User talk:Martinvl

Hello, Martinvl, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

• Help
• Rules
• Links to useful pages
• How to write Simple English pages
• How to copy from another Wikipedia

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy changing! - Ottava Rima 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Metric system

Hi! This article turned out looking fantastic! Please feel free to adjust any of the content that I added, it was just a quick translation and, to be honest, I wasn't expecting you to come back (we're used to users leaving suggestions and then never coming back to them..) It's always a welcome surprise to see an editor who both sticks around and is conscious about difficulty levels. Osiris (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

PGA

Hello, Martinvl. Please could you reply at WP:PGA with your opinion on the points I have made? I have been waiting 12 days. Regards, Thrasymedes (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thrasymedes

Since I have removed the WP:PGA application, it is more appropriate that we discuss the article on the article's talk page. If you go there, you will see that we agreed to target the article Metric system at younger readers and the article International System of Units at readers who had a sound understanding of science, but not of English. This was the result of a discussion at Talk:International System of Units#metric system. Martinvl (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to is not a consensus – talking and working together to make decisions – it is you stating your opinion with no other discussion. I think Osiris may have not been refering to what you said but to what Jimp said and meant that a separate article on the metric system had been created. Therefore, targeting the article Metric system at younger readers is not something we have a consensus on yet. I encourage more editors to give their opinion. --Thrasymedes (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thrasymedes

Thank you for your interest. This is not the correct place to discuss the article - it is best discussed on the article's own Talk Page. I am currently preparing an introductory section. Martinvl (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hello Martin, a word of advice, based on the rules for this Wikipedia site. Can you please ensure that when you add content to articles here, especially large amounts as you have done to Metric System and Metre Convention, which clearly borrows heavily from similar articles on the full English Wikipedia, please be courteous enough (and to comply with copyright law) to acknowledge the base source of your information in the edit summary. See Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. As it's now too late to do that though, you now need to, promptly, add the attribution template to the talkpages of the articles concerned here, as described in the rules. If you do not comply with the attribution requirements, offending articles may be blanked. Keep up the good work though - just remember "rules is rules". ;-) Centaur (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was the editor in the full English Wikipedia article, so no harm done. Martinvl (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well no, you weren't the sole editor of either of those articles there, so we still need full and correct attribution to comply with the rules here on this. Centaur (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but because I hope to help you with these articles, I've added the templates to ensure that our work isn't deleted for copyright infringements. Centaur (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RfD

If you'd rather, I can just quickly deleted all of those templates under WP:QD#G7. Osiris (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes please, thanks. Martinvl (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done it. Let me know if you want any of them restored, or if you need help with something? Osiris (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Osiris

Thank you for your help. The route diagram templates can get tricky and on reading the documentation, it appears that a group in Russia are making a new set. I have successfully added distances to the route diagrams for two of the London underground route maps, (See User:Martinvl/sandbox2) but the third has proved to be too complex as it appears to be using the new templates. I need to carefully read the documentation first. Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. From what I can see, it uses eight templates that we don't have. Do you want to try it with the full eight copied over? You need:

1. Template:BS6
2. Template:BS8
3. Template:BSrow
4. Template:BSsplit
5. Template:BSto
6. Template:Superimpose2/base
7. Template:Superimpose5
8. Template:Tubestation

Osiris (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your research. I have some real life things to attend to, so I will try in the next day or so. Martinvl (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hello Martinvl, please add supporting (reliable) sources for the additions you made to the System of measurement article. Because, as it says in Wikipedia:Citing sources, "If someone sees that there is information in an article that does not have a source, then the information may be removed." Centaur (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What you wrote did not reflect the source that you quoted. You skipped over the word "metric". (If you don't understand the word "metric", may I suggest that you look at en:Performance metric or en:Software metric. You replaced the word "measure" with "unit of measurement". The is a big difference between the two. If I give you a rating of "X out of 10" for some work that you did, then I have given you a measure of what I think of your work, but it is certainly not a "unit of measurement". Martinvl (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Another request

Please Martinvl, while there is an ongoing discussion about it on the article's talkpage, please do not remove mentions of "system of measurement" from the Metric System article. That phrase has been there since the article was created, and unilaterally removing it whilst the discussion continues could be seen as very discourteous. Centaur (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Railway line templates

I noticed that you made some changes to templates for various railway lines. As far as I can see, some of the changes, such as adding distances, are not in the templates on English Wikipedia ("enwiki"). This makes it harder for us to keep our templates in synch with enwiki. Except where needed for simplifying, we try to keep templates here as much like the enwiki versions as possible. Please do not add this kind of information to the templates here without discussing first. Please undo the changes that make these templates different, and discuss the changes at Wikipedia:Simple talk before putting them back. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on measurement articles

You and Centaur have been edit warring in various articles in topics related to measurement. Because of that, I am imposing a topic ban on both of you: effective immediately, you are both forbidden to do any content editing related to those topics. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked from all editing here until the issues can be evaluated. I have seen your complaint at WP:AN#Disruption by User:Centaur (aka DeFacto), and I will look at the articles you listed. If you wish to comment on this, please do so at WP:AN#Administrator response. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Auntof6

Do you regard the article Planck constant as falling within the scope of this topic ban? The last section of that article discusses a proposal that it be used to define the kilogram. Martinvl (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would consider that section of the article to be within the ban, but not necessarily the whole article. Anything related to measurement would be in the scope. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I request permission to work on all parts of the Planck constant so that I can prepare it for presentations as a Good Article. The section on measurement is less than 10% of the article and relates to quantum mechanics rather than everyday measurements. In the past DeFacto has never touched anything as technical as this. Martinvl (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Request denied. I am not going to make exceptions. You will have to work on something else. It doesn't matter whether Centaur (not DeFacto) has ever edited anything like it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see my edit here, and act accordingly. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely per WP:ONESTRIKE for continuing the edits that had you blocked on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of interest

"siWiki" is the Sinhala Wikipedia. You could refer to Simple English Wikipedia as "simplewiki" or just "here". --Auntof6 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For somebody who sometimes gets pedantic about ISO3166 (and other standards), this was a stupid oversight. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Block Appeal

I wish to appeal this block. The grounds for my appeal are:

• The sanctions against me on enWiki were tainted by, amongst other things, malice and canvassing on the part of the ANI proposer. The full extent of the proposer's malice only became fully apparent after my block was imposed.
• The WP:ONESTRIKE policy in Simple is an inappropriate remedy when one party is trying to contribute usefully to the project and the other is determined to cause disruption using a "suicide bomber" technique.

I submit that either of the above is sufficient to remove the sanctions against me on Simple.

My activities on enWiki

May I draw to the attention of the Simple administrators that there was considerable "dirty play" in the ANI that led up to sanctions against me on enWiki. Incidents that took place during the investigation include:

• WP:FALSECONSENSUS by the promoter of the original ANI. (My formal accusations are here). At the time I did not know of the essay. Had I known of its existence, I could have dirty play in the bud. It should be noted that this complaint was posted within minutes of the ANI being opened, but they are now hidden from sight.
• Wrongly accusing of edit-warring when I was trying to contain a DeFacto sockpuppet. (See the last posting of this discussion). The tone of the accusation implied a sense of urgency and fooled an uninvolved administrator to skim-read a 8000 word ANI complaint in just 17 minutes (which means processing seven words a second!). This gave me no time to respond to the false accusation and to formally launch a en:WP:SPA against the sockpuppet concerend. As a result, the administrator concerned created a "blue-on-blue" incident when he served me with a topic ban.
• Three days after my block was confirmed, the proposer of the original ANI launched an RFC on the topic. I believe that he was "clearing the deck" prior to launching this RFC.

This shows that the action taken against me on enWiki was tainted. I request therefore that the Simple administrators distance themselves from such action by disregarding the sanctions issued against me on enWiki. There were actions by others that tainted the investigation further. I do not wish to publicise these actions at the current time but will respond to private requests from any Simple administrator.

DeFacto

User:DeFacto sent in a "suicide bomber" in the form of a sockpuppet called User:Centaur to cause trouble. The success Centaur's mission was dependant on the trouble that was caused. DeFacto developed this tactic during 2013 to reduce the effectiveness of CheckUser on enWiki. By banning me, you are giving DeFacto a victory. I do not believe that WP:ONESTRIKE was formulated to enhance the actions of "suicide bombers". This episode is a perfect example of when ONESTRIKE should NOT to be used. May I catalogue few of what I believe to be "suicide missions" launched by DeFacto on enWiki:

• en: User talk:Up and in – Disrupted articles on which I was working in respect of 19th Century Afrikaner politics. In this change he demonstrated his ignorance of Dutch and here he showed further ignorance of South African affairs by contradicting the view of many reputable sources.
• en: User:FishGF – This account was set up with the sole purpose of blocking the promotion of the articles en: History of the metric system and en: International System of Units to Good Article status.
• en:User:EzEdit – Set up to disrupt the article en:Imperial and US customary measurement systems of which I was the principal contributor. I wrote the article to fill a gap in enWiki's 1000 en: Wikipedia:Vital articles. EzEdit's disruptive tactics included:
  • A proposal to merge the article into the article en: Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems
  • Attempts to remove any mention of the article in en: Template talk:Systems of measurement even though the article is one of

In all instances the "suicide bomber" failed the WP:QUACK test but survived the SPI because the CheckUser could not confirm any links between them and DeFacto. EzEdit was unmasked on a second attempt. The other two have been inactive since their respective SPIs were launched even though they survived the SPI test. I believe that their inactivity is due to them having been discarded. I believe that the above shows DeFacto/Centaur as being the trouble-maker and me the victim of his trouble-making. Blocking me is effectively submitting to blackmail on the part of DeFacto/Centaur. Martinvl (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Rschen7754 please justify his assertion that I was pushing a POV on Simple. I was going out of my way to present things in as neutral a manner as possible. I would also like Rschen7754 to justify his comments regarding my activity on enWiki or to rescind them. Martinvl (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw DJSasso's and TCN7JM's responses to my block appeal. Firstly, I should note that DJSasso has a COI as he imposed the block in the first place. Secondly it appears to me that both respondents are advocating sacrificing Wikipedia's neutrality to appease a blackmailer who employs "suicide bombers". If they are concerned about the way in which sockpuppets can hold Wikipedia to ransom (which is what DeFacto has been doing) they should be looking at ways of making Wikipedia's defences against Sockpuppets more robust rather than removing editors who are making valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

In response to TCN7JM, it is also very time-consuming for me as well presenting one case after the other against various sockpuppets of DeFacto. At the moment the image in the lede of article en: Metrication in the United Kingdom depicts a sign that is unlawful in the United Kingdom. Depicting unlawful activities as though they are lawful is not good for Wikipedia's image. I believe that the editor who made that change is another sockpuppet of DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I notice that both DJSasso and TCN7JM are Americans. I have never visited the US, so maybe they would like to comment on this change. In my view, the original version (which is what I wrote) is a genuine attempt at presenting both side of the argument in a few sentences using simple language. DeFacto/Centaur's changes are, in my view, a blatant attempt to discredit the article. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Kommentare

I'd like to point out that lifting the block would not remove the topic ban: those are separate things. If you wish the topic ban to be lifted as well, please keep it a separate issue, to be discussed only after the block is lifted. I ask this because you're already asking us to consider a lot of details, and it's better to keep the discussion as clean as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Martinvl (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin response

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Martinvl (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

<see above>

Decline reason:

Without even referring to previous activity on EN, repeated edit warring and turning Wikipedia into a battleground is more than enough to sanction you over here. Chenzw  Talk  01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

On that note, if you have any issues with your sanction(s) on EN and believe that the proposer of your ANI case acted with malice, kindly take it up to Arbcom. Until then, administrators on this wiki are still going to honour the decision made on EN and will take it into consideration, when reviewing your case over here and when it is necessary to do so (refer to EN history). Chenzw  Talk  01:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Under Construction

Will the 125-year old International Prototype Kilogram be phased out after the CGPM meeting in November 2014?

Who is following this up?
See Proposed redefinition of SI base units.

I wish to appeal the indefinite block imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing.

• Topic Ban

Appeal

My indefinite block arose indirectly from an ANI published by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) requesting that "a community sanction be considered banning User:Martinvl from any and all discussions related to WP:MOSNUM." Within minutes of posting the ANI, WCM engaged in a campaign of improper canvassing, an action which WP:Canvassing describes as "disruptive behavior". I responded in an unorthodox way. My actions were misinterpreted and when I tried to explain myself, I used language that was again misinterpreted.

As Wikipedia currently stands, the only policy in existence that expressly targets canvassing is the banning of an editor who persists in such activity – Wikipedia policy does not offer a formal method redress to undo the harm caused by a single episode of canvassing. It should be noted however that the essay WP:False consensus proposes a method of redress. At the time I was unaware of this essay, otherwise I would have quoted it.

My intention was to get the ANI annulled without necessarily asking for sanctions against WCM. In order to ensure that my request for annulment of the ANI was seen, I tried to emulate the structure used in Arbcom hearings of each participant having their own area. Other editors did not see it that way – User:Beyond my Ken saw it as taking ownership of the ANI. I made the mistake of losing my cool and reverting User:Beyond My Ken's changes. Looking back at the episode, I can see that I made a number of errors:

• I made an error of judgement by trying to be too "soft" with Wee Curry Monster (WCM) when he blatantly breached the Wikipedia rules on WP:Canvassing.
• I made an error of judgement by expecting administrators to act on a note embedded in the ANI. I should have asked for the ANI to be closed immediately, quoting the essay WP:False consensus. (At the time I was unaware of the essay).
• I made an error of judgement when I thought that the procedures that were used in Arbcom processes could be introduced into an AN/I process.
• Although User:Beyond my Ken used a vigilante-type action when undoing my attempts to set up an Arbcom-style type approach I should not have undone things straight away – rather I should have asked that the ANI be put on hold and opened a discussion elsewhere to get a general opinion regarding the alignment of the ANI and Arbcom approaches.
• I made an error of judgement when I thought that User:EatsShootsAndLeaves (ESL) would understand an argument that used legal wording. I should have used Wikipedia terminology – in this case WP:False consensus.

• I used an unorthodox approach to counter WCM's canvassing – I should have followed the principal of Least Surprise and used the approach outlined in WP:CANVASS, even if it meant me being more heavy-handed than I would have liked.
• When my approach was challenged I should have used standard Wikipedia jargon and observed the principal of WP:NPLT. In particular I should have used the term WP:False consensus rather than Natural Justice. I should have realised that a number of editors (including administrators) shout WP:NLT the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified.
• I should have planned my approach to countering the canvassing around the principal of WP:OBVIOUS. This will ensure that everybody understands exactly what I was trying to prove and will save me getting stressed when they do not see what appear to me to be obvious. This means, amongst other things not responding immediately, but to take a deep breath and ask myself "Who has mis-interpreted the situation and how can I ensure that they do not again mis-interpret it?"
• Even when I have been badly wronged I need to keep my cool.

Mitigating circumstances

• My attempt to emulate the Arbcom structure was made in good faith. I realised that unless there was some sort of discipline the process of consensus-seeking could easily degenerate into mob justice. The Arbcom process of each editor having the own area and limiting the amount that they could write provides that discipline. I believe that my own ANI (which ballooned to 9000 words) is an example of an ANI gone wrong.
• I am perplexed as to how User:GiantSnowman arrived at the conclusion that there was no improper canvassing. Given the wording in WP:CANVASSING and the actual details of WCM's actions, I would have thought that this was text-book canvassing. Since GS's conclusion has been repeated many times, I would like that statement revisited and, if appropriate, have the record put straight, particularly since GS had the opportunity when he made that statement of blocking the ANI.
• Three days after the topic ban and a few hours after the indefinite block were put into place, WCM published an RFC requesting views on changes to WP:MOSNUM in respect of units of measure in articles related to the United Kingdom The speed with which he published his RFC suggest that the ANI was part of a WP:DEPE campaign by WCM rather than an isolated incident.

Contributions to Wikipedia

I would like a number of mitigating circumstances into be taken into account. I believe these to show me as a valuable member of the Wikipedia community.

Wikimedia training

• I have attended the Wikimedia trainers course and have assisted at a number of training events including one on 28 October 2013 - the day that I was served with in indefinite block.

• I have also been invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) signify whether or not I would be interested in at-tending a one day refresher course on training editors.

• I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation.

English Wikipedia achievements

Summary of editing history

I have taken four articles to Good Article status in the English Wikipedia. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:

• History of the metric system (97.3%)
• Proposed redefinition of SI base units (81.6%)
• Metric system (58.8%) (500k+ hits per year)
• International System of Units (47.7%) (500k+ hits per year)

I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:

• Imperial and US customary measurement systems (98.6%)
• Introduction to the metric system (82.9%)
• Metrication in the United Kingdom (50.1%)
• International Bank Account Number (30.9%) (1M+ hits per year)

I have been the largest contributor to a number of other articles. My contribution as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:

• De Zuid-Afrikaan (98.4%)
• Battle of the Tugela Heights (96.7%)
• Langalibalele (87.8%)
• Charles Rawden Maclean (88.5%)
• Metrication of British transport (88.3%)
• Stephanus Jacobus du Toit (84.1%)
• Christopher Robert Nicholson (77.6%)
• Driver location sign (77.2%)
• International Organization of Legal Metrology (74.3%)
• Metre Convention (72.6%)
• 2012 Olympic Marathon Course (65.5%)
• Nathaniel Isaacs (64%)
• General Conference on Weights and Measures (60.0%)
• Estcourt (56.8%)
• Kilometres per hour (41.5%)
• Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (13.8%)
• Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (6.9%) (1M+ hits per year)

Simple Wikipedia

• SIMPLE:International Bank Account Number (99.4%)
• SIMPLE:Baarle (98.7%)
• SIMPLE:Metre Convention (95.4%)
• SIMPLE:Metric system (85.4%)
• SIMPLE:Planck constant (79.0%)

Afrikaans Wikipedia

• AF:Drywing (Approx 59% - own calculation)

My photo of a room-temperature thermometer showing both kelvins and degrees Celsius. Image is used on German, Russian, Italian, Japanese and many other language articles, but not the English language article.

The article Proposed redefinition of SI base units is likely to attract considerable attention in November this year when these proposals are actually discussed by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM). I am by far the principal contributor to this article.

I tutor 17 and 18-year old students in physics and maths on a one-to-one basis. I often use Wikipedia articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked.

Other language Wikipedias

In the last few months I have been active on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Most recently I have been copying weather tables from the Dutch Wikipedia to the Afrikaans Wikipedia, making translations as needed and, should I see any errors, correcting the Dutch version.

While in the Netherlands, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article Kelvin. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Wikipedia. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles.

Future plans

If these sanctions are lifted, my plans are:

• Make myself available for assisting at Wikipedia training events.

• Ensuring that the article International Bank Account Number is kept up to date whenever SWIFT publishes changes to notified. (This article records over a million hits a year).

• Appealing that the twelve-month topic ban on measurements be annulled or lifted.

• Continue work on nineteenth century South African history, particularly articles related to the the political situation in the Cape Colony and the Natal campaign of the Boer War.

• Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the CGPM are reflected in the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old International Prototype Kilogram be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments.

• Bring the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems (a Level 3 Vital Article) to GA status.

• Ensuring that articles that refer to changing standards are kept up to date, in particular those that are affected by supplement to the 8th edition of the SI Brochure (published on 26 June 2014) and changes to the International Bank Account Number as notified from time to time by SWIFT.

• Request the lifting of sanctions on SIMPLE Wikipedia. These sanctions were imposed when a DeFacto sockpuppet attacked the article SIMPLE:Metric system while I was trying to get it to GA status. (I was complimented on the initial draft of the article here).

• Get the articles SIMPLE:Planck constant and SIMPLE:Metric system to GA status. It should be noted that no articles on SIMPLE have been granted GA status since 12 July 2013.

• Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality, making any necessary changes myself.

Fazit

The above shows that the ANI that WCM filed against me which led to a topic ban being placed on me was filed with malice. I acknowledge however that my indefinite block was caused by disruption resulting from an unorthodox defence. I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved. I request that, in line with the WP:Standard Offer that my indefinite block be lifted forthwith.

I have also examined WCM's behaviour, the behaviour of administrators concerned and also the underlying Wikipedia processes. I accept that WCM's actions might be attributable to PTSD. I have chosen not to comment on any individual administrator but should I be unblocked, to direct my energies to improving any underlying Wikipedia processes. However, in recognition of the impact of WCM's actions on me, I request that the topic ban to be annulled (as it would have been had WP:False consensus been invoked), or if annulment is not possible, for it to be lifted forthwith.

If nothing else, removal of the topic ban will enable me keep the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units up to date in preparation for the CGPM meeting and possible redefinition of the kilogram. in November 2014.