|
Surely it is plagiarized,
Original author is Matt Milner and the plagiarized article author is Rajeev SINGH, MCTS | LinkedIn[^] different than original one.
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10351835 - Professional Profile - CodeProject[^]
You need to provide the member link as well, so we can still kick him once the article is gone - remember it takes twice as many kicks to close a member account.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Member is gone but article has been approved meanwhile.
Might you use your delete power again?
|
|
|
|
|
Your wish is my command! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Something really needs to be done about all these articles that gets approved despite being plagiarized.
|
|
|
|
|
To all users moderating articles:
Please check this forum and the article forum before approving articles.
But stop. Those users might not visit this forum to read the above.
I have started to post a message with the subject "Plagiarised" to the article forum when I report as plagiarised here (mainly to let the "author" know why he lost his account because he only gets a message about being abusive/troll). But even with such a message one article has been approved in the past (more than one hour after my post).
So there are users here that approve articles even without reading the existing article moderation comments. And this happens not only for plagiarised articles but also for articles where comments indicate other problems that prevent from publishing in the current form.
There was one article where all code blocks where unreadable due to a lot of HTML stuff. Guess what happened while I was writing a comment to help the author: It had been approved meanwhile. 
So, yes something should be done.
|
|
|
|
|
I would prefer that no article could be approved if it has been reported.
What's the point of reporting articles if it doesn't have any obvious effect?
And certainly more than one approval must be required.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I would prefer that no article could be approved if it has been reported.
What's the point of reporting articles if it doesn't have any obvious effect?
It is actually a good idea, but instead of a prohibition making a X-Times more approvals needed, where X is a factor in relation with number of reports and weight of reporter.
I mean: If you report one article it requires 2x approvals from people like me but 8x approvals of "younger" users (as easy example)
@Sean-Ewington what do you think? It could be something to be considered
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
User is gone, but several messages remain:
Latest Messages - CodeProject[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gone
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like these tips:
- Classes and OOP in PHP[^]
- Loops in PHP[^]
have originally been published by another person on the website under which account they have been published here (apphp).
Shouldn't the original author be credited and since this is a complete copy of the original, should that be clearly stated?
Any comments, especially from @sean-ewington ?
|
|
|
|
|
I think it depends entirely on the rules of their website. On our end as long as they are abiding by what the original author / site established, they are in the right.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is it plagiarised if it is by the same author?
|
|
|
|
|
It looks, member has directly copy whole code and paste it 'AS IS', basically its a copy violation, Have you seen source page warning ? which reads "the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License", look below link
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/android-api/start[^]
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies, I was sure I saw his name in the original. You are correct of course.
|
|
|
|
|
It is the official Google Maps Android API: Getting Started page.
There is no author mentioned there but if it would be the same (which I don't think), he would have selected the corresponding license (CCA 3.0) instead of CPOL.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, still drunk from last night. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
