Talk:Nicolae Vasilescu-Karpen

message: Removed most of the Karpen Pile text
I have removed most of the text on the Karpen Pile. No sources where cited for the extraordinary claims made and the text did not belong on wikipedia. Not wanting to remove the concept of the Karpen Pile totally I have left a short text on it, clearly pointing out that there is no evidence for a perpetuum mobile. 
Of course proper references either way would be good, but extraordinary claims with no references should not be left standing in the meantime.
Honn (87.96.132.99) - 19:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the most of (unreferenced) text on the Karpen Pile

message: What kind of evidence is needed to show the continuous functioning of the device? A video material for example?--Hlfhjwlrdglsp (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence needed

message: This article published by IBTimes UK includes some good details and reference:
uk.ibtimes.com
"Karpen's Pile: A Battery That Produces Energy Continuously Since 1950 Exists in Romanian Museum"
By Ovidiu Sandru | 27 December 2010, 12:22 BST
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20101227/karpen-039pilebattery-produces-energy-continuously-since-1950-exists-romanian-museum.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.109.55 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Karpen's Pile

message: I should note that in searching for alternative sources on the Karpen pile, I found half a dozen sites filling the Google results, with every one of them containing exactly the same text--an article by "Ovidu Sandru", who seems to be a writer at "GreenOptimistic.com". I'm not up to speed on Wikipedia's verifiability/notability requirements, but this source seems really sketchy to me (above and beyond buying into a new "free energy" device, which even established journalists don't seem to be opposed to). Is there a policy that will back up my gut feeling? 208.54.5.60 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to use it as a source saying that the claim has been made, though not to give credence to the claim. The author himself is very skeptical anyway. However, I see no reason to believe it's not a copyright violation, and no need for such a long quote anyway, so I've paraphrased it instead. By the way, FN4 used to be this, and that's merely a copy of the Ovidiu's paper, so I've removed it as a source. Ovidiu's paper covers it all. --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source? 

message: His date of birth is not uncertain. In 1870, in Romania the Julian calendar was in effect. So, dual dating is needed. --Turbojet (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual dating 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nicolae Vasilescu-Karpen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718205352/http://www.agir.ro/univers-ingineresc/nicolae_vasilescu_-_karpen1870_-_1964_969.html to http://www.agir.ro/univers-ingineresc/nicolae_vasilescu_-_karpen1870_-_1964_969.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319004914/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20101227/karpen-039pilebattery-produces-energy-continuously-since-1950-exists-romanian-museum.htm to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/20101227/karpen-039pilebattery-produces-energy-continuously-since-1950-exists-romanian-museum.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified