::With regard to epochs, I'm ambi-chronological so this doesn't bother me. Normally however I use the older form and I can't remember exactly why I converted to BCE/CE when I rewrote this particular article but I suspect it was because the article already contained both usages and I was simply rationalizing it. When however somebody carefully combs through an article written by others, changing one chronological form to another, you can be sure there is an agenda behind it. But my revert was mainly aimed at the vandal whose agenda was intellectual vanity - he (only males are that stupid) ripped the article to shreds simply to post his opinion that A was born in 450 BCE (or was it BC?).