|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Your name is Dalek Dave and I claim my £5!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
The cheque is in the post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the author account is now closed, I deleted it.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|