Spam and Abuse Watch

15-Aug-15 19:18

This: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ArticleVersion.aspx?waid=179867&aid=1019137[^]
From this: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/View.aspx?mid=8787781[^]
Is taken from, ooo - take your pick of the top six, realy: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An+attacker+who+knows+of+a+vulnerability+in+a+particular+web+server+and+ASP.NET+version+combination+could+hunt+for+targets+making+HTTP+requests+to+many+different+servers+and+flagging+those+that+return+the+particular+web+server%2FASP.NET+version+numbers.&oq=An+attacker+who+knows+of+a+vulnerability+in+a+particular+web+server+and+ASP.NET+version+combination+could+hunt+for+targets+making+HTTP+requests+to+many+different+servers+and+flagging+those+that+return+the+particular+web+server%2FASP.NET+version+numbers.&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8[^]

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter15-Aug-15 21:23

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter

15-Aug-15 21:23

The third link on that page actually the OP's blog...(not that it make it better)

Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.

OriginalGriff15-Aug-15 21:27

15-Aug-15 21:27

You know Google - it moves stuff around! Laugh | :laugh:

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

Nelek15-Aug-15 23:43

Nelek

15-Aug-15 23:43

His other apportations are at least blog entries as well.

How many of them are "legitime".... that is another question

M.D.V.

SHossain00716-Aug-15 23:41

16-Aug-15 23:41

@OriginalGrifff, I am really upset to see that because of one sentence which I removed already in my last update(as soon you pointed me), you are still considering the whole article as plagiarized!

Please note, From the very first time in the link section(which I referred as "GOOD READ" in my article) i put that site url as a reference. If I had copied the entire article, or a good segment of that article do you think I would have point a link back to that article ?

The decision is up to you. If you still think deactivating my account is the right decision for a single sentence copy paste(which I removed already in my last update) then I have no say on it. Go CodeProject Go!

OriginalGriff16-Aug-15 23:50

16-Aug-15 23:50

The problem is that we know you are more than willing to copy other's work and claim it as your own.
So we don't know that the rest of it isn't also copied from somewhere and we just haven't found it yet.

We really don't like plagiarists - mostly because we know how much work it is to write it properly, and to have someone else just go CTRL+A, CTRL+C, CTRL+TAB, CTRL+V and say "this is mine" is rather annoying.

So if you post plagiarised stuff, expect it to be rejected - and also expect your account to be closed as well.

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

SHossain00717-Aug-15 0:21

17-Aug-15 0:21

I like the way you think but hey why don't you re-run your plagiarism script?

You said "So we don't know that the rest of it isn't also copied from somewhere and we just haven't found it yet."

> Run it and your confusion will be gone.

OriginalGriff17-Aug-15 0:52

17-Aug-15 0:52

Why? Once we know you are happy to steal from other people, the onus of proof is on you to show it doesn't contain any more, not us to prove it does.

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

SHossain00717-Aug-15 1:28

17-Aug-15 1:28

Because 99% of that article was unique. The 1% which was copied accidentally was already removed as soon you brought that on light.

OriginalGriff17-Aug-15 1:31

17-Aug-15 1:31

We only have your word for that.
And frankly, your word can't be trusted because you told us the whole thing was unique when you pressed "Publish".

Try looking at it from our point of view!

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

SHossain00717-Aug-15 2:02

17-Aug-15 2:02

I looked from your position, you have obvious reason to get mad on me. There is nothing wrong on it. You have issue with this article lets throw this one! But why are you throwing the user?

If throwing this article does not satisfy you then you should have probably punish by disabling post option for the user for a certain period of time but throwing someone is seems a rude behave.

OriginalGriff17-Aug-15 2:46

17-Aug-15 2:46

That was the administrators decision - and they don't relent any more.
They tried "giving another chance" - and most did it all over again, but tried to be cleverer.

The policy is simple: if you plagiarise, you will be spotted. Maybe not immediately, but we do check older items as well. And when we do, your account is forfeit. The site doesn't hide this - this forum is here to facilitate the process for spammers, plagiarists, and other abusers; is publicly available, and shown on the menus.

Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

SHossain00717-Aug-15 5:04

17-Aug-15 5:04

You have tried to measure everything with the same single pot. Others got chance and they misused their opportunity doesn't indicate others will follow them as well.

Spammer from moderation queue

Sean Ewington17-Aug-15 5:20

Sean Ewington

17-Aug-15 5:20

I've spent many years dealing with many plagiarists. Yes, every so often, a rare plagiarist rose above the dozens of run-of-the-mill plagiarists and truly understood and respected plagiarism. But the sheer, day in day out volume has forced us to take this hard line. We're going to spend our time helping authors who aren't plagiarizing and we're not going to spend hours every single week helping authors that ARE plagiarizing. There's a clear warning in our Plagiarism FAQ right on the article submission page. We put the note linking to the FAQ in bold print.

The hard line applies here as well. The article and the account stay closed and this is our final say on the matter.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

OriginalGriff15-Aug-15 3:52