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 All the others are outdated and should be vanished again.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.
I've added to the Introduction to tell the CASE story, and made one illustration, but bogged down with details trying to get it displayed in my article. I'll work with Sean to resolve that issue, and make others after I get one in place.
Your first constructive criticism was exactly what I needed. Thank you. Still working on it, but have made progress.
What do you see as your role as a mentor. What are the things I can expect and what can I not expect. I've not had a mentor since 7th grade, which was totally different from now.
Additional criticism will be accepted gracefully. Thanks.
The mentor program, in CP, is a voluntary one where people who have previously published articles guide you through the process of getting your article published. We review it to make sure the content is suitable for publication, provide guidance on areas where we think that readers might fail to grasp what you're saying and so on. Generally, we're here to make your publication as smooth as possible so that people don't nitpick about fonts, broken images and so on.
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.
I don't know what I don't know about this site. The more I browse the more I know I don't know. I'll get there, but slow I'm little dyslexic.
I'll scanned the FAQ titles and need to read some; if I ask something that's alreaday there, just reply FAQ, please.
I don't think these Q are in FAQ.
The working title of my article is Intelligent Extensible CASE: An AI Programming Apprentice
It is about making an extensible CASE environment with an AI watching activities, code and data. Ultimately this CASE environment may contain tools useful in all life cycle activities. However, my article focuses on building the extensible foundation of the CASE environment, including an IDE with legacy code as a resource for developing tools for the CASE environment.
Ultimately, this project is huge. I think divide and conquer is an appropriate tactic. Design a small starter project that is useful, and grow it little by little.
I'm 73, and will never see this project complete, but I hope to convince some people it is really needed. Thus, I've written a teaser, a couple of pages for people to read. If I generate enough interest, I will continue writing. If not, maybe the teaser needs to be improved, or ($#!+) I've deluded myself by having an idea, and it needs to be canned.
So, I'm excited-terriried to publish my few pages and get feedback, but I cannot decide where to publish it.
The initial project, doesn't include any AI. I think it should be extended with AI soon after the initial project is in beta, but if people come on board to help, and as other environmental factors change, AI next may not be as productive as something else. I'm not an AI practitioner, so I cannot judge the effort required.
Training an AI requires data for it to study, and very little data will be available until some development has been done using this system. That consideration should be part of the development plan.
Any AI engine might be used for this project. The AI is meant to enhance the other tools. Though, one might train an AI to be a CASE tool to be part of the environment, instead of coding one.
Thanks for your suggestion, do you wish to reconsider?
Edit: I just had a look there... pity it seems to be low activity
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.
Architecture is also a good one, but Tools and IDE is better, not so high level. Besides, I think more people are interested in tools and IDE than in architecture. There are things we should have in an IDE that we don't.