Talk:I Not Stupid Too

message: * This film is completely different form the first one. But the direction of these two episodes are the same, both want to bring out every child has their own excellence for their parents to be proud of. Parents should look more at their child's good ways, not just only scold about all the things they did. If they had tried their best, parents should be appreciate about it.
And the small actors acted very well in this film. They could express out how teenagers feel in this present society, facing the stress in schools, family, or maybe sometimes from money. This is a really good film!
And Shawn is very handsome!=]
--Lamlamb 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :Proofread by Liquidfire1 (talk) – 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: :Image:INotStupidToo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:INotStupidToo.jpg

message: A year ago this month, this article was promoted as a Good Article.  Changes since the promotion are reflected in this diff, and I would like to conduct an annual review to ensure that the changes are appropriate.  Here are my thoughts:
*Should the flag icons belong in the infobox?  My impression was that based on the Manual of Style, they do not.
*"...was released in cinemas on 26 January 2006" was changed to "...was released in cinemas on 27 January 2006".  Is this a valid change?  The cited sentence in the article body endorses "26 January".
*"Filming took place at Saint Hilda's Primary School and at Presbyterian High School (for the caning scene in the school hall, which faithfully followed the corporal punishment procedure used in real life at that school)..."  The statement in parentheses was added without a citation.  If this is valid, a citation should be added, and if not, it should be removed.
*"A TV version of I Not Stupid Too, consisting of 13 half-hour episodes, was broadcast on Channel 8 every Saturday from 9.00pm to 9.30pm, starting 23 September 2006." → "A TV version of I Not Stupid Too, consisting of 44 65-min episodes, was broadcast on Channel 8 every Weekday from 8.00pm to 9.05pm, starting 18 June 2007 end final 17 August 2007."  This is a pretty big change of information with no change to the citation itself.  Are the episodes a half-hour long or not?  The citation is not specific about these details.
*I would endorse the removal of the screenshots in the article body per WP:FILMNFI.  They are decorative in nature and do not serve as visual aid for any critical commentary in the article.
Thoughts from others? Erik (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for conducting this annual review. The changes to the release date and the schedule of the TV version appear to be anonymous vandalism. I do not know whether the caning scene "faithfully followed the corporal punishment procedure...used in that school", but regardless of whether the statement is true, it seems irrelevant. I have undone these edits. You may wish to consult others on the flagicon issue, as I know very little about the MOnSter and have no personal preference. I do prefer to keep the screenshots, which show key scenes that illustrate issues examined in the movie (they were carefully chosen by Haemo and I), but if the anti-fair use brigade wants them to go, then just follow lor, what to do? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making the fixes.  Do you have a citation for the "TV version" sentence, though?  The cited website did not mention these details.  In addition, WP:FILMNFI says, "Since a film article's 'Plot' section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary."  We cannot choose screenshots to include based on our general impression.  There have to be indisputable rationales, like with the screenshots at American Beauty (film) and Changeling (film). Erik (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source does not explicitly mention all the details, so I had to verify some details through other means. I did not miss a single episode of the TV version and am sure that I checked the TV schedules in the newspapers. Sigh. Working on an article about a Singaporean movie is so different from working on an article about an American blockbuster (both the FAs you cited). Sources are scarce and so is "critical commentary". I have given up trying to understand our overly confusing and restrictive image policies (when I started editing, screenshots were acceptable in Plot sections), so I always leave image matters to Haemo, but he has left Wikipedia. So what should we do? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on I Not Stupid Too. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213080343/http://www.sfc.org.sg/docs/1991to2006.pdf to http://www.sfc.org.sg/docs/1991to2006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070511011811/http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/instoo/main_instoo.htm to http://www.mediacorpraintree.com/instoo/main_instoo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228071304/http://inotstupid.com.sg/inotstupid2/themesong/themesong.asp to http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/inotstupid2/themesong/themesong.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909081227/http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/ to http://www.inotstupid.com.sg/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on I Not Stupid Too. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018145208/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/30/content_5265565.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/30/content_5265565.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified