New findings about coins, not in SCWC, nor Numista (Dead thread)

I just found a very well documented article in http://www.danskmoent.dk/pdf/Frank_NR_129_Marts.pdf about the Danish 2 skilling coin from 1761. Here is what we have in SCWC:

In numista we have this

N#92859

The article, written by Frank Pedersen,

is a very well documented proof of the existence of 5 and not only two variants of the 1761 coin. It shows through a detailed die analysis and other documentations, that the date on this coin, 1761, was frozen from 1761-1774 and that the coin was minted in several locations for several years etc.

Are we allowed to use these intellectual findings to enrich Numista without the permission from Frank Pedersen (I have asked the treasurer of the Danish coin club www.danskmoent.dk), since it was the only contact, I could find on the site, for the possibility of using the article and its content. No answer so far. Let's say I get the permission, do we then also need Frank's personal permission, or is the Organisation DANSKMOENT enough?

You see, my problem is to use the conclusion of the article to change numista, without also using the proof (graphics).

The knowledge is there, but it's probably impossible to enrich numista with it, without walking on some copyright principles. I think the articles from that site can help numista forwards in the Danish section.

Do we have any people, who can make contact and negotiate with the Danes, if they ever answer me? 

Hello,

You can use the conclusion of the article, as long as you don't copy extensive parts of the text of the article.

Please also indicate the bibliographical reference to the article (the format is described at the end of the section 3.6 of the guidelines) and the link in the “Comments” section.

Did you read all of it?

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic125750.html

I didn't. It's confusing to have the same message posted twice.

Anyway my answer is the same. The article you linked is from a printed article, so it's interesting to add the bibliographical reference, and it's nice for the author of the article.

Then delete this one, but not the other one, where I show a documentation of the findings.

Thanks