This one's simple. You posted someone else's copyrighted work here on CodeProject. This is plagiarism, and this is something that we do not allow. We expect you to come up with the content, rather than just copying someone else's work. That is why the article was closed.
By publishing their work here, that's plagiarism. If, instead, you'd just linked out to them then that would have been different. To put it another way - imagine that you had managed to get the sourcecode for Windows. It's fine for you to post a link to Microsoft for people to get a legitimate copy of Windows from them. It's wrong for you to provide the code for them on the grounds that you're just putting it into one place for them.
If you remove the large images and the code dump from the prose, what are you left with? Are you educated as to the thought processes that have gone into this, or is it a recipe for someone else to follow. If you come away knowing what design decisions were made and what trade offs have been considered, then it's definitely an article. If all you come away knowing is what the code actually looks like, then it's a tip. You can argue all you like but if you want people to rate your article based on its content then it makes sense not to give them a distraction to downvote it on.
You misunderstand. If you take out the images, there's not a lot left. There's certainly no indication of the thought processes and the decisions that went into it. That's why it's a tip. Don't get hung up on thinking about the title, the fact that you posted a tip is a good thing. Not everything has to be a fully fledged article - a lot of my earlier articles would be classed as tips now but because the tip system wasn't in place then, they are articles. It's only the larger pieces of work that I would class as an article now.
A tiny correction: I am not editor (Editors are CP-Staff), I am protector (volunteer).
About your answer to my suggestion, I answered you as well. In short is the same as you have been told here. So I don't think I have to go into details, it is not going to bring anything new to the conversation.
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.
I intend to write an article (including source code) about my implementation of the double-double type (an extended-precision floating-point type, implemented using two 'double's). I have used code written by David Bailey (the QD library) as a starting point, but am adding many features:
* higher precision for trigonometric functions
* better implementation of exponential functions
* implementation of additional functions present in the C++
binary128 (AKA quadruple-precision) is defined in the IEEE-754 Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic as having 1 sign bit, 15 exponent bits, and 113 mantissa bits (1 bit is hidden). The problem is that no hardware imlementations exist, as yet.
The 'double-double' type uses the sum of two binary64 (AKA double-precision) values to represent a 106-bit value. The advantage is that double-precision is implemented in hardware, and so even though we need more operations - it is still faster than a software implementation of binary128.
I'll stop now, or I might as well write the rest of the article here...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
I hope you all are fine. I have experience in a third party tool(Jqwidgets JQX grid) . So is it possible to write the article related to the JQX Grid? I heard code project does not support writing more third party articles. Please give me a suggestion so that I can start working on that. Please excuse me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.
So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things.
Please don't do that. One of the reasons your last account was de-activated for promoting too many third party products, and your hell-bent determination to post on JQX grid is feeling mighty suspicious to me right now.