" 

 The paragraph that seems to have been directly plagiarized is 
 The Möbius 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 Möbius strip, the other is a long strip with four twists in it. Other interesting combinations of strips can be obtained by making Möbius strips with two or more flips in them instead of one. Cutting a Möbius 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 Möbius 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 Möbius band, the other is a long strip with two half-twists in it. Other interesting combinations of strips can be obtained by making Möbius bands with two or more flips in them instead of one. Cutting a Möbius 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