationale for each article used in (tips: write about the importance of the image for the article used, why nothing else will do, and why the use will not negatively affect the copyright holder for a strong rationale). BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: can we finally make the move to make use of the fair use images?
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@AGastya: I've lost track of what was going on with this. Were the images locally uploaded under fair use? If so, under what names? --Pi zero (talk)

@Pi zero: When I wrote Delhi High Court restores copyright infringement case at Delhi University, I read that Government (Indian) work is copyrighted for sixty years. And I uploaded the images locally.

• File:A 2000 rupee note (fair use).jpg
• File:500 rupee notes (fair use).jpg

At the same time, those images were deleted from Commons, as expected.
acagastya 08:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: BRS has pointed out the fair-use rationale still needs to be taken care of. --Pi zero (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Sorry I missed you on IRC. I would suggest taking a look at existing uses of template {{fair use}} (via Whatlinkshere). --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

flow

@Pi zero: The flow of the article is broken due to additional space.
acagastya 01:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Image caption with license notice

The ‘Inter’ of Interfaith Initiatives: reflections on Delhi and Will honesty prevail now?. Found a couple of pages which reused my photos mentioning it is under CC license. Just because this is a "Wiki" does not mean every single photo is under CC license. The photo license does not permit reuse. Hence, it is best if we mention the license in the caption. ***acagastya has informed those websites to take down those images, but this measure would be best to avoid such cases in future.
•–• 11:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: That seems a practical reason to provide some such information; not, as I understand, a legal requirement, so we're free to choose the form, but some sort of thing ought to be arranged. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: looks like you are bringing up another related issue. Let me first sort that. This image in question is not licensed under any Creative Commons license. I am the author of image and I did not give up any of my rights, when I uploaded it on Wikinews. Indian Copyright Act grants the Fair Use of the image but that does not mean anyone is free to reuse the media for any purpose. No, those who want to use it still need to take my permission and their usage should also pass the fair use reasoning.

As far as link of the license is concerned for CC licensed content, the license clearly states that a link to the license must be provided. If it is not possible to do that in the caption, it should be explicitly stated after the article. Their best practices explains how to do it. But what we have been doing is relying on the link to individual files for their license and link to the license. That is incorrect. Consider re-reading the license terms and requirements for this.
•–• 14:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It may look to you as if I was bringing that up. Why it's not a legal problem has been explained to you multiple times by now, as I recall, but doesn't get through. --Pi zero (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just like how I have said the same thing over and over again, quoting, showing examples and even a confirmation email from Creative Commons, but doesn’t get through. Frankly speaking, I have started to think you have not gone through the license and as a whole, we are discouraging the spirit of “free images” by not complying with the license requirements.
•–• 14:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)