This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numismatics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The last three paragraphs of this article are are a verbatim plagiarism of a note I wrote for a coin sold through Classical Numismatic Group in 2004 (see []for comparison). The source should be noted with appropriate quotation marks inserted, or removed entirely, I think. Frumentarius (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've raised the issue here. While doing it in this way is not the normal way of handling copyright/plagiarism problems, I'm not used to handling these issues, and this looks like an unusual case. There's no question that this is plagiarism, but as I've explained on the page I just linked to, the complication is that the text in question was grabbed from the Description field of the coin's image on Wikimedia Commons, and that image is listed as having been contributed by the Classical Numismatic Group. However, I don't know if they meant to include the description text as part of that contribution, or if they had authority to do so. (I.e., did they make you relinquish your copyright when you gave them your writeup?)
Again, as I said, there's no doubt this is plagiarism and should be handled accordingly--it's the copyright issue that's in question. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I finally went back and checked, and according to the people over at Commons, no permission was given by the Classical Numismatic Group to copy the text descriptions accompanying their images. (See the discussion here.) So just I've stripped the plagiarized text both from this article and from the Commons image's description. Sorry for the delay. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)