Talk:Nabu-rimanni
|
|
Give me a break with these stupid B.C. or BC's, please. These are signs for civil or better Chrictian dates only. I don't know what is the right form to write here in. Do you have any international standard for that Mike? I think not. I found mostly periods within or perhaps I am already blind :-) I can write all dates in proleptic gregorian calendar if I want. How can you add days if you don't have a year 0? So don't speak by heart...
--XJam 2 Tuesday [2002.03.19] (0)
In wikipedia the years A.D. are listed without any trailing abbreviation (100), while the years B.C. are listed as 100 BC with no periods. If you want the periods to show (which I prefer), you type [100 BC|100 B.C.]. MichaelTinkler
- Yes Mike you are probably right. I've checked this out through wikipedia. So I shall follow your piece of advice to write dates before the year 1 as you prefer. Yes, you have also noticed my "bad" English in articles on Nabu-rimanni and Kidinu. You should also consider these are my translations from scratch and you're freely to correct them as much as you like but let the contents remains untouched at least in reasonable limits because I've spent a lot of time getting them together. --XJam 2 Tuesday [2002.03.19] (1st ed.)
- the year thing is not my preference - the method of writing years before 1 without periods is Wikipedia. Typeset-English prefers periods, which is why we have to type them like [1 BC|1 B.C.]. My preference has nothing to do with it.
- On nomenclature, however, Michael is my preference. Please call me that.
- I'm revising your English to make it English. I'm not changing your astronomy (I changed one 'angulat' to 'angular' because I'm figured you mistyped an adjacent character). Trust me on that.