|
|
The CP author's profile[^] mentions that his name is Duane, which matches the author's name from the source blog.
His home page link also points to that blog, and his previous blog posts here are all fed from that site.
The "dibley" in his CP profile name is probably a reference to Duane Dibbley[^] from Red Dwarf.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
What has been copied?
I searched some sentences and found only
"A Database is an organized collection of logical data" in the article and
"A database is an organized collection of data" in the Wikipedia article.
These sentences are not identical. Even when it would be acceptable because it is a single short sentence (fair use).
If there is nothing else copied (I did not found anything), it is not enough to kick the user.
However, the article should not be published (even as tip).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Needs deleting.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Done!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, That post was mine. I wasn't aware to check for the plagiarism first. Well when i re-posted the article at that Time I've included all the references which I referred.
Now, I am no longer able to access my previous account and so can't access my previous tips and tricks post.
Please provide information, How to check whether my article is plagiarized or not?
This will probably help me if I wanted to post any articles in future
|
|
|
|
|
007schn11 wrote: Now, I am no longer able to access my previous account and so can't access my previous tips and tricks post
No, you can't.
We have a zero tolerance attitude to plagiarism.
007schn11 wrote: I wasn't aware to check for the plagiarism first.
You do know what plagiarism is?
plagiarism (noun)
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. (from Google)
So when you copied from someone else and decided "that'll do as my own work" you were plagiarising. You can't "check for" that - you just don't do it...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, That I know.
please refer below link.
[^]
You said my article plagiarized based on one Book, but in truth I'd taken the content from the MSDN site and given It's link on Read More text. That means I'm not saying it to be my work.
Now if same content found in some book, so is the article still count to be plagiarized although adding reference of its original author( For me It is a big question that who is the original author? msdn.microsoft.com or the authors of the book Magic of ASP.Net with C# - Shibi Panikkar, Kumar Sanjeev - Google Books] )?
|
|
|
|
|
Only for the "second version" after you were caught the first time.
The first time, the only MSDN reference you gave was this: Extract images from web address like Facebook using ASP.NET and jQuery in C# for Visual Studio 2013[^] which doesn;t include the section we highlighted.
It doesn't matter who stole it from whom: if it's copied without express permission we aren't publishing it.
And by the way: providing a list of where you copied everything from doesn't mean any of it is "your own work".
Thanks for pointing out your sock puppet account: we'll keep a nice close eye on everything it does as well...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Well for the said Section you highlighted, there is a link to MSDN site on Read More text. [ Which was available in First and Second Version. ]
In Second Version, I've included references and I Acknowledged that some of the logical functionality was mine, except that other functionality was inspired of some sites which I also listed as References
|
|
|
|
|
There was a Read More link but it was not pointing to the MSDN but to the article itself (in both versions).
But even with the correct link it would not be sufficient because the text was not clearly indicated as being cited. See also the CodeProject Plagiarism FAQ[^].
With the proper link I would not have reported the article but wrote a comment that the indication must be more clear. But without the correct link and the "Read More" text it was not clear that you wanted to indicate a reference beacuse the destination of the link could have been anything.
I'm sorry but you made three mistakes (no indication of cited text itself, choosing a bad link text, and forgetting to insert the correct link) that lead to the reports.
|
|
|
|
|
Jochen Arndt wrote: I'm sorry but you made three mistakes (no indication of cited text itself, choosing a bad link text, and forgetting to insert the correct link) that lead to the reports.
I'm agree with you. I don't know why the link which I inserted for citing the site is not properly inserted.
It was never be like that I just wanted to get published my article at any cost. When I received the message of closing the article, I'd added acknowledgement plus references. I didn't check the MSDN link on the Read More text as it was perfectly working when i was composing it.
My primarily AIM is to help beginners( just like me ) who find coding difficult.
I request you to reactive my Account. This kind of activity will never be happen in future (intentionally or unintentionally). That account was a bible for me. Which is now inaccessible to me!
|
|
|
|
|
As I previously explained to you in an email, we've looked at the article and made our decision. We have a note on the submission wizard in bold warning people about plagiarism and its serious repercussions.
Neither your articles nor your account will be restored. Please stop posting about this on the forums. The matter is closed.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
At last, a UK based spammer! I thought Brexit had left us out in the cold. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction was not take from the book which you said.
I had taken the introduction part from microsoft's msdn site. I also had given the link to the below site on Read More text. WebRequest Class (System.Net)[^]
I think you should probably had reviewed the article with sharp eyes! If I am giving reference to the site from where I have taken the Introduction, then How it can be count as plagiarized?
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
