The paragraph that seems to have been directly plagiarized is The M bius strip has a lot of curious properties If you cut down the middle of the strip instead of getting two separate strips it becomes one long strip with four half twists in it If you cut this one down the middle you get two strips wound around each other Alternatively if you cut along the strip about a third of the way in from the edge you will get two strips one is a thinner M bius strip the other is a long strip with four twists in it Other interesting combinations of strips can be obtained by making M bius strips with two or more flips in them instead of one Cutting a M bius strip giving it extra twists and reconnecting the ends produces unexpected figures called paradromic rings It has been in the Wikipedia article since the very day it was created in 2002 by Axel Boldt by the way has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia without seemingly having resorted to plagiarism So I find any assertion that he ripped off someone else s work a rather serious charge and I have asked him to come look at this discussion Compare the paragraph above to what is currently in Darling s article on the Mobius strip The M bius band has a lot of curious properties If you cut down the middle of the band instead of getting two separate strips it becomes one long strip with two half twists in it If you cut this one down the middle you get two strips wound around each other Alternatively if you cut along the band about a third of the way in from the edge you will get two strips one is a thinner M bius band the other is a long strip with two half twists in it Other interesting combinations of strips can be obtained by making M bius bands with two or more flips in them instead of one Cutting a M bius band giving it extra twists and reconnecting the ends produces unexpected figures called paradromic rings An almost word for word duplicate excepting the difference in the number of half twists see below The relevant observation is that the Wayback Machine does not show this article exists before 2004 Of course the Wayback Machine doesn t keep all versions but may have deleted any existing previous article from its archive So this proves nothing But I noticed that the way one would typically find such an entry in Darling s encyclopedia is to look on the index page for M The Wayback machines shows that the index page does not contain an entry for Mobius band or strip on Feb 6 2004 or Oct 10 2004 In addition Wikipedia s page history shows that Axel Boldt worked on this article gradually rearranging things until the paragraph resulted in the form above To suggest he plagiarized it is to basically suggested that he resorted to purposeful manipulation in his editing to make it appear as though he did not copy As far as I know Axel Boldt is not David Darling nor did Darling obtain permission from Boldt to use this material Boldt can correct me if I am mistaken Interestingly enough Boldt s version has 4 half twists but was changed the next day by a different person to be 2 half twists Some helpful person noticed that 4 half twists is correct and fairly recently changed it back Darling s version and past versions according to Wayback has 2 half twists I ve focused on a single paragraph which is really a word for word copy but it s interesting to compare the Wikipedia version of September 26 2004 with Darling s version which as I explained is shown by Wayback to not have existed before October 2004 The arrangement and structure is very similar with essentially the same content The current Wikipedia and Darling versions still retain these similarities Some final comments Looking over the previous discussion I see some insults being hurled at Sam Nead who is only trying to be a useful contributor by checking that there is not a copyvio occurring on Wikipedia If you look at his edit summaries it seems clear that initially he thought Wikipedia plagiarized Darling but then changed his mind presumably after his investigation I realize the suggestion of plagiarism has roused up emotion but there are solid indicators that there is no copyvio by Wikipedia So as far as copyvio issues go I don t think we need concern ourselves with i