|
Rohit_DotNet wrote: Hey Guys you are strict with Plagiarised
Yes. Because we write articles, and we know how much work it is. So when someone tries to steal that hard work and claim it as theirs, we do try to enforce the rules.
Rohit_DotNet wrote: I am new and I understood
You had been here for seven years. Long enough to learn the rules. Newbies get told off: experienced peopel are expected to know better.
Rohit_DotNet wrote: I had removed article contents from MS site
Yes, you removed the first bit I found. And not the stuff you had copied from other sources. It is not my job to go through your article with a fine-tooth comb and tell you exactly what you have stolen, and from where: you already know that.
So your removing the "reported" part, and leaving all the other copied material makes it not "accidental" or "ignorant" plagiarism, but deliberate cheating.
And it takes quite a number of people to agree that your behaviour is unacceptable in order to close your account - so it's not just me you have disappointed.
Rohit_DotNet wrote: Above all instead of helping the newbies you guys are making fun ? Is that motivating ?
Fun? We know each other, and how each other think - so we talk differently each time, to "keep it fresh". If we were having "fun" at your expense, you would have known about it, because it would have been addressed to you.
Stop whining because you were caught! Write your own material in future, and there will be no problem - it's only when you try to take shortcuts and steal other peoples hard work that your name comes up in this forum...and we are getting pretty damn good at spotting plagiarism...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Griff,
Thanks for your clarification.
I have been in CodeProject from 7 years but never wrote an article. From last 2 months I started and this is my 3rd article.
The article belongs to something which is my own work. As I mentioned the re-post article was mentioning the (Content taken from Microsoft Site) details. The content taken from Microsoft site was for User info with hyperlink directing to Microsoft on same page. If my intention was to steal content why would I redirect it to original site ?
My article was related to a feature which is not provided by Microsoft and it is not available on any technical site. I was giving details of classes I used in my code and that is how every thing messed up. If you search .net Zip feature with Password protection, you would not get technical stuff on this any where.
Anyway cant change the past, Is there any chance my account can be re-activated ? If not can I post the same article (again with remove all content of Microsoft) in this Account ?
Thanks for your quick response.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify. You can use content from other sites... as long as the copied/quoted passages are clearly recognizable as such and are providing citation
Just having a sentence somewhere like "some of those passages are copied from all over the web" isn't really sufficient. There are ways to mark a block as a quote and you should be sure to provide citation for everything you copied from somewhere else.
Only as a hint: If you're studying at an university and use other sources for your work and some of your "copied text" isn't providing citation and someone finds it, it will rend your whole work as plagiarized. (There were quite a few politicians in europe in the past few years that lost their degree for such a thing. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Resignation_from_all_political_offices[^]). So proper citation is important.
|
|
|
|
|
Would any one steal something and give hyperlink on content to open the original link ?
Would any one steal from Microsoft Site and mention "it is taken from Microsoft site"?
Please re-consider my account re-activation. I will take care of this in future.
|
|
|
|
|
Your article was removed originally because half of it was plagiarised. You received an email notification about this as well as notifications by the members. You then replied that, "this was not plagiarism," changed a small portion of your copied material into links, and resubmitted.
We do our best to try and help the community improve themselves and improve each other. When we indicate there are problems with your article, please try to understand what we are trying to convey. We cannot publish articles that are largely copied from other sources without any kind of citation or referencing. And if you're unwilling to take our advice to heart then, unfortunately, your goals and CodeProject's goals do not meet and we cannot work together.
I can appreciate that you are excited to get your article published. Please keep in mind the desire to get your article published correctly must be greater than the desire to see the article published. This is important.
There's nothing wrong with citing another source. In your case it might have been best to indicate, "for more information on ... please see MSDN (link)." But half of your article was not your own work. The majority of your article must be your own work.
I'd be willing to re-instante your account if you make changes to the article and email it to me taking into account what we've explained to you. If your article is properly referenced, does not contain copied material, and is largely your own work, I will make the changes to your deleted article and re-instate your account.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questions tidied away - member only on 7 kicks...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Seven years, and this is the best he can do...
You know, working with that f*g editor can take a lot of time - he may started his 'article' years ago... 
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Regrettably, I have to agree. That damn thing can put years on you! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you saw my last mini-article (about HTML) - that one was written with the new, proposed, editor. It works much better - including a full screen mode...So there is hope...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ArticleVersion.aspx?aid=744114&av=1103684&msg=4785717#xx4785717xx[^]
Hey Guys you are strict with Plagiarised, I am new and I understood, I removed all contents from article .
I had removed article contents from MS site but only Name of the classs which are used in the article is given with the appropriate link. Also I mentioned in re-posted article that Compression/Encryption/Zip contents are taken from Microsoft site.
I am confused what is missing when I followed all your suggestion ?
I am sorry I am login with other account to connect with you because my that account is deactivate. Now next is what to do ? How should I re-post my article ?
Or this is End no chance given to clarify, or modify contents ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: very poor article
I didn't see any 'article' there 
However I don't think it's a span - it maybe written not on caffeine but on something stronger...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with KEP on this one... Let the member live.
Edit: I removed the spam-ish sentence and put it back into the queue, but as a Reference.
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
|
|
|
|
|
Fine by me if the member lives - I just wanted second opinions on spam / rubbish... Rubbish it is then!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
It's not rubbish per se, to me it is fine as reference with the Coffee-link removed.
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
|
|
|
|
|
I would disagree - there is almost nothing in there! If he wants to write a document on Singletons, then he needs to explain a lot more background, I think. That is just an example, with hardly anything supporting it.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: That is just an example, with hardly anything supporting it.
Which makes it a Reference.
From the submission page: A Reference article is a short (typically 1 page) article used to lookup common information such as tables (eg. ASCII tables, HTTP codes etc) or function or class explanations. Typically there will be few if any images, and no downloadable code (though both are possible if the author wishes)
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
|
|
|
|
|
Which would make References just "Tips Lite" - anything at all could get in there! The way I read that is that references are just that: common information, small snippets that are badly explained on MSDN for example. The singleton pattern is well explained elsewhere, but in terms of pages, not lines!
Not sure about this...but shall we agree to disagree, rather than get into an argument? 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I see the ASCII code mentioned as example... Which is probably even better documented as the Singleton Pattern (or equally, at least). But okay, I agree on disagreeing with you.
I will never again mention that Dalek Dave was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
