Pf I knew that you were paying me a compliment regarding that but I didnt want to accept such payment when all I was doing was copying out of the dictionary  I do want to point out to SQ JW and such that one can stand on NPOV with much more confidence when they rely on the dictionary definitions instead of their own opinions  Unless you think youre a lexicographer relying on the dictionary immunizes yourself from charges of POV Now that it looks like some reform is gonna stick I am much less unsatisfied than I was when I came upon the article back in June or whenever  But it is clunky designed by committee  I had hoped that enough of you guys would understand the importance of defining time on the outset as these two different and not really competing definitions first as a phenomenon where I drew every word out of the dictionary references including indefinite and existence etc and then as a measurement what Steve Quinn likes to call the operational definition  And I had hoped that because measurement is done both with clocks we build to measure time in material reality and with our conscious experience which is debated among philosophers and lay people as to whether or not that is contained in material reality or is somehow different that you guys with the exceptions of SQ and JW would see the wisdom of not jamming them together in a runon sentence and see the wisdom of setting up the topic in all three major POVs Time as phenomenon Time as physical measurement Time as experience right away in two lede sentences  Everything else in the article will fall under one of those three religion philosophy and science business industry sports the sciences music dance and the live theater  I am convinced that the professor would grade my lede definition higher than what is there now and far better than what was there before  Too bad  But the status quo isnt better than what existed before and since I was unsuccessful even though everything is solidly referenced in convincing you Ill let it go  Unless SQ or JW try to crap up the lede again then Ill be back and the rest of us also should be vigilant  Maybe someday this will be a good article  But no matter how well the rest of the article is done if the lede is crappy the article as a whole cannot be good  Bestest