Dating abbreviation

06 Mar

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. This page guides the presentation of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies, coordinates, and similar material in articles.Quotations, titles of books and articles, and similar "imported" text should be faithfully reproduced, even if they employ formats or units inconsistent with these guidelines or with other formats in the same article.If necessary, clarify via [bracketed interpolation], article text, or footnotes. Give priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects; for example, if a hacker based in China attacked a Pentagon computer in the US, use the time zone for the Pentagon, where the attack had its effect.Another method of replying to Lonely Hearts adverts is via telephone; this took off with the introduction of premium-rate telephone numbers, providing an additional way for the publisher to generate money.The usual business model is for the advertiser to be enticed to place an advert free of charge (using an 0800 number or equivalent); those replying (and also the advertiser, when they want to check for any replies) must use a premium-rate line.Several terms on the original list, such as BTW, BRB, or even AFK, have stuck around, while others, including LMTO (laughing my tush off) and RAO (rolling all over), have persisted in slightly modified form.

dating abbreviation-2dating abbreviation-72dating abbreviation-89dating abbreviation-57

The linguist Ben Zimmer notes that the earliest citation is from the May 1989 issue of a newsletter called Fidonet and is still available online.

In any case, the fact that these abbreviations appear as part of a larger list of general online shorthand suggests that they all predate the newsletter.

And as for LOL in particular, a man named Wayne Pearson says that he remembers exactly how that one was coined.

Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.