I've written an FAQ on plagiarism to help authors understand what is plagiarism, as well as help members identify it. It is here: CodeProject Plagiarism FAQ[^]
If you find an article that is plagiarized you can either submit a report on the article itself, marking it as "Plagiarized," or you can report it in the Spam and Abuse Watch[^] forum with your evidence and a link to the members account, or you can email me directly firstname.lastname@example.org if you suspect plagiarism or have further plagiarism questions or concerns.
This forum is for any and all questions for Code Project Article Writing:
Have a question about writing an article?
Having trouble posting?
Blog aggregation not working?
Not sure about your article topic?
Is your article still pending?
Is there a crazy formatting problem in your article?
Not sure how to update your article?
Having problems with the submission wizard?
Need help making a change to an existing article?
As a basic overview CodeProject articles have a certain layout to follow, so that users can learn the most from them. Each article attempts to answer the following questions: What problem does this solution solve? How does this help someone else? How does the code actually work? What is going on inside the code snippets?
Here is a submission from a first time author who did a terrific job, just to give you a basic overview of what a beginner article might look like: Avoiding InvokeRequired[^]
I haven't encountered this problem in the past. Is something happening today?
Also, when I look at articles I see that after I click update article and the spin occurs there is a new revision created even though the editor never comes up.
Thought I had the newest Chrome but there was an update so I updated to (Version 64.0.3282.186 (Official Build) (64-bit)) and am trying again. It still seems to just spin.
What the hell is going on with the source arcives to my article?!
On 15-Feb-2018 i posted 4 new .zip arcives and deleted the old one.
Purely coincidental I select 'Browse Code' and see, there are plenties now. Someone is doing nonsense there. It's destroing the sense of my documentation.
How could it happen? Who has the privilege to do that? I am shocked!
If there are any suggestions to present the sources in a different way, i can be notified and i will consider if i can do it.
As it is now, my readers will think, I'm nutty to present it that way.
Can anyone explain to me, please, the intention of that action.
the link is:
I just think, if it happened once it cold happen more often and i would'nt like to review the sources again and again.
I prefere to communicate with the person who made it. May be something could be done better for multiple purpose. I'd like to improve the presentation of the article.
Just my 2 cents, but have you considered that it could be a bug before stating someone intentionally messed with your files?
You should take a deep breath and a step back, imo; in the end everyone here is of good will, and this issue will be sorted out shortly.
"I'm neither for nor against, on the contrary." John Middle
No problem, I know what it is like when you try to do things properly and something somewhere suddendly gets in your way. Frustrating.
Have a nice day; and I liked your article btw, gave it a 5. I am myself in the process of learning C++, and your contribution certainly is one of the materials I will use for that sake.
"I'm neither for nor against, on the contrary." John Middle
i'm glad to hear you'r interested in C++, a very powerful programming language.
I don't know at what stage you are, but in any case, the article is a thick compendium.
It has two intentions. On the one hand ready to use libraries in the 'Finals' with examples of their concrete use. On the other a tutorial describing the many phases of development detailed step by step. For those who are interested in the details and constructions.
If you have any comment or question, feel free to post it.
No matter if It's a statement or a construction, let me know. Just post a comment to the article.
Can you please explain what you feel is incorrect?
You submitted an article July 2016. Sean (our editor) is listed as the person who posted that article and uploaded a number of zip files. You then updated that article and uploaded more zip files. There are now 22 zips uploaded with your article - 18 from July 2016 and 4 from 15 Feb 2018.
You are the only person listed as editing that article after the initial posting. However, we're more than happy to help out in whatever way you need. Just let me know.
As a side note: you have a note at the top of your article saying "go to the browse link to get the code". We prefer you add links directly to your article to the zip files themselves. I can fix this very quickly if you wish. (though it's getting late here so maybe tomorrow morning)
Thanks Chris for your investigations, it makes me clear the course of the error.
Only the 4 files dated 15-Feb-2018 are the right ones.
The elder ones i deleted before i uploaded the new ones, but surprisingly the deleted came alive again. May be there is a bug and my deletion is not reflected by the protocoll, you posted.
I would be very grateful if you help me to remedy this situation.
The only right ones are
Dokuments, Finals, Exercises, Concepts, dated 15-Feb-2018. All the others are outdated and should be vanished again.
Also i ask you for help as you suggested, to place a link to the archives instead of the first line of the article.
I suggest to name it:
The sources consist of: Dokuments.zip, Finals.zip, Exercises.zip, Concepts.zip
And finally i ask, could you give me a instruction, how to place such a link by myself. How i could find the link-adress of a source file.
Thanks for your support.
As a conclusion from this incident, i suggest to show the changes in the uploads in the revision log too.
Due to analysing the 'Browse Code' feature, i discovered some minor issue.
The list that browses the content of the .zip file doesn't reflect the true content. If there are folders with similarities in their name, it's contracting the folders and intermixing their content afterwards. See the pictures below.
Luckily, the contents of the loaded files are correct.
I've started an article and put it on Code Project, but the process isn't working smoothly. Each time I modify my article, it becomes a different version, which I cannot access without assistance from an editor.
I'd like a little assistance, and the article has been submitted your new article to Pete O'Hanlon. I haven't heard from him yet, I know I'm impatient, sorry. Anyway, I'm in the dark, and wonder if I'm doing something wrong, or will the system just start working better if I am patient?
TY I've been working on my article. Then, I checked it out to make a change, then had to go. I wanted to cancel, so I said to revert to previous copy, but that didn't do what I thought. Unfortunately, I have no further access. Please help. I'm getting the following:
Sean Ewington, 20 Feb 2018
This is an auto-saved draft copy of the new unpublished article created by the submission wizard.
This article is not currently available for viewing.
Please go to the Uncategorised Articles Table of Contents to view the list of available articles in this section.
OK, I shall appreciate whatever help you provide. I'm a not a polished writer, and have difficulty knowing when I've said things the right way, whether I say too much or too little, etc.
Basically, I'm interested in communicating effectively about a new system with features unknown to my audience. I believe the subject is interesting once people understand it. My job is to lead them to it nicely. I've not written anything quite like this before.
As comments are unavailable against your article, I'll comment here. While I get what you intend Mella to be, it would be helpful for people if you clarified how you see it evolving from an extensible calculator into a CASE tool. There's a disconnect in there that is confusing and anyone skimming the article is going to be puzzled.
A few diagrams would help; a picture says a 1000 words so showing a typical evaluation sequence (the ale example for instance) would really help. All in all, it's a promising start.
However, I do notice that in the IoT section that one of my previous articles in this series displays twice for some reason. Just mentioning that because it might kind of annoy people.
Neither of these are a huge deal but thought I might mention them.
Possible Reason Issue Occurred
I originally started the article way back in middle January 2018 but never published it.
I noticed that it set that date as the publish date or something and then thought I had updated the article even though I had never actually published it.
Thanks for your help.