Your article had a suspicious-looking link to scaler DOT com(a commercial training site) buried half-way down. At least five trusted users agreed that this made it look like spam, so your article was removed.
Assuming that wasn't your intention, I'd suggest resubmitting the article without that link.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I have noticed several recent incidents of submissions being approved, as Articles, that fall way short of the criteria for that category. They should be Tip/Tricks or Projects, have often been flagged as "Wrong type" by multiple reviewers, but suddenly show up on the home page after being approved by "Editor or trusted author". Whatever is going on here is unfair to authors who must actually resubmit under the Tip/Trick category.
What is the legal issue with images in articles? For example, can I put in an article image that is part of some company marketing material and publicly available, with a quotation of company material? Or some other image from some company website, with a quotation of Url? Or an image from some Pdf material, that is distributed publicly? Or how about a screenshot of some application forms, with the quotation of the company and product name? Or a screenshot of some hardware?
I looked at https://sarafhawkins.com/copyright-fair-use-and-online-images/, and it looks like as long as I am writing a tutorial or research, I can use images from 3rd party sites....
#2: Why are you using the image? If it is “…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” you’re on the right track.
Only a judge can really make a definitive ruling on fair use. Speaking to the law, I'm afraid, is out of my jurisdiction.
Here's how reusing images goes: No one notices. It's poorly policed. Possibly a DMCA request if someone did. Haven't seen one ever. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best. As a site of authors, we don't want to be willy nilly taking and reusing work from another author or company.
Since I can't give you blanket permission, can you just tell me what image you want to use?
I understand it will be based on a particular case, the decision needs to be made regarding approval from the case to the case...
For example, screenshots of different mapping applications/products, as a part of the tutorial what the current technology approach looks like.
I'm a software developer from China. I used to browse CodeProject a lot. There are a lot of technical articles here to learn. But for the past year or so, the website has been loading abnormally, probably because ajax.googleapis.com and codeproject.freetls.fastly.net cannot be accessed in China. Can you consider changing a CDN?
The way you edited my article  and decreased the size of images permanently, seriously damages the quality of the article and decreases the quantity and quality of info for readers.
I have noticed that in the article  you edited it so that images are permanently decreased in size to ~640 pixels and are no longer clickable, which were in the past resulting in the pop-up full-size image. The result is that images are so small that are not readable and the quantity and quality of info for the reader is diminished. I think you are doing damage to articles in that way by applying a “uniform look” to the articles.
The article is about different GUI solutions, meaning comparing GRAPHICAL representations of different tools. I invested time and effort to select proper screenshots and marked with arrows points of interest. The result was maybe 30 images, from 200-1000 pixels and I uploaded them to the article. I DELIBERATELY didn’t shrink them as I wanted them to be clickable (a feature offered by your editor) so the reader can click and see all details. Now they are shrunk and useless.
I saw that your article editor suggests shrinking images to 700 pixels, but most people today have monitors 1500+ pixels wide and want to see all details. Maybe your policy of 700 pixels images is outdated since today many readers want to see more details and have hardware for that.
I noticed a similar problem with other articles when showing class diagrams, if they are shrunk, they get unreadable.
I think that allowing images to be clickable and pop up in full size is beneficial for articles that contain a lot of images, for example, articles about GUI tools. I like the way it is still in the article .
By default, when you upload a large image the article should only display a tinier one, which, upon clicking, would show the full size version. The only reason we ever intervene to change the image is if this is not working properly. Which happens from time to time.
I've made a note to the editorial team to not shrink down your images, and if they must do so, to make sure they link to a bigger image when you click it.
Do you happen to have backup images for these articles? If you email them to me (firstname.lastname@example.org) I'd be happy to fix them all.
Should be all fixed! When creating the article make sure you use the (insert) button for each image to specify the larger dimensions. Otherwise it creates its own default max width of 640 pixels. I have communicated this to the editorial team as well.
Hello. I have an account here. I started it then the email place that used had problems and I could not log in or access my email. I am comfortable with that, and now I do not want any valid email associated with my account. That seems to be a nice discovery.
I have an article. I would like it to be checked out by your editor to see if it is ok for publication as an article. You may edit it as you like.
I am posting it here since I do not have an email account to be used for this.
Title: There is no (quantum mechanical physics based) quantum computer.
Description: There is no quantum computer.
Abstract: Quantum Mechanics precludes that it does not exist, furthermore it is neither phonon based nor resistivity based, therefore it must be either a misinterpretation of facts or an advertising ploy (lie).
Author: Member 15078716 or User-15043078
Email: No valid email herein maintained after initial account creation. Either you post or you do not post, it is your choice.
Language: C, C++, and all else that use electronic computer processing.
Platform: Linux, Android, Windows, and all else that use electronic computer processing.
Technology: This is about the processing of programs.
Topic: Electronic computer processing in general.
Section High Performance Computing
SubSection > CPU
License: CPOL, Open Source for all to use.
What the article / code snippet / walk-through does,and why it's useful. State the problem it solves. This should introduce the article, not just repeat the Abstract.
The problem is that there is a term being used that grossly misrepresents an electronic computer part (the cpu) as "quantum" when it is definitely not quantum.
That misrepresentation might cause programmers to be mislead into using programming languages and/or systems that are not their best choice and thus costing them time and resources.
This article may be used to barricade programmers against a newly developed misinformation campaign, specifically "quantum" as it applies to electronic computing.
Is there any background to this article that may be useful such as an introduction to the basic ideas presented?
Plain old quantum mechanical physics that the common engineer should have both studied and learned in college.
The Article Body
I was reading; https://www.techradar.com/news/quantum-computing-forget-qubits-all-the-cool-kids-are-talking-about-qutrits-now and found a disasterously misleading article.
“Qubits are the basic building block of a quantum processor, and are so named because they represent a continuum of complex superpositions of two basic quantum states,” explains Alex Hill, Senior Quantum Systems Engineer at Rigetti.
“The power of qubits comes in part from their ability to encode significantly more information than a classical bit - an infinite set of states between 0 and 1.”
End of Quote.
No. Alex Hill is wrong. He is disillusioned by his (I guess) obvious lack of supportive learning. Part of what they might be dealing with are enhanced phonons which they seem to be assuming are superpositions. Natural vibrations which sometimes can be estimated (not measured) as waves occur on all surfaces and these are partially what they seem to be assuming are positional variations. "Quantum processors" do not create and do not use actual superpositions as they are described in current (up to today's date) standard college level engineering classes on quantum mechanical physics.
An example of vibrational analysis (on a much larger scale) can be observed via the timer in your computer which uses a crystal's vibration as a clock, which is not phonon vibrations but gives you a mental reference to vibrations in general as currently used in most or all electronic computers. Super-positional theory is neither crystalline vibrations (due to current) or phonon (natural surface vibrations) and if it is assumed to be then it is misapplied thereupon.
IBM's 127-qubit quantum processor (Code-named Eagle) is again, not a superposition processor. For the advertising of thus, that seems to be based upon variable resistivity which was discovered years ago and that is definitely not super-positioning. It might look like superpositioning to the unlearned, but is is not. Maybe IBM might be using "quantum" as a marketing/advertising gimmick term, and maybe they know that it misrepresents to the average CFO what they are getting, thus supporting sales, but it is not a physics definition of quantum. OK, there seem to be a lot of engineers using this site; remember studying quantum mechanics in your physics class; the "quantum processor" can not fit into quantum mechanics (at this time in history). Therefore, it must (I think) be a premeditated advertising ploy, if the originator(s) understood quantum mechanics. Until this date, I had considered IBM to be possibly the best overall in electronic computers, but if they perpetuate this lie, after reading this article, then I will have learned to doubt them.
Did I mention variable resistivity earlier? Here is a simplified explanation of how variable resistivity works: a semiconductor, upon manufacture, has an impedance to current flow; if no current is passed through that semiconductor then the impedance does not appreciatively change as it sits idle. But, when current is passed through it then it has a different impedance. That change in resistivity is to an extent set and at the next time current is applied to that semiconductor, the new current must (if measured sufficiently) account for that new impedance. But, since that semiconductor has had another separate and new passage of current it therefore has again a changed impedance. That resistivity does not, in use in electronics, nearly stay the same over time, except with a stable persistent temperature and a stable persistent current. I doubt that the thermo-tropic limits as apply to material impedence science have been mapped out for many materials at this time, but if and when it becomes a standardized result database then the CRC Press might supply a reference book for engineers and/or chemists and/or crystallography, etc. to use.
Got all that? There is a lot more, but those are some of the basics.
There is no (quantum mechanical physics based) quantum computer.
There is no quantum computer.
Further considerations and options for programmers considering the hardware that they are programming for:
There are other ways to do switching, other than common transistors and igbt's. But, it is the switching that is the basic logic block that the programmer has to consider (if they consider it), and that a computer's program (which might have started with C or C++ and a keyboard and a monitor and someone typing away, trying not to pull their hair out, and then it might have gone through a variety of compilers, etc. and later become a computer program) that has to work with. That switching is a speed limiter of the programs of the system. The binary switching. The 0 or 1. There is no 0, 1, 2, etc. It is just 0 or 1. Switch on, or switch off. With a transistor (including igbt's) there is a third input that activates that switch. And again, that activator is the result of a binary switch. It is the switch from on to off or off to on that is the lowest level common denominator in the entire process.
There is another way to switch which I have been aware of for many years, but I have never encountered its commercial use in electronic computer processing nor its publication of thus in journals, therefore I do not expect it to be currently accountable for this so-called "quantum" processing. And, yes, with pseudo-accounts I have been enquiring about it's use and have found none.