|This is an archive of past discussions from User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the|
A couple of points
You may remember that in September 2009, you pointed out that I had some issues with copyright violation while the votes were coming in for my request for Editor status. I owe you my partial thanks for helping to put me on the right track. If it wasn't for your intervention at the time, I would have been given responsibilities that I would have inadvertantly misused. So erm, thanks for that. But that editor request is one of the reasons that I'm here and talking to you...do you think that I would eligible for Editor status now? Also, I would like you to comment on my new customised signature. Thanks, Rayboy8 (my talk) 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"Swine flu" is not politically correct?
 = ? How is that? Most articles we wrote about the virus in the past called it "swine flu" with no problems. Calling it "H1N1" sounds more confusing than calling it "swine flu", which is the more commonly known name for it. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Swine flu is misleading apparently, and less accurate than "A/H1N1" or "H1N1". –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Less accurate at the scientific level, yes, but it refers to the same thing in vernacular conversation, and i think we should use the most commonly used term for it. Not everyone might understand what we're talking about if it's called simply "A/H1N1" or "H1N1". Can we perhaps use both names in the title: i.e. "H1N1 swine flu virus" to avoid any possible ambiguity, while still keeping the meaning clear? Tempodivalse [talk] 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the 'Wife Swap' and 'How Clean is Your House?' axed from Channel 4 schedle. I have re-named it to a level of understanding for non UK users. I have added more sources, context and reworded some of the context. I would appreciate if you would consider re-reviewing the article again. I appericate all comments and pointers.